Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,291
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
Not everyone hates your videos. You always conduct yourself politely. You don't cuss people out or use hive tactics to silence others.
YOU STARTED THIS TOPIC and it's been popular. You shouldn't make yourself small to curry favor with people you know you don't want to be like.
One of the really valuable things you bring is your video topics. They are thoughtful. You were treated poorly and didn't deserve that. Do what you do.
Fool. Cristalle is a respected poster here. We all may disagree, even to the point of some churlish words or critique on occasion, but the respect doesn't disappear and usually we can take it and continue to converse on a wide variety of subjects. I seriously doubt that you will ever garner the same respect and you are a one-trick pony.

It's pretty damn presumptuous of you to tell her that we are people that she knows she doesn't want to be like.

Hive...interesting choice of words there. You fancy yourself an outsider who is so much more enlightened than us lowly people who have to consider survival in a DJT world. I'm thinking more and more that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You purport to have certain beliefs but your words tell another story.
 
Last edited:

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,291
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
While reading this and this about the democrats I've been stumbling lately upon Noam Chomsky.

The late Chomsky said this: "In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."

What do you think about this claim that in reality in his opinion the USA have a one party system?
Yes, it is a true to an extent. All politicians are beholden to outside money in order to even run a campaign. We do not have state funded campaign coffers like other countries. This alone means that those who wish to use their fortunes to influence political policy can usually just play both sides, giving to both parties. IIRC we had an opportunity to create legislation in the 90's to alter this course, but nothing happened and, of course, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision all but put the nail in the coffin of elections not heavily influenced by money, and now they've even found ways to funnel foreign money into our elections; dangerous precedent that.

All of that said, there are still clear difference between the parties, especially in regard to civil rights/equality, consumer rights and safety and distribution of government tax coffers. There is an interesting phenomenon in this country of all politicians seeming to never ever want to disturb business. Business is put on a pedestal enjoying many rights that an individual does not, especially in the tax or bankruptcy code. It's almost a fetish. Nobody seem dare come down hard against business lest they appear anti-capitalist. I'm sure you've seen references to people calling Sanders/Warren and now even most of the dem field socialists when really what they espouse is a check on unfettered and deeply corrupt capitalism. We are in desperate need of checks on both capitalism and our democratic system. With the Supreme Court being of the consistency that it is right now, I'm not sure we'll get it.
 

Eunoli

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
753
SL Rez
2002
All of that said, there are still clear difference between the parties, especially in regard to civil rights/equality, consumer rights and safety and distribution of government tax coffers. There is an interesting phenomenon in this country of all politicians seeming to never ever want to disturb business. Business is put on a pedestal enjoying many rights that an individual does not, especially in the tax or bankruptcy code. It's almost a fetish. Nobody seem dare come down hard against business lest they appear anti-capitalist. I'm sure you've seen references to people calling Sanders/Warren and now even most of the dem field socialists when really what they espouse is a check on unfettered and deeply corrupt capitalism. We are in desperate need of checks on both capitalism and our democratic system. With the Supreme Court being of the consistency that it is right now, I'm not sure we'll get it.
It seems to me that if you look at the growth/proliferation of articles and threads claiming that the dems are the same as the republicans, many of them are very similar in tone and some in origin to the anti-Hilary campaign we saw in 2016. The more this becomes a "thing", the more I feel it is likely a foreign influence campaign aimed at keeping the left away from the ballet box in the next election.
 

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,291
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
It seems to me that if you look at the growth/proliferation of articles and threads claiming that the dems are the same as the republicans, many of them are very similar in tone and some in origin to the anti-Hilary campaign we saw in 2016. The more this becomes a "thing", the more I feel it is likely a foreign influence campaign aimed at keeping the left away from the ballet box in the next election.
There might be an element of that in there, as well. I've heard these types of references for a few decades, but yes, it does seem as though there is a certain segment that rallies around it more heavily when an election nears.

On the one hand, the Republicans are calling anyone on the left socialists who want to take your money, your wife and your children and on the other side we have those who say that all are the same as the Republicans, if not worse, which is pure farce.

There could well be an effort, in these days of heavy propaganda, to split the electorate. It has been successful so, sure, those with vested interest might see it as a useful tactic in their arsenal.

Also, the more that people believe that all politicians are corrupt, the less they care to engage. Less engagement typically allows corruption to flourish.
 

Kamilah Hauptmann

A bit of a wanker
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
6,189
Location
Cat Country (Can't Stop Here)
SL Rez
2002
your words tell another story
Pocahontas
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then there's this fucked up sadism indicator:
This conversation is very healing, especially for us Sanders supporters who voted for Jill Stein in 2016.
And the classic White Knight:
Not everyone hates your videos. You always conduct yourself politely. You don't cuss people out or use hive tactics to silence others.
YOU STARTED THIS TOPIC and it's been popular. You shouldn't make yourself small to curry favor with people you know you don't want to be like.
One of the really valuable things you bring is your video topics. They are thoughtful. You were treated poorly and didn't deserve that. Do what you do.
A real self-absorbed peach here and not much of a poker face.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,428
SL Rez
2006
This is an excellent example of how our first-past-the-post (aka winner takes all) form of voting works against voters. In a straight-up vote between Biden & Warren, she wins. But the other candidates in the race split the progressive voting block into pieces, and Biden comes out on top, even though he's not the first choice of the majority of voters.

