Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Flarelaine]

You don't, and, honestly, I'm slowly coming around to the idea that there really does need to be a reckoning aimed at the right. A properly unleashed DoJ and Treasury aimed at Republicans, evangelical Christians, and their moneyed interests should be a policy goal of any Democratic administration for a few years.

You mean like doing away with tax exemptions?

- - - Updated - - -

The president doesn't appoint members to the FEC, the Senate does. It's non-functional because Mitch McConnell refuses to fill the vacancies.

Same difference.

[Draco-Onis]

DoJ part would be about courts as far as i see; as for Treasury/IRS, how effective was IRS targeting conservatives during Obama's era? Not very, i'm afraid - it seems eventually some got settlement money and others got apology.

Republicans ran several investigations about this lead by Jim "i love pedophiles" Jordan and found nothing, it's already debunked.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

DoJ part would be about courts as far as i see; as for Treasury/IRS, how effective was IRS targeting conservatives during Obama's era? Not very, i'm afraid - it seems eventually some got settlement money and others got apology.

No, it wouldn't. The current administration's DoJ just finished investigating Hillary Clinton with no charges and we're in the midst of an impeachment trial for Trump making shit up about a political rival. Sounds like a fun process. I bet Republicans have a lot of shady stuff in their taxes and business dealings that'll look good on the front page of the NYT once we dig it up. Say, how about all that transportation money that ended up in Kentucky. Who's wife is transportation secretary again? That sounds worthy of looking into, too!

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like doing away with tax exemptions?

Not unless they get into politics. You know, like endorsing or hosting a presidential candidate. Then, yes, absolutely, we should very publicly look into what they're doing and maybe have a look at their books. See where all that money is going. I'm just sure it isn't into political coffers whatsoever.

[Shalcker]

No, it wouldn't. The current administration's DoJ just finished investigating Hillary Clinton with no charges and we're in the midst of an impeachment trial for Trump making shit up about a political rival. Sounds like a fun process. I bet Republicans have a lot of shady stuff in their taxes and business dealings that'll look good on the front page of the NYT once we dig it up. Say, how about all that transportation money that ended up in Kentucky. Who's wife is transportation secretary again? That sounds worthy of looking into, too!p.

I'm just not seeing it making any significant impact. Even if some people will eventually get convicted for something - which can fail to happen on so many levels even if they are guilty.

Democrats seem to have their fair share of shady dealings too - with list of convicted State and Local officials holding clear Democrat majority.

Not unless they get into politics. You know, like endorsing or hosting a presidential candidate. Then, yes, absolutely, we should very publicly look into what they're doing and maybe have a look at their books. See where all that money is going. I'm just sure it isn't into political coffers whatsoever.

You're advocating intimidation for political stances by government agencies?

...you know they'll be able to use the same thing once pendulum swings back, right? (and it still isn't on Democrat side yet)

[Flarelaine]

Not unless they get into politics. You know, like endorsing or hosting a presidential candidate. Then, yes, absolutely, we should very publicly look into what they're doing and maybe have a look at their books. See where all that money is going. I'm just sure it isn't into political coffers whatsoever.

But they are in politics.

[Dacien]

Now they're coming after Bernie with 50 year old allegations of... racism? Racial insensitivity? Whatever it is it's a dusty old hit piece.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie...a=twitter_page

[Themius]

Now they're coming after Bernie with 50 year old allegations of... racism? Racial insensitivity? Whatever it is it's a dusty old hit piece.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie...a=twitter_page

1977 wasn’t 50 years ago.

Also this shows why diversity is important.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

I'm just not seeing it making any significant impact.

Is this the part where I pretend to care what youU think or see? We all know why you’re here, and I really don’t think your view on anything is accurate or important.

You're advocating intimidation for political stances by government agencies?

You bet. Rejoin polite society or we’ll make their lives Hell.

...you know they'll be able to use the same thing once pendulum swings back, right? (and it still isn't on Democrat side yet)

Yeah, now let’s pretend the Republicans aren’t already doing this. This is precisely why I think you’re a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

But they are in politics.

Everything I replied with was with a heavy dose of sarcasm. Evangelical Christian political power needs to be dealt with now.

[Shalcker]

Is this the part where I pretend to care what youU think or see? We all know why you’re here, and I really don’t think your view on anything is accurate or important.

I'm here exactly to improve accuracy of my understanding

You bet. Rejoin polite society or we’ll make their lives Hell.
Yeah, now let’s pretend the Republicans aren’t already doing this. This is precisely why I think you’re a joke.

They are? What are examples you're thinking of?

[Themius]

I dont see anything wrong with what Bernie said back than anyhow. If anything he was reminding the USA of it's horrible foundations and how they keep on influencing policy today. Back then most democrats were still pro slavery most likely. Kinda courageous of him to state what he said in the climate of the 70ies.

8 years removed from Jim Crow

“A company being bought by another company without worker input is just like chattel slavery!”

[Milchshake]

I dont see anything wrong with what Bernie said back than anyhow. If anything he was reminding the USA of it's horrible foundations and how they keep on influencing policy today. Back then most democrats were still pro slavery most likely. Kinda courageous of him to state what he said in the climate of the 70ies.

The real bravery happened during the March on the Birmingham Bridge. When protesters like Democrat John Lewis risked getting beat to death for civil rights.
Bernie got "arrested" once, paid a $25 fine. Then moved to Vermont.

