Political Discussion

Harris seems like she’s in it to win it. I like Elizabeth Warren, but sitting politicians from Massachusetts haven’t been terribly successful in winning for Democrats in the last couple of decades. Buttigieg needs to become something less prosaic, but he’s the goods too.

Biden & Bernie need to take their bags of oranges and go home.

Side note- I admire Bernie Sanders greatly. His run against Clinton has pretty much changed the Democrat party platform to his vision. I just can’t imagine that lightning in a bottle the second time around.
 
My takeaways from the debates are pretty similar to everyone here. Big winner is Harris obviously with her brutal takedown of Biden, who was the biggest loser of the two nights. Mayor Pete did a great job being clear, concise, and confident in his responses. I liked how he owned up to his mistakes with the South Bend police force, and his other answers made a lot of sense too. Warren showed up in a big way too. Castro was a bit of a surprise as I haven't really paid much attention to him. Booker was pretty stale, but not as stale as Bernie's answers. Yes Bernie, we know all of your responses before you even give them.

If I were to rank my choices right now:

1. Mayor Pete
1a. Warren
2. Harris
Everyone else
 
Djxfactor511 said:
My takeaways from the debates are pretty similar to everyone here. Big winner is Harris obviously with her brutal takedown of Biden, who was the biggest loser of the two nights. Mayor Pete did a great job being clear, concise, and confident in his responses. I liked how he owned up to his mistakes with the South Bend police force, and his other answers made a lot of sense too. Warren showed up in a big way too. Castro was a bit of a surprise as I haven't really paid much attention to him. Booker was pretty stale, but not as stale as Bernie's answers. Yes Bernie, we know all of your responses before you even give them.

If I were to rank my choices right now:

1. Mayor Pete
1a. Warren
2. Harris
Everyone else
Click to expand...
Hard to say if Biden or Beto were the biggest losers, both were pathetic, but I do agree Harris had probably the best showing.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I read lots of comments on Twitter that Biden is proving that age is just a number, etc., etc. But man, he has lost a good chunk of the vitality that I remember from the Obama years. And seeing him on a split screen with Harris, or Buttigieg, really just throws into contrast how much frailer he seems now. He's never been the most eloquent, but even his speech patterns seem exacerbated by age.

Bernie has gone from novelty to upstart to revolutionary to spoiler to intolerable.

Say what you will about everything else, but his response about the threats represented by China was really substantive and thoughtful.

Man, I don't know what to tell you, but anybody who inspires brigading in the polls of a site like The Drudge Report, and who gets praise from the likes of Coulter and Cernovich, ought to be ringing serious alarm bells. The sooner this race is rid of her, the better.
Click to expand...

I truly do not understand the hate for Bernie on here. Like how exactly has he become intolerable?

Did he suddenly become wrong that money in politics is rotting politics from its core? Is he suddenly wrong about economic inequality (when a study was just released showing that the 1% has gained 21 trillion in wealth while the bottom half lost .7 trillion in the past 30 years). Did he flip on stances that he has held and been steady on for 30 years? What in particular did he say that rubbed you the wrong way?

I love Warren and would vote for her in a general and even campaign for her, but there are several key differences:

1) Her foreign policy history sucks. She has vote after vote to her name that indicates she has no problem with the MIC and never ending war- the latest of which being the fact that she voted for Trump's bloated military budget.

2) She hasn't once indicated that she understands the importance of mass mobilization and getting the grassroots nourished and activated in every square inch of the country.

3) Her silence on standing rock (which was choke full of human rights violations and is a jarring example of our government's preference for profits over people and unwillingness to take climate change seriously) was deafening and deeply disappointing. Meanwhile Bernie was very vocal about it.

4) There is also the fact that she has indicated that she will take super pac money in a general election which is a huge, huge red flag as it pertains to her truly being willing to take actually on monied interests on a systemic level.

Again, I still like her a lot. And I take the time to defend her anytime I hear somebody bashing her... but this Bernie hate is baffling and deeply frustrating presuming it's coming from people who actually supported him last go round.