Elizabeth Warren leads Joe Biden in ranked-choice poll
 
Last edited:

Aeon Jiminy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
389
Fool. Cristalle is a respected poster here. We all may disagree, even to the point of some churlish words or critique on occasion, but the respect doesn't disappear and usually we can take it and continue to converse on a wide variety of subjects. I seriously doubt that you will ever garner the same respect and you are a one-trick pony.

It's pretty damn presumptuous of you to tell her that we are people that she knows she doesn't want to be like.

Hive...interesting choice of words there. You fancy yourself an outsider who is so much more enlightened than us lowly people who have to consider survival in a DJT world. I'm thinking more and more that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You purport to have certain beliefs but your words tell another story.
I like her videos. I don't click the little " like " buttons because my endorsement is considered poison. I actually think she puts a lot of thought into the material that she presents and I suppose I empathized with how she must feel when this was called "spam". I do have feelings, they may not be the correct ones, but I have them and sometimes they surface.

I thought she was rudely attacked. Don't worry, I don't have any delusions that we will be BFF's .
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
1,213
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
I'll take her actual actions over conspiracy theory, every time. She has a record of standing up against big business, big pharma, big everything. Its there in plain sight.
You keep speaking without knowledge. There are no conspiracy theories. What that video does is outline the level of control Hillary Clinton had over the party based on the events as described by Donna Brazile and others, how Warren was in the tank for Clinton since 2013, and shows how Elizabeth Warren is firmly ensconced into the party's structure, knowing that it is a rigged system (though she later denied rigging after people obviously got to her) in a party that does not think that it has an obligation to follow its own charter and select a nominee through a neutral process. She is not a wholly trustworthy actor. (actor as in participant in the process, not stage performer)

The commentator also thinks that her not taking corporate donor money in the primary is a gimmick, which I tend to agree with, so that she can stand up next to Bernie Sanders, who isn't taking a dime of corporate money. But if she wins then nomination, and we have no good choices left, the corruption comes back in and nothing gets done if she wins. She may even lose to Trump.

I had to re-listen to the 36 minutes to itemize all that stuff, and now you will not bother to listen for yourself.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
1,213
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
I like her videos. I don't click the little " like " buttons because my endorsement is considered poison. I actually think she puts a lot of thought into the material that she presents and I suppose I empathized with how she must feel when this was called "spam". I do have feelings, they may not be the correct ones, but I have them and sometimes they surface.

I thought she was rudely attacked. Don't worry, I don't have any delusions that we will be BFF's .
I'm not always going to agree with you, Aeon, but thanks for sticking up for the videos. You are right, I do put a lot of thought into most of what I post here. I have been listening to YouTube videos like radio or background tv, since I'm not necessarily watching, so I'm gathering a lot more information than I share, and anything I do post here has something I found useful or insightful.

But I am used to the sometimes churlish disagreements, it's baked in. We are not always going to agree on things here, and there are definitely high levels of snark. I just wish that if people don't watch that they don't comment on the specific video. If I don't watch or read something, I generally won't comment until I have a basis upon which to comment.
 

Dakota Tebaldi

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
3,778
Location
Gulf Coast, USA
Joined SLU
02-22-2008
SLU Posts
16791
Coincidentally, of course, Tim Kaine stepped down from the position of DNC chair, to be replaced by DWS, Clinton friend and campaign chair.
Meh; someone with Clinton's profile - Democratic senator, State secretary for a Democratic president, wife of another - is going to be friends with most high-level Democrats.
 

Free

Freebie Worlder
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
10,003
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
The commentator also thinks that her not taking corporate donor money in the primary is a gimmick, which I tend to agree with, so that she can stand up next to Bernie Sanders, who isn't taking a dime of corporate money. But if she wins then nomination, and we have no good choices left, the corruption comes back in and nothing gets done if she wins. She may even lose to Trump.
So, opinions. Here's some opinions back:

If it's a gimmick for Warren to not take corporate donor money, then it's a gimmick for Sanders not to, as well.

If Sanders wins the nomination, it's possible the corruption will come back in under him, as well.

He may even lose to Trump, as well.

It's easy to read the opinion tea leaves.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
1,213
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
So, opinions. Here's some opinions back:

If it's a gimmick for Warren to not take corporate donor money, then it's a gimmick for Sanders not to, as well.

If Sanders wins the nomination, it's possible the corruption will come back in under him, as well.

He may even lose to Trump, as well.

It's easy to read the opinion tea leaves.
Your logic does not follow. If Sanders wins, he is not taking the money at all, thus he won't be corrupted by it. Congress will have to override his veto to put in corrupt laws. The candidates are only able to control their own exposure to corruption, not everyone else's.

She has said that she would take the money in the general, which is what makes it a gimmick. If she honestly believes that the money is a problem, then why take it in the general and not the primary? If she believes that she won't be corrupted by it by taking it in the general, why not just do a Biden or Harris and take it in the primary? It feels gimmicky, and so I'd agree that it is merely a gimmick so she can stand up next to Sanders and say she's not about the corruption, even though she's signaled to the big money to check her later.
 
  • 1Eye Roll
Reactions: Spirits Rising

Free

Freebie Worlder
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
10,003
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
She has said that she would take the money in the general, which is what makes it a gimmick.
She's competing personal donation vs personal donation. If she's able to beat Sanders under those conditions, that's not a gimmick.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
1,213
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
She's competing personal donation vs personal donation. If she's able to beat Sanders under those conditions, that's not a gimmick.
That is not what makes it a gimmick. The whole question is about corruption, not whether or not she can beat Sanders at the number of individual donors (spoiler: she's losing there, and badly).
 

Romana

The Timeless Child
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,971
SL Rez
2010
All of that said, there are still clear difference between the parties, especially in regard to civil rights/equality, consumer rights and safety and distribution of government tax coffers....
When I first registered to vote, I didn't trust either party so I registered independent, figuring I'd just vote for whoever seemed better. Then I became aware of the Right to Life party (I think this is just a NY State thing) and didn't feel comfortable voting for anyone they endorsed. And it became obvious how anti-woman the Republican party was; their crusade to overturn Roe, etc. And I've been votZing Dem since.
I'm not arguing with the business thing, but even their attitudes towards business differ. Not to sing Hillary's praises, but I cannot believe she would have rolled back all the protective measures 45 has. Her budget would've been different too.
No one, no one, can tell me both parties are the same, and no one can persuade me to toss my vote to a third party candidate, even if I agree with them, if they don't have a realistic chance of defeating the current lot of swamp rats. As it stands, this system is tilted against third parties, and I do not want to have 45 a second term. I'm not at all sure I would survive.
 

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,135
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
While reading this and this about the democrats I've been stumbling lately upon Noam Chomsky.

The late Chomsky said this: "In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."

What do you think about this claim that in reality in his opinion the USA have a one party system?
Compared to most European multi-party systems, yes, it's one party.

We have a largely devolved system under which the larger states in particular have a great deal of autonomy and which is large and diverse enough that the major regions are locked in cultural and political struggle with each other. Drive from Vermont to east Texas and the two cultures are more different than if you drove from Vermont to New Brunswick - different enough that under a European style system, they would be different countries. The Federal government is a massive compromise keeping the unlimited freedom of trade and freedom of movement that middle class people expect when working for the corporations.

So Dem vs Rep struggle always has a regional component. By now, migration has made the regions less places and more cultures, but they absolutely started out as places. The Dems are Northeast - such as Chicago or Boston. The Republicans have narrowed to such a degree that they're the South, and the Bible Belt.

And that's it, really. If we ever get a Left that is a functioning party and not just a node in the Dem consensus, it would mean we were much closer to a regional breakup than we are. The closest thing we have is Bernie's machine, which is also tiny Vermont taking advantage of its autonomy as a state. But it has to work under the Federal system, which is a consensus process. The idea of Vermont, or California, throwing in the towel and seceding is a wistful joke.

Phone posting! Part 1 of 2
 
Last edited:

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,135
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
Compared to most European multi-party systems, yes, it's one party.

We have a largely devolved system under which the larger states in particular have a great deal of autonomy and which is large and diverse enough that the major regions are locked in cultural and political struggle with each other. Drive from Vermont to east Texas and the two cultures are more different than if you drove from Vermont to New Brunswick - different enough that under a European style system, they would be different countries. The Federal government is a massive compromise keeping the unlimited freedom of trade and freedom of movement that middle class people expect when working for the corporations.

So Dem vs Rep struggle always has a regional component. By now, migration has made the regions less places and more cultures, but they abdokutely started out as places. The Dems are Northeast - such as Chicago or Boston. The Republicans have narrowed to such a degree that they're the South, and the Bible Belt.

And that's it, really. If we ever get a Left that is a functioning party and not just a node in the Dem consensus, it would mean we were much closer to a regional breakup than we are. The closest thing we have is Bernie's machine, which is also tiny Vermont taking advantage of its autonomy as a state. But it has to work under bthe Federal system, which is a consensus process. The idea of Vermont, or California, or throwing in the towel and seceding is a wistful joke.

Phone posting! Part 1 of 2
Part 2

The ideas of a working third party operating outside the current consensus, or a Constitutional Convention, are now mainly ideas of the Right - or were, until the hard Right captured the Republicans - they still want a Constitutional Convention. Any Left party wanting to be taken seriously would have to not only capture a state legislature, it would have to push back at the Federal consensus. That scenario is much closer to a breakup of the states than what we have now, and will only happen as a defensive reaction against the hard Right using Federal power to wage destruction - a terrifying scenario we are quite possibly on a path to.

We won't get a working Left party under the current consensus until we get rid of the hard Right - which is the same as saying, when demographic change or a defensive blowback dismantle the hard Right capture of the Repubs. Demographic change is really "old religious-conservative base die off" so a third party is twenty years out unless the hard Right forces a crisis. They've done it before - that was the Civil War.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.