Real bravery was LBJ bringing about the Civil Rights and Great Society while giving up easy electoral victories of Jim Crow.
Bernie likes to claim to be FDR, but FDR folded in the face of Jim crow.

Anyone else remember way back in the 2016 convention. When Bernie's delegates boo'd John Lewis.

Berniebros... conflating historical ignorance/arrogance with bravery.

[Milchshake]

Warren was literally giving speeches on how feminism was wrong and women belonged in the kitchen at that time.

Sanders did more than all other current democratic candidates together during those times.

Why even bother supporting someone else than Sanders at this point in the race? They're all losing.

Uhhh it's not even February mate. The only person to have won the primary that early is... Hillary (joke). No one wins then. Ref; historical ignorance.


How about recent history 2012. Bernie spent 2012 calling the first black president of the US a disappointment.

Warren and Biden had his back.

[jonnysensible]

Obama was quite effectively a neo-liberal Uncle Tom, tbh.

What did he do? The only thing he is remembered for is hyped up campaigns about change and hope and after the election forgetting all about it.

nice racism.

Yo @Slacker76 why dont you like sweet boi bernie, i thought given your posting history and his policies you'd be primed. What am I missing here? I obviously havent been following close enough.

[Dacien]

I find it difficult to judge someone on comments from 43 years ago that they would most certainly have something to say about now.

[starlord]

Definitely not meant as racist, but I can't tell if you are sarcastic or not. And tbh I shouldn't even have to defend my statement against such an absurd claim, but in today's time it is hard to tell.

I meant it more in the sense of him being a wolf in sheepskin for a neoliberal agenda.

"uncle tom" is generally considered a racist (or very borderline) term.

[I Push Buttons]

"uncle tom" is generally considered a racist (or very borderline) term.

Nothing borderline about it, if you call a black person an 'Uncle Tom' because of their politics you are a racist (and a piece of shit).

[Milchshake]

nice racism.

Yo @Slacker76 why dont you like sweet boi bernie, i thought given your posting history and his policies you'd be primed. What am I missing here? I obviously havent been following close enough.

Ya it's weird. I'm in alignment to most Bernie's policies. Even more socialist, since ideally I want to see most banks and tier1 industries nationalized (allowing for some private alternatives).

But I've stated it before. Unlike Bernie, or his European allies/fanclub like Corbyn and Zizek, I refuse to sacrifice civil rights in the name of socialism. Socialism without these civil protection is deeply flawed. It pushes unprotected groups outside of the class struggle.

Bernie/Corbyn/Zizek embrace a chauvinistic version of "socialism". They blame us minorities/migrants/women for getting in the way of their "revolutions". Fuck that. They more interested in a new wave of red/brown alliances. Trying to form weird coalitions with Tucker Carlson fans. The history is clear these are always failed alliances.


Democrats may be frustrating with their incrementalism. But they're still on the side of civil rights.

[downnola]

Ya it's weird. I'm in alignment to most Bernie's policies. Even more socialist, since ideally I want to see most banks and tier1 industries nationalized (allowing for some private alternatives).

But I've stated it before. Unlike Bernie, or his European allies/fanclub like Corbyn and Zizek, I refuse to sacrifice civil rights in the name of socialism. Socialism without these civil protection is deeply flawed. It pushes unprotected groups outside of the class struggle.

Bernie/Corbyn/Zizek embrace a chauvinistic version of "socialism". They blame us minorities/migrants/women for getting in the way of their "revolutions". Fuck that. They more interested in a new wave of red/brown alliances. Trying to form weird coalitions with Tucker Carlson fans. The history is clear these are always failed alliances.


Democrats may be frustrating with their incrementalism. But they're still on the side of civil rights.

I think your concerns apply more to Tusli and some "Bernie Bros" and their podcasts (like Red Scare, for example) than Bernie himself. The only thing he's annoyed me with is his "pro-immigration reform is a Koch Brothers conspiracy" nonsense, which is so anti-socialist it's incredible. Maybe I'm just not aware of his other mishaps, but Bernie doesn't strike me as a "socialism is for white straight people" kind of guy aside from the immigration thing and I think he's even walked that stance back.

[Blade Wolf]

Ya it's weird. I'm in alignment to most Bernie's policies. Even more socialist, since ideally I want to see most banks and tier1 industries nationalized (allowing for some private alternatives).

But I've stated it before. Unlike Bernie, or his European allies/fanclub like Corbyn and Zizek, I refuse to sacrifice civil rights in the name of socialism. Socialism without these civil protection is deeply flawed. It pushes unprotected groups outside of the class struggle.

Bernie/Corbyn/Zizek embrace a chauvinistic version of "socialism". They blame us minorities/migrants/women for getting in the way of their "revolutions". Fuck that. They more interested in a new wave of red/brown alliances. Trying to form weird coalitions with Tucker Carlson fans. The history is clear these are always failed alliances.


Democrats may be frustrating with their incrementalism. But they're still on the side of civil rights.

What civil rights will be sacrificed with Sanders? You are accusing a politician who's been fighting for civil rights longer than most people on this forum have been alive of sacrificing civil rights.

[Edge-]

But I've stated it before. Unlike Bernie, or his European allies/fanclub like Corbyn and Zizek, I refuse to sacrifice civil rights in the name of socialism. Socialism without these civil protection is deeply flawed. It pushes unprotected groups outside of the class struggle.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...219-story.html

He literally got arrested during his time supporting the Civil Rights movement in the US.

Specifically, what civil rights do you feel are under threat from Sanders?