As to Tusli, her record speaks for itself. She has governed in an extremely progressive manner. I don't really know what to say about the fact that certain people on the right really like her other than her foreign policy deeply appeals to a lot of libertarians I know (and is the reason I'm glad she is on the stage). Most libertarians also hate Trump so if you A) hate Trump B) you have this current crop of Dems, it somewhat makes sense that you'd get behind Tulsi. It's a moot point anyways because she has no chance in hell.

As to Pete, I'll elaborate below, but I do not deny he had good moments. The China stuff was great. So was his moment on religion and the GOP.

My personal preference is Bernie > Warren > Tulsi >>>> Harris > everyone else > Biden / Ryan / any of the rancid mayo from CO.
 
Last edited:
So I'm gonna take a post from Reddit and kind of mesh it into a hybrid that also contains some of my thoughts on Pete Buttigieg. And then I may do a post on Harris... who as I've already said IS somebody I would vote for but is also somebody I (as a Californian) find hard to trust. With any of my posts I am merely trying to have an honest conversation and I encourage anyone to give me their rebuttal.

Anyways....

"The problem with Buttigieg is that the co-opts policies from the progressive movement, but then talks his way around them instead of actually telling voters where he stands. He essentially says, "this is a good idea, but so is this..." The entire "issues" portion of his website used to be a string of videos of him talking in platitudes. Now it's just a bunch of vague goals with occasional policy.

As someone who is a Warren/Harris/Sanders supporter, I just find it incredibly frustrating how Buttigieg seems to signal that he is a "progressive" but has shown very little evidence that he actually supports progressive legislation beyond finding them "interesting" and then going on carefully worded tangents about why his version of those interesting things is better.

For instance when he is asked about healthcare, he says he "wants to work towards it" but then quickly says that his version of healthcare would be Medicare "for all who want it." Which basically means that he wants a public option, and as president he would not advocate for the bill introduced by Bernie Sanders and cosponsored by Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.

Buttigieg does the same thing for Green New Deal, where instead of telling the electorate what he actually supports, he says "I think it's the right beginning", but then fails to elaborate. On his website, it says he will "decarbonize" transportation but doesn't give concrete details.

He also sprinkles his language with Think Tank talking points. See his answer on student debt last night- he said "we shouldn't pay for rich people to be going to school". Which is a favorite line of Third Way. The problem with that is A) billionaire's kids go to private school Pete. So that's just an excuse designed to dissuade the public. Not mention that the rich would be footing much of the bill in Warren and Bernie's plans. So they should probably be able to utilize them B) More importantly, social programs have to be blanket in nature. Otherwise, they are liable to become an us vs. them proposition and are easily undermined. FDR talked about this extensively. Even Obama understood it as he approach healthcare reform.

And while his policy is vague in a lot of places, it's pretty clear that he doesn't support extending the social safety net. Which is fine, that's what this process is about (staking out different positions). But he is clearly carved out a space to the center and needs to stop being mentioned in the same breath as Warren and Harris as a progressive. Take childcare for instance. Someone like Elizabeth Warren wants to introduce a federal program that would guarantee free child care for anyone under 200 percent of the poverty line.

Whereas Buttigieg thinks that tax credits are the only thing we need to fix that problem. (It's almost a running joke at this point how many moderate Democrats think all of our issues can be solved with tax credits). Other examples include his stance on healthcare, climate change and affordable college (all of which I've already touched upon).

I just think too many people in the media are presenting him as this great new voice in politics, but his politics scream run-of-the-mill moderate Democrat. It's even more frustrating because I feel like with Buttigieg this is all part of the plan. Which is to say, to co-opt as much of the progressive platform as possible and subvert it to more moderate norms."
 
Last edited:
Woob_woob said:
Speaking of PA politicians:
www.inquirer.com

Pa. GOP chairman Val DiGiorgio resigns after report about interactions with Philly Council candidate

DiGiorgio, head of Pennsylvania's Republican Party since 2017, announced he was stepping down after The Inquirer reported he had traded sexually explicit messages with a GOP candidate for Philadelphia City Council.
www.inquirer.com www.inquirer.com

My mom cleans for his family and keeps texting me in full gossip mode.
Click to expand...
Can you get your mom to text me gossip?
 
