Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[JohnBrown1917]

I have no clue why people effectively make the same mistake as in 16. Sanders effectively sank that ship after doing all that damage.

But then again, seems like Dems can't help themselves but put useless crap on the ballot. Biden being the best they got is just sad, really.

Clinton sank her own ship.

- - - Updated - - -

Biden is probably the only one who can win against Trump. Sanders has snowball's chance in hell and I don't think Warren can do it either.

Overall, I think Trump got it in the bag this time around.

Polls suggest otherwise, and what is the point of putting 2 racist senile men against other?

- - - Updated - - -

Kinda doesn't make sense to be anti-war and then being facile in re-electing Trump who, last I checked, was busy poking Iran in the eye with a stick.

Biden loves defense spending just as much. Not voting at all is better than voting for a party that is horrible on anything but war, but nobody will win either way.

[Draco-Onis]

Definitely. I don't think the 2016 primary was as divided as this one. Whoever wins is going to have a tough time uniting the party, it doesn't help that a good chunk of Sander's supporters are basically cultists

Nah Clinton did that she fucked up by nominating Tim Kaine instead of a progressive, whoever wins cannot nominate a VP from the same side of the party.

- - - Updated - - -

Biden loves defense spending just as much. Not voting at all is better than voting for a party that is horrible on anything but war, but nobody will win either way.

That is a bad point of view Trump has to go no matter how bad Biden might be Trump is infinitely worse.

[Gaidax]

Polls suggest otherwise, and what is the point of putting 2 racist senile men against other?

Your "polls" are full of shit. You know full well that in between Trump and Sanders, the American people will pick Trump, simply because Sanders' ideas are unappealing to all but socialists and his cultist fanbase - this shit does not fly in US.

The candidate needs to have a broad support to win, Sanders does not have it. After these joke of primaries, you will have whoever comes on top go 1v1 on Trump and Trump, despite all his downsides, has a very strong support base.

Whoever wins primaries needs enough reach to sway at least some Republicans and Sanders' has absolute 0 chance of doing that being an extreme opposite. This extremism will push people back even from blue camp.

[JohnBrown1917]

Nah Clinton did that she fucked up by nominating Tim Kaine instead of a progressive, whoever wins cannot nominate a VP from the same side of the party.

- - - Updated - - -



That is a bad point of view Trump has to go no matter how bad Biden might be Trump is infinitely worse.

He is worse, but that does not change that either option is a loss to the average person.

- - - Updated - - -

Your "polls" are full of shit. You know full well that in between Trump and Sanders, the American people will pick Trump, simply because Sanders' ideas are unappealing to all but socialists and his cultist fanbase - this shit does not fly in US.

The candidate needs to have a broad support to win, Sanders does not have it.

So you base your thoughs.. on what exactly?

[Elegiac]

Biden loves defense spending just as much. Not voting at all is better than voting for a party that is horrible on anything but war, but nobody will win either way.

There are degrees of "defeat", so no - that's a nonsense position.

[Draco-Onis]

He is worse, but that does not change that either option is a loss to the average person.

No he isn't and it's pure insanity to make that statement from trade wars to actual wars the average person will be worse off. Joe Biden represents the status quo while I strongly want Warren or Sanders to win the status quo is better than this corrupt nut job. William Barr, Christian ISIS along with the Trump cult seek a dictatorship if the US survives another four year the damage may not be reversible.

[Gaidax]

So you base your thoughs.. on what exactly?

I base my thoughts on history and reality. We already seen this Sanders shitshow in 16. Doing that again will just lead to easy win for Trump.

I understand from your avatar and shit that you are probably a well conditioned individual, for you Sanders is your holy father and symbol, but the reality is - these views are not shared by the majority, which is what matters.

[JohnBrown1917]

I base my thoughts on history and reality. We already seen this Sanders shitshow in 16. Doing that again will just lead to easy win for Trump.

I understand from your avatar and shit that you are probably a well conditioned individual, for you Sanders is your holy father and symbol, but the reality is - these views are not shared by the majority, which is what matters.

lol, to socialists and those to the left of them, Sanders is the Compromise candidate. He is a soc dem, not a socialist.
I just find it funny you seem to ignore polls, but what your gut tells you is somehow right.

- - - Updated - - -

No he isn't and it's pure insanity to make that statement from trade wars to actual wars the average person will be worse off. Joe Biden represents the status quo while I strongly want Warren or Sanders to win the status quo is better than this corrupt nut job. William Barr, Christian ISIS along with the Trump cult seek a dictatorship if the US survives another four year the damage may not be reversible.

The status quo in the US involves the exact same wars they have always been having, I have no doubt he'll find an excuse to also start another war in the ME.

[Elegiac]

lol, to socialists and those to the left of them, Sanders is the Compromise candidate. He is a soc dem, not a socialist.
I just find it funny you seem to ignore polls, but what your gut tells you is somehow right.

