2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would take the people scolding third party voters a lot more seriously if they spent primary season campaigning for the left most candidate. But they dont. Its not about defeating trump, it's about preserving centrist control.
 
Red Dreams said:
He is. True.

But what positives does a candidate like Biden bring?

Do his 'policies' if you can call them that do not help anyone but entrench the power of his masters, the corporations. They grow stronger.
His statement of working with Republicans is nothing but willing to play ball with them.
They are criminals who have enabled Trump.
Where is the accountability?
Click to expand...
1. You'd not have a Russian supported megalomaniac for president.
2. Dreamers would be safe.
3. Judicial positions can be filled with liberal judges.
4. Get back into Paris Agreement.
5. Have a more productive presidency than Trump in every single way...

To start with....
 
fishfingers15 said:
I stand with you in every word you posted. I also laugh at Red Dreams with his 'Vote for Bernie' and then without any shame saying 'America has a right to police the world'. I just don't agree that after the primaries are done, you have the freedom to laugh away your vote on a joke candidate because you can't stomach the centrist candidate, only because the monster you elect, whether it's Trump or Dubya or any other Republican is so much worse.
Click to expand...

I think hes worse domestically. I think shes worse internationally.
 
Clinton would have had America in Iran by this point. At least Trump is distracted with his ego-toys like the wall. Elect someone who will make a positive difference, not maintain the rigged system.
 
I think centrists actually believe a Bernie presidency will erode their wealth/jobs/status....whatever.
They have fully bought into the media's (both Conservative and liberal) mantra "How do you pay for it".

They look at Bernie's policies as expenses..not as investments.
Every one of his policies are investments.

Health care
Education
Social security
 
Eboue said:
I think hes worse domestically. I think shes worse internationally.
Click to expand...

I was not born in the US of A. Apart from you and few other fringe posters, I haven't seen one American laughing at the spiel of 'everything this country stands for'. They probably strongly shake their heads admiringly when Jim acosta was quoting 'give me your poor and needy' bullshit to Trump conveniently forgetting the slave trade. I don't think you should worry about international problems too much when most of your own lefties believe in American exceptionalism.
 
Red Dreams said:
Is Harris any better?

She stands for nothing because tomorrow she disowns what she said today.
Click to expand...
A brown paper bag with Democrat written on it is a better option than Trump right now so yes Harris will do. You have to remember than the majority of Dem voters will have their say on who goes through to the nomination. It’s the way democracy works. Use it while you’ve still got it and accept the majority vote. Work in the future to improve the candidates. More and more progressives are coming through and will be leaders in the future.
 
Red Defence said:
A brown paper bag with Democrat written on it is a better option than Trump right now so yes Harris will do. You have to remember than the majority of Dem voters will have their say on who goes through to the nomination. It’s the way democracy works. Use it while you’ve still got it and accept the majority vote. Work in the future to improve the candidates. More and more progressives are coming through and will be leaders in the future.
Click to expand...

Tomorrow never comes mate.
 
fishfingers15 said:
I was not born in the US of A. Apart from you and few other fringe posters, I haven't seen one American laughing at the spiel of 'everything this country stands for'. They probably strongly shake their heads admiringly when Jim acosta was quoting 'give me your poor and needy' bullshit to Trump conveniently forgetting the slave trade. I don't think you should worry about international problems too much when most of your own lefties believe in American exceptionalism.
Click to expand...

If you want to argue with red dreams, feel free to quote him.
 
Sweet Square said:
Worth saying that a vote for Clinton in 2016 wasn't just for the next 4 but really the next 8 years . Had Clinton won she was never going to be primaried

Still unless Sanders win this race and becomes the president of the united states then yes voting third party/not voting was a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Most people that make up the difference in voter turnout from 2008 to 2016 are not active "protest voters". They aren't people actively thinking I want to protest against the DNC like Onenil who votes in California. Its more like the Democrats keep nominating candidates that fail to inspire many in the lower 40% communities in those states to go out and vote in the first place hence the low turnout. These aren't people with insurance through their jobs that have time to watch MSNBC and follow Rachel Maddow on Twitter. These are people hustling everyday to simple meet rent and food and avoid having to move into a motor home.

Ok that's it for me today.
 
Eboue said:
But they dont. Its not about defeating trump, it's about preserving centrist control.
Click to expand...

Probably the root-cause for all the arguments in this thread. People should be free to vote Bernie or whoever they feel in the primaries...but if a liberal candidate does not get the nomination, the secondary objective should be to kick Trump off. Not voting for protest voting in GE doesn't really help anyone other than Trump.
 
Red Defence said:
Of course it does. We had segregation up until 60 years ago. Slavery up until 160 years ago. Things have changed but change takes time and effort.
Click to expand...

Slavery ended with a Civil war. it was not gradual. many died to make that change.

Segregation/ Voting Rights Act came with a lot of pain too.
JFK supported MLK and others.

It starts from the top.
 
Sweet Square said:
Worth saying that a vote for Clinton in 2016 wasn't just for the next 4 but really the next 8 years . Had Clinton won she was never going to be primaried

Still unless Sanders win this race and becomes the president of the united states then yes voting third party/not voting was a bad idea.
Click to expand...

So the people got screwed over from 2016-2020 are collateral damage for the Sanders presidency that may or may not happen in 2020. Gotcha.
 
Eboue said:
I think we would be in worse shape with Venezuela and North Korea and possibly Iran if she was president.
Click to expand...

Fair point, I can't say with any certainty that USA won't be, so I will defer to your judgement as you are more clued up than me.

Eboue said:
Your way has collateral damage too. The only way forward is mass movements.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Level playing field is a dream that is only achieved by a bloody revