Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9928

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OK, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?

I get that your primary motivator is personal spite, but the adults are talking about actual issues right now.

I was under the impression we were discussing progressive policies in the context of  Democratic electoral politics. My bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Bernie wasn't "gangbanged" about M4A through 10+ debates. Warren got more grief over it than anyone, and in general most candidates didn't even bother confronting him for some reason.

Because they KNEW ALL A LONG BERNIE COULDN’T EXPAND HIS BASE.  

Bernie’s strategy of trying to win with 35% was so flawed because it depended on the field being split four or five ways.  He assumed everyone in the race was just as ambitious for the presidency as he was and it backfired when arguably superior candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden.

Warren was always the real threat because she was actually trying to grow her support by speaking to the middle.  That’s why she got crucified. Bernie was always easier to sideline, which they have been successfully doing his entire career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

#Unity

lol

You're behaving like a Trump voter right now. I still believe in you, and that you'll get past it. But if you do end up staying home or leaving the top line blank, it's obvious that, much like Trump voters, you were never going to vote for Biden. You would have found some fault with him between February and November to give you "cover" to not vote for him.

I don't think you'll do it though. For as childish as you can be at times, I actually do believe you are passionate about progressive causes and will do the thing that will serve them best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So you think that nominating and electing a man who was part of an administration that put children in cages will definitely be morally opposed to such a thing now? And this same man who hurt millions of Americans to protect the banks with respect to student loans and other programs will now never do such a thing? A guy who wants to leave the banks in charge of everything will be morally opposed to tax cuts for billionaires? The guy isn't even willing to return the corporate tax rate to 35%, instead choosing to split the difference and take it back halfway, to 28%.

He's already scared to hold banks and the wheels of power responsible before he gets to the White House. It's really strange how many people think Biden is better than he really is.

He's better than Trump, so that part is true. It's just a really low bar.

Esto. Biden is not a progressive who compromises with Republicans to make incremental progress towards progressive ends. He's a conservative-leaning centrist who compromises with Republicans to make incremental progress towards conservative ends. That's who he was for his multi-decade long career in the Senate. He's not going to be another Obama, and the compromises he makes will make us wish for Obama's compromises (e.g. appointing Tim Geithner, bailing out the banks instead of foreclosed homeowners, etc.).

Hopefully, someone in his ear convinces him that he can't win without greater youth support. I'm not even sure it's true given the level of boomer support he seems to have, but if we want anything good to happen during a Biden administration, we need to convince him that he needs progressives in his cabinet and throughout his administration. 

Edited by wildcat09
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13204

Posted
Posted
Just now, BradInATX said:

For as childish as you can be at times, I actually do believe you are passionate about progressive causes and will do the thing that will serve them best.

And that's voting for someone who says he will veto them even if we fight the massive fight to get them through Congress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And that's voting for someone who says he will veto them even if we fight the massive fight to get them through Congress?

- That's really unlikely. Like almost zero chance. You'd need like 60 Democratic senators because there's at least 7-8 current sitting Ds that would vote against it. You'd also need Pelosi out. Why worry about something that has like a 1% chance of happening? Should I carry a condom in my wallet in case Gal Gadot and I meet and she wants to hook up? 

- Biden didn't even definitively say he'd veto it. He gave a non-answer (which I don't like, but eh)

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20957

Posted
Posted

I think a lot of hardcore Bernie supporters are understandably in shock with how quickly this has turned. SC was 10 days ago? They will need some time to process what has happened and should be treated decently* as they come to terms with Biden being the nominee. 

* except B_T

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanTheHorn

DanTheHorn 4925

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's fair.

Another thing to consider is this: How much of this white suburban surge for Joe is actually anti-Bernie and not pro-Joe? And, with Bernie off the ballot in November, how loyal are these voters to Joe once they're faced with a choice between Joe and a Republican who better serves their class values?