Actual "socialists" such as you describe are pretty rare.

Being a tankie isn't particularly fashionable nowadays.

[JohnBrown1917]

Actual "socialists" such as you describe are pretty rare.

Being a tankie isn't particularly fashionable nowadays.

Good thing tankies almost don't exist in politices any more. Unless you mean some randoms on twitter.

[Omega10]

Kinda doesn't make sense to be anti-war and then being facile in re-electing Trump who, last I checked, was busy poking Iran in the eye with a stick.

Hillary (We came, we saw, he died) was not exactly anti-war, not to mention the Honduras effort. The democrats have not been anti-war at all recently.

The Obama administration was not less bellicose than the Bush or Trump administrations. And Trump DID try to get us out of Afghanistan (over ruled by the military), out of Syria (over ruled by the military and harshly criticized by democrats), and at the last minute previously called off an airstrike against Iran. And the recent poking Iran in the eye with a stick has led to a tenuous peace between the countries, with Iraq calling for the US military to leave Iraq. Not the PREFERRED way for us to leave Iraq... but whatever works.

Trump could possibly have pushed back harder against people wanting more troops overseas. But Obama did not exactly push back so well either (nor did Bush). My feeling is that Biden would continue the Bush-Obama-Trump foreign policy of the US.

I 100% agree with Skroe in that Biden (and other democrats) would, if anything, INCREASE reliance on our military for our foreign policy objectives. If Biden is nominated and the rest of the country decides that Trump is better and more honorable then Biden, then so be it.

[Draco-Onis]

The status quo in the US involves the exact same wars they have always been having, I have no doubt he'll find an excuse to also start another war in the ME.

False any democrat who wins will have to put heavy restrictions on executive powers thanks to Trump and what Trump has is not a policy it's complete fucking chaos.

[Omega10]

I have no clue why people effectively make the same mistake as in 16. Sanders effectively sank that ship after doing all that damage.

But then again, seems like Dems can't help themselves but put useless crap on the ballot. Biden being the best they got is just sad, really.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[Draco-Onis]

Hillary (We came, we saw, he died) was not exactly anti-war, not to mention the Honduras effort. The democrats have not been anti-war at all recently.

The Obama administration was not less bellicose than the Bush or Trump administrations. And Trump DID try to get us out of Afghanistan (over ruled by the military), out of Syria (over ruled by the military and harshly criticized by democrats), and at the last minute previously called off an airstrike against Iran. And the recent poking Iran in the eye with a stick has led to a tenuous peace between the countries, with Iraq calling for the US military to leave Iraq. Not the PREFERRED way for us to leave Iraq... but whatever works.

Trump could possibly have pushed back harder against people wanting more troops overseas. But Obama did not exactly push back so well either (nor did Bush). My feeling is that Biden would continue the Bush-Obama-Trump foreign policy of the US.

I 100% agree with Skroe in that Biden (and other democrats) would, if anything, INCREASE reliance on our military for our foreign policy objectives. If Biden is nominated and the rest of the country decides that Trump is better and more honorable then Biden, then so be it.

I am not sure what you are talking about Obama was no war hawk but no dove either as to Trump he is someone who is far worse because he has no principles or policy so he is easily played by the Mike Pompeo and John Boltons of his administration. Trump is the type of guy that may order us to nuke Iran because of a bad tweet or because Pompeo says Iran said mean things about him.

[Omega10]

Lol it took one post for confirmation.

Hope you enjoy Trump then, dude is a massive pro-military intervention guy

I've made my peace with the idea of Trump being reelected. And, as stated in a previous post, Biden imho would not be less militaristic than Trump.

[rogueMatthias]

I've made my peace with the idea of Trump being reelected. And, as stated in a previous post, Biden imho would not be less militaristic than Trump.

This 100%. Dems have made themselves the "Team America: World Police" party now. Look at how Tulsi has been treated from the very start and called out as a Russian asset just for being anti-war. If Dems are labelling you as a Russian asset, simply because you don't believe in American exceptionalism-based intervention and regime changes, that says a lot about where the DNC really stands now.

On Bernie, I didn't think he'd have a shot tbh, but if they wanted to stunt his campaign they could have done it in a way that wouldn't inevitably burn all his followers from voting. A lot of his supporters are anti-establishment - If he's destroyed by said establishment again, they're not going to vote for that establishments chosen representative.

[Endus]

Actual "socialists" such as you describe are pretty rare.

Being a tankie isn't particularly fashionable nowadays.

"Tankie" is a reference to support for Soviet-style communist authoritarianism.

A lot of us "actual socialists" are further removed from that than the GOP platform is. Liberal market socialism has nearly no common ground with soviet-style authoritarian communism.

[Fugus]

Biden is probably the only one who can win against Trump. Sanders has snowball's chance in hell and I don't think Warren can do it either.

Overall, I think Trump got it in the bag this time around.

Biden is the one who has the biggest chance of LOSING to Trump.