As it pertains to Kamala Harris:

(As a Californian) Harris is probably my 3rd or 4th option and the last of the options that I wouldn't consider a complete disaster. (I view her as Obama 2.0 which is certainly better than Biden). I would 100% vote for her and admire that she is at least holding firm on progressive positions at the moment (unlike Pete or Beto). But I do think it's important to understand why some people (progressive Californians, activists) find it hard to trust her:

After campaigning for DA on systemic change she proceeded to (among other things):
  1. Defend California’s uniquely cruel three-strikes law, the only one in the country which imposed life sentences for a third “strike” that was any minor felony. She urged voters to reject Proposition 66, a ballot initiative that would have reformed the harsh law by making only serious or violent felonies trigger life sentences.
  2. In 2010, Harris pushed a heavy-handed truancy initiative that went into effect in 2011. This anti-truancy bill—SB 1317—made it so that parents of truant children who miss more than 10 percent of their classes can be charged with a misdemeanor and given a $2,000 fine or a year in prison “if, after being offered state support and counseling, their kids still fail to improve their attendance.”
  3. Despite forming the first Mortgage and Investment Fraud Unit in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, Harris refused to go after “foreclosure king” Steven Mnuchin, a decision she defended as recently as January. Mnuchin, who oversaw some 36,000 foreclosures between 2009 to 2015, violated numerous state foreclosure laws, and yet Harris refused to concede that his record should keep him from serving as President Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary.
  4. Appealed the judge’s decision that a man had been wrongly convicted of murder and must be released on the basis that Larsen had filed his paperwork too late — a technicality.
  5. She made California cops where body cameras which was a progressive move- However, she opposed setting up state wide programs to monitor them and instead left it up to individual departments, which was in fairness, is a regressive move.
  6. Supported policy paying prisoners $1.65 a day to fight wild fires.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-general

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05...why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamal...ied-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-for-cheap-labor

Lastly, I'd add that she was absolutely wonderful last night. Which is what I expected. She's a prosecutor after all. I look forward to watching her in future debates.
 
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp said:
As it pertains to Kamala Harris:

(As a Californian) Harris is probably my 3rd or 4th option and the last of the options that I wouldn't consider a complete disaster. (I view her as Obama 2.0 which is certainly better than Biden). I would 100% vote for her and admire that she is at least holding firm on progressive positions at the moment (unlike Pete or Beto). But I do think it's important to understand why some people (progressive Californians, activists) find it hard to trust her:

After campaigning for DA on systemic change she proceeded to (among other things):
  1. Defend California’s uniquely cruel three-strikes law, the only one in the country which imposed life sentences for a third “strike” that was any minor felony. She urged voters to reject Proposition 66, a ballot initiative that would have reformed the harsh law by making only serious or violent felonies trigger life sentences.
  2. In 2010, Harris pushed a heavy-handed truancy initiative that went into effect in 2011. This anti-truancy bill—SB 1317—made it so that parents of truant children who miss more than 10 percent of their classes can be charged with a misdemeanor and given a $2,000 fine or a year in prison “if, after being offered state support and counseling, their kids still fail to improve their attendance.”
  3. Despite forming the first Mortgage and Investment Fraud Unit in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, Harris refused to go after “foreclosure king” Steven Mnuchin, a decision she defended as recently as January. Mnuchin, who oversaw some 36,000 foreclosures between 2009 to 2015, violated numerous state foreclosure laws, and yet Harris refused to concede that his record should keep him from serving as President Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary.
  4. Appealed the judge’s decision that a man had been wrongly convicted of murder and must be released on the basis that Larsen had filed his paperwork too late — a technicality.
  5. She made California cops where body cameras which was a progressive move- However, she opposed setting up state wide programs to monitor them and instead left it up to individual departments, which was in fairness, is a regressive move.
  6. Supported policy paying prisoners $1.65 a day to fight wild fires.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-general

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05...why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamal...ied-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-for-cheap-labor

Lastly, I'd add that she was absolutely wonderful last night. Which is what I expected. She's a prosecutor after all. I look forward to watching her in future debates.
Click to expand...
I'd take Biden over Harris any day of the week. Harris' DA record is downright scary imo and full of discrepancies to the candidate she claims to be now. Yes Biden is a politician in every bad sense of the word, but Harris is 100% a cop in every bad sense of the word. Both are a no for me, but Harris is the much scarier option imo.
 
wokeupnew said:
My order of preference is probably

Bernie > Warren > Everyone else.