Oh noooooo! We are doomed! Grieve for a few more days, maybe even take the pounding that is likely coming on the 17th. After that get with the program. Your fellow Democrats have spoken. If you don't show up, then so be it. You will be 4 more years and a significant move to the right away from your goals as a result of your whining. Losing to Trump is not as big a loss to the centrist and independents as it is to you since some of the policies are just fine with them. It is the deterioration of democratic norms, rise of racism and loss of standing in the world that concern centrist and independents the most. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think a lot of hardcore Bernie supporters are understandably in shock with how quickly this has turned. SC was 10 days ago? They will need some time to process what has happened and should be treated decently* as they come to terms with Biden being the nominee. 

* except B_T

 

Now is definitely not the time for malarkey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13204

Posted
Posted
Just now, BradInATX said:

- That's really unlikely. Like almost zero chance. You'd need like 60 Democratic senators because there's at least 7-8 current sitting Ds that would vote against it. You'd also need Pelosi out. Why worry about something that has like a 1% chance of happening? Should I carry a condom in my wallet in case Gal Gadot and I meet and she wants to hook up? 

All the more reason to just say, "If it made it through, I wouldn't veto it."

Couldn't even bother lying. Which, in a way, I appreciate.

Quote

- Biden didn't even definitively say he'd veto it. He gave a non-answer (which I don't like, but eh)

Yes, he did.

“I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now. If they got that through in by some miracle or there’s an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, OK, it’s passed. Then you got to look at the cost,”

“Look, my opposition isn’t to the principle that there should be — you should have Medicare. I mean, I — look, everybody — health care should be a right in America. My opposition relates to whether or not, A, it’s doable, two, what the cost is, and what the consequences for the rest of the budget are,” Biden said.

“How are you going to find $35 trillion over the next 10 years without having profound impacts on everything from taxes for middle class and working class people as well as well as the impact on the rest of the budget?” he asked. 

This isn't a non-answer, this is an answer. Be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

All the more reason to just say, "If it made it through, I wouldn't veto it."

Couldn't even bother lying. Which, in a way, I appreciate.

Yes, he did.

“I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now. If they got that through in by some miracle or there’s an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, OK, it’s passed. Then you got to look at the cost,”

“Look, my opposition isn’t to the principle that there should be — you should have Medicare. I mean, I — look, everybody — health care should be a right in America. My opposition relates to whether or not, A, it’s doable, two, what the cost is, and what the consequences for the rest of the budget are,” Biden said.

“How are you going to find $35 trillion over the next 10 years without having profound impacts on everything from taxes for middle class and working class people as well as well as the impact on the rest of the budget?” he asked. 

This isn't a non-answer, this is an answer. Be honest.

Literal definition of a politician non-answer. Like it could be used in a textbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So you think that nominating and electing a man who was part of an administration that put children in cages will definitely be morally opposed to such a thing now?  

This is a trump talking point. 

Equating the temporary family separation needed to confirm identities under Obama to the “zero tolerance” near-permanent family separations in the name deterrence under Sessions/trump is gross. Obama let family units stay together during the immigration/deportation process. Trump separated all families across the board. +4000 kids were separated under trump and no one knows exactly how many.

Why are people using trump talking points to attack Biden? Where are people hearing this stuff?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

If M4A passed and was put on Joe Biden's desk, given what he's saying there, does he sign it or veto it?

There's certainly a very non-zero chance he vetoes it. But I think, in a fantasy world where that happens, he'd let it through. in that case you're talking 60+ democratic senators which represents a very clear and obvious mandate by both the electorate and congress. Joe has always been a guy that goes with the flow and sorta does what's best for the "team", and I think in this infinitesimally likely scenario, he'd probably pass it. Probably. Like 65%/35%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32878

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

This is a trump talking point. 

Equating the temporary family separation needed to confirm identities under Obama to the “zero tolerance” near-permanent family separations in the name deterrence under Sessions/trump is gross. Obama let family units stay together during the immigration/deportation process. Trump separated all families across the board. +4000 kids were separated under trump and no one knows exactly how many.

Why are people using trump talking points to attack Biden? Where are people hearing this stuff?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

This is a fantastic rebuttal. Rather, it would be a fantastic rebuttal if Chuckie Finster or I had said anything about family separations. 