The moment he makes it to the general, you will see him plastered wall to wall in his CSPAN interview that was relatively recent where he is supporting CUTTING medicare and Social Security. What do you think that will do to his chances?

Biden is only top contender I WON'T vote for as that would be throwing away my vote as I refuse to vote for that.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no clue why people effectively make the same mistake as in 16. Sanders effectively sank that ship after doing all that damage.

But then again, seems like Dems can't help themselves but put useless crap on the ballot. Biden being the best they got is just sad, really.

Wrong..... Clinton sank that ship with her own actions.

- - - Updated - - -

Your "polls" are full of shit. You know full well that in between Trump and Sanders, the American people will pick Trump, simply because Sanders' ideas are unappealing to all but socialists and his cultist fanbase - this shit does not fly in US.

The candidate needs to have a broad support to win, Sanders does not have it. After these joke of primaries, you will have whoever comes on top go 1v1 on Trump and Trump, despite all his downsides, has a very strong support base.

Whoever wins primaries needs enough reach to sway at least some Republicans and Sanders' has absolute 0 chance of doing that being an extreme opposite. This extremism will push people back even from blue camp.

Medicare for All, Living Wages, raise taxes on the rich. They are all HEAVILY supported on both sides.

[eschatological]

Don't know who is really to blame. I'm just glad that CNN is finally taking some heat. Another left wing take on CNN:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/17/cnn-is-trash/

Basically, the gist of the article is that CNN is no different after the debates than before, but that the debate questions to Sanders were so biased against him and his policies that it became hard to ignore it. Apparently the twitter tag #CNNistrash trended for a while.

I agree with the article that CNN has been trash for quite a while. I am happy that others are beginning to notice We can't make CNN a non-trash network. But if they speak and no one listens it won't matter so much.

I mean, CNN's ratings were the highest they'd ever been during 9/11. And since then, they've changed. I remember watching a stem cell embryo debate that prior summer on CNN (it was the first non-conservative thing Bush did, by allowing the research, so everyone was hopeful he'd become a moderate).

Which came first, the social media, or the sensationalized news? Local news has always been kind of sensationalized, but that's because in any one community there's no super important debates happening, that all happens on the state and national level. I'd argue the culture preceded the news channels that reflect the culture.

- - - Updated - - -

This 100%. Dems have made themselves the "Team America: World Police" party now. Look at how Tulsi has been treated from the very start and called out as a Russian asset just for being anti-war. If Dems are labelling you as a Russian asset, simply because you don't believe in American exceptionalism-based intervention and regime changes, that says a lot about where the DNC really stands now.

On Bernie, I didn't think he'd have a shot tbh, but if they wanted to stunt his campaign they could have done it in a way that wouldn't inevitably burn all his followers from voting. A lot of his supporters are anti-establishment - If he's destroyed by said establishment again, they're not going to vote for that establishments chosen representative.

Tulsi has been treated the way she has been because she has supported Assad and Putin from day 1. Not because she's anti-war.

Hint: Bernie Sanders is also anti-war, and doesn't get flack about being a Russian stooge. Why is that?

[Endus]

Don't know who is really to blame. I'm just glad that CNN is finally taking some heat. Another left wing take on CNN:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/17/cnn-is-trash/

Basically, the gist of the article is that CNN is no different after the debates than before, but that the debate questions to Sanders were so biased against him and his policies that it became hard to ignore it. Apparently the twitter tag #CNNistrash trended for a while.

I agree with the article that CNN has been trash for quite a while. I am happy that others are beginning to notice We can't make CNN a non-trash network. But if they speak and no one listens it won't matter so much.

CNN is "trash" in the same sense that McDonalds is. In filling every gap 24/7 with news, they'll have to repeat the important stuff over and over, without any fresh take, they'll need to seek broad appeal rather than in-depth investigation that only appeals to a few, etc. It's an issue created by being a 24/7 for-profit news channel.

I think the article is a bit unfair, however. A debate is where the hard, even unfair questions need to be asked. Bernie needs an answer for the "you call yourself a Democratic Socialist, how will you approach people who refuse to vote for a socialist? question. It's a stupid fucking question, but that's not the issue; the issue is that the electorate is stupid enough to continuously ask it. So it needs an answer, however stupid the question is.

Also, CNN is hosting this. They need to be fair, but they do not need to be balanced. They're entitled to frame questions in a way that presumes CNN's desired principles are a baseline, and anything outside of that needs explanation. I agree some of that framing wasn't fair, regarding Sanders, which is why I'm only saying "a bit unfair", not "total horseshit". But asking questions that call into concern some of the further-left policies proposed by Sanders and Warren? That's totally legitimate.

These debates are performance pieces aimed at CNN's audience. They're not a governmental process. I agree an independent, apolitical baseline for a debate would be a "good thing", but the USA doesn't do those. So it's weird to call CNN out for not providing something nobody's ever provided.