I’d love to see a Warren/Sanders ticket with Bernie as VP. That would be a dream.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to agree with that. If only because Bernie could focus all of his energy on feeding grassroots activism while serving as VP (and the age issue- which is very real- would go away). The only problem is that we'd lose a progressive in Senate.

Same time, if they were to join up sooner than later then we wouldn't be at risk of splitting the progressive vote and that's worth losing a Senate seat over.

Woob_woob said:
I'd take Biden over Harris any day of the week. Harris' DA record is downright scary imo and full of discrepancies to the candidate she claims to be now. Yes Biden is a politician in every bad sense of the word, but Harris is 100% a cop in every bad sense of the word. Both are a no for me, but Harris is the much scarier option imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, can't quite agree with you on Harris. She has been solid as a Senator while not having to really be tested because nothing of progressive value is coming to a vote with Trump in office. And she did some good too as a prosecutor (That Jacobin piece I linked is a really fair and nuanced look at her past). Meanwhile, she has the balls to hold firm on progressive issues even if she may not follow through on all of them.

But I agree that Warren/Sanders are hands down the best options and that it's dead clear that's whom people under 40 support and will turn out for. The problem is that Gen Z is punch drunk in love with Pete, Boomers still think electablity is based in the realities of the 1990's and the African American community associate Biden with Obama instead of his track record.

So I have no idea what will happen.
 
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp said:
Yeah, can't quite agree with you on Harris. She has been solid as a Senator while not having to really be tested because nothing of progressive value is coming to a vote with Trump in office. And she did some good too as a prosecutor (That Jacobin piece I linked is a really fair and nuanced look at her past). Meanwhile, she has the balls to hold firm on progressive issues even if she may not follow through on all of them.
Click to expand...
She defended ICE just last year. She supported a 2008 policy reporting undocumented juveniles arrested by police to ICE, before they had been convicted of crimes. She tried to send parents to jail for their children missing school. Shes argued California couldn't let prisoners go because they needed the labor. She supported sending prisoners to fight wildfires for slave wages. She has supported harsher sentences, larger bail requirements, longer prison terms, more prosecution of petty crimes, greater criminal justice involvement in low-income and minority communities, less due process for people in the system, less transparency, and less accountability for bad cops. Honestly shes really lucky noone dove into her record last night.

You cant hold firm on progressive policy while not following through on them.

Shes firmly in my no category and no amount of taking Biden to task will change that.

Shes a cop and all cops are bastards.
 
Woob_woob said:
She defended ICE just last year. She supported a 2008 policy reporting undocumented juveniles arrested by police to ICE, before they had been convicted of crimes. She tried to send parents to jail for their children missing school. Shes argued California couldn't let prisoners go because they needed the labor. She supported sending prisoners to fight wildfires for slave wages. She has supported harsher sentences, larger bail requirements, longer prison terms, more prosecution of petty crimes, greater criminal justice involvement in low-income and minority communities, less due process for people in the system, less transparency, and less accountability for bad cops. Honestly shes really lucky noone dove into her record last night.

You cant hold firm on progressive policy while not following through on them.

Shes firmly in my no category and no amount of taking Biden to task will change that.

Shes a cop and all cops are bastards.
Click to expand...

1000% fair (other than the *all* cops portion). I ain't trying to change your mind when there are better options. But that list still don't touch Joe on the "I helped fuck this country up and now I want more power" scale.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
In 2010, Harris pushed a heavy-handed truancy initiative that went into effect in 2011. This anti-truancy bill—SB 1317—made it so that parents of truant children who miss more than 10 percent of their classes can be charged with a misdemeanor and given a $2,000 fine or a year in prison “if, after being offered state support and counseling, their kids still fail to improve their attendance.”
Click to expand...

As a person who works in education in CA and involved in interventions regarding truancy my experiences with truancy law is that it is extremely lenient. We have given the parents many chances and the DA doesn’t get involved till very late in the game till anything punitive is even on the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top