But since neither of us said anything about that, it's irrelevant. The Obama administration put children in cages, but it is 100% accurate that they were usually with their families if they had been accompanied as opposed to the even more barbaric behavior of the Trump administration. The term "children in cages" can be traced to an Arizona Republic article from 2014.

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He's a conservative-leaning centrist who compromises with Republicans to make incremental progress towards conservative ends.

This isn’t correct. Biden is and always has been a mainstream democrat. As the party has moved left, so has Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zombie

Zombie 284

Posted
Posted
I think a lot of hardcore Bernie supporters are understandably in shock with how quickly this has turned. SC was 10 days ago? They will need some time to process what has happened and should be treated decently* as they come to terms with Biden being the nominee. 
* except B_T
 
Agreed. Time will heal those wounds for most Bernie supporters, particularly as Trump keeps throwing gas on his dumpster fire imperiling all of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13204

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

There's certainly a very non-zero chance he vetoes it. But I think, in a fantasy world where that happens, he'd let it through. in that case you're talking 60+ democratic senators which represents a very clear and obvious mandate by both the electorate and congress. Joe has always been a guy that goes with the flow and sorta does what's best for the "team", and I think in this infinitesimally likely scenario, he'd probably pass it. Probably. Like 65%/35%.

Ah so you're talking to me like I'm a fucking idiot for thinking he would veto it (after he said he would) and you give the same option 35%?

You're under no obligation to try and win me with reasonable words or kindness, but maybe be a little more circumspect as a lifelong Republican wading into discussions about Democratic politics and progressive policy. You're not a very effective pro-Biden ambassador trying to reach left. You're too bitter for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is a fantastic rebuttal. Rather, it would be a fantastic rebuttal if Chuckie Finster or I had said anything about family separations. 

But since neither of us said anything about that, it's irrelevant. The Obama administration put children in cages, but it is 100% accurate that they were usually with their families if they had been accompanied as opposed to the even more barbaric behavior of the Trump administration. The term "children in cages" can be traced to an Arizona Republic article from 2014.

In order to “put kids in cages” they are first separated from their families. 

Don’t converse in bad faith.

Edited by GW Hayduke
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Ah so you're talking to me like I'm a fucking idiot for thinking he would veto it (after he said he would) and you give the same option 35%?

You're under no obligation to try and win me with reasonable words or kindness, but maybe be a little more circumspect as a lifelong Republican wading into discussions about Democratic politics and progressive policy. You're not a very effective pro-Biden ambassador trying to reach left. You're too bitter for it.

I'm not trying to reach left at all. I don't give a shit what you do. I'm not self-important enough to think that what I post on a message board has any meaningful impact on the world. Believe it or not, I actually do think you'll come around, which is why I said that. Not because I'm trying to be your bro or because I have some ulterior motive. I don't like you at all - I have no interest in being your friend. Our political interests intersect sometimes and sometimes you're interesting to talk to. That's about where it ends. 

You said:

Quote

That's been my position since Biden said he'd veto M4A

And we've now established that Biden did not say "he'd veto M4A". 

I'm talking to you like you're a fucking idiot because you're being dishonest. 

Edited by BradInATX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32878

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

In order to “put kids in cages” they are first be separated from their families. 

Don’t converse in bad faith.

I literally provided the reference for the origin of the phrase. You're wrong, so your bad faith statement is as weak as your argument.

This is exactly how you lose a messaging battle during an election. Scream about "children in cages" for a couple of weeks. Then watch as the opposition throws up ad after ad showing the history of "children in cages" starting in 2014 when Joe Biden was Vice President.

Say what you mean. What you mean is family separation which is a related but separate policy and is even more horrific than detaining children in fenced areas (particularly because it combines with the latter). To help you understand the issue I have edited my previous post to include an actual link to the article I referenced.

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32878

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

If a kid is in a cage with her parents, she's not in a cage anymore.

Duh

It was even worse than that. The Obama administration was putting unaccompanied minors in the cages. They had no parents, no adult, nobody to care for them. But it's true that they had not been actively separated from those parents by the United States government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
Just now, Huckleberry said:

I literally provided the reference for the origin of the phrase. You're wrong, so your bad faith statement is as weak as your argument.

This is exactly how you lose a messaging battle during an election. Scream about "children in cages" for a couple of weeks. Then watch as the opposition throws up ad after ad showing the history of "children in cages" starting in 2014 when Joe Biden was Vice President.

Say what you mean. What you mean is family separation which is a related but separate policy and is even more horrific than detaining children in fenced areas. To help you understand the issue I have edited my previous post to include an actual link to the article I referenced.

An article from 2014 is not support for the assertion that BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE when it comes to children in cages, family separations, or immigration.

It is weak sauce to assert that.

This is the problem with political dialogue.

People pick up fallacious ideas from twitter or wherever about both sides and then get fed weaksauce evidence to assert. Then they regurgitate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17684

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

- That's really unlikely. Like almost zero chance. You'd need like 60 Democratic senators because there's at least 7-8 current sitting Ds that would vote against it. You'd also need Pelosi out. Why worry about something that has like a 1% chance of happening? Should I carry a condom in my wallet in case Gal Gadot and I meet and she wants to hook up? 

- Biden didn't even definitively say he'd veto it. He gave a non-answer (which I don't like, but eh)

4b98a32db198e05fbf1a852d2bdd904c.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20957

Posted
Posted

Good read from Jamelle Bouie 

 

If Biden goes on to win the White House, there’s real space for the pro-Sanders left to work its will on policy. It can use its influence to steer Biden toward its preferred outcomes. It can fulfill some of its goals under the cover of Biden’s moderation, from raising the minimum wage nationally to pushing the American health care system closer to single-payer.

This may sound a lot like wishful thinking. And if Biden were a different politician — if, like Sanders, he was strongly ideological — I might also doubt his malleability. But Biden, like Northam, is a creature of the party. He doesn’t buck the mainstream, he accommodates it. He doesn’t reject the center, he tries to claim it. You saw this during the Obama administration, when Biden reversed himself on a career of moderation to embrace and champion the former president’s most liberal policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8719

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

So you think that nominating and electing a man who was part of an administration that put children in cages will definitely be morally opposed to such a thing now?

You understand catch and release was rescinded by Trump along with a mandate to prosecute all misdemeanors of border crossing by seeking jail time? Meanwhile actual points of entry were closed and asylum applications were slow walked under Trump. That required imprisonment for parents separate from their children at a scale unseen and the investment in private prison camps.

What’s the count of people who died in ICE custody the last 2 years vs the prior 10?
 

This talking point creating and equivocation between Obama’s policies and Trump’s is bullshit and just about invalidates any other opinion you may hold

Edited by Pig Bellmont
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack

Jack 51

Posted
Posted

Biden getting the nomination makes Harris his VP pick.  Very happy that we didn't end up with Sanders and the DNC is starting to go away from the fringe.  I can feel much more comfortable voting for Biden/Harris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32878

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You understand catch and release was rescinded by Trump along with a mandate to prosecute all misdemeanors of border crossing by seeking jail time? Meanwhile actual points of entry were closed and asylum applications were slow walked under Trump. That required imprisonment for parents separate from their children at a scale unseen and the investment in private prison camps.

What’s the count of people who died in ICE custody the last 2 years vs the prior 10?
 

This talking point creating and equivocation between Obama’s policies and Trump’s is bullshit and just about invalidates any other opinion you may hold

There's no equivocation and I've made that abundantly clear. I responded to exactly what was posted.

If y'all would like to discuss other policies and policy changes then I'm happy to do so, although it will be a brief conversation because we're in agreement on those issues. But if you're going to try to use the phrase "children in cages"  as an emotional appeal to win votes then I will point out facts. If you can't handle facts then maybe Trumpism is a bit closer to your side of the argument than you think.

Say what you mean or you will lose to Trump again. Stick with the facts that are on your side. Hammer home the family separation issue. But if y'all are going to continue to get emotional and defensive when the facts are not on your side then you are going to get beaten by Donald Trump again. Voters are dumb, they will side with emotional and on the attack over emotional and defensive every single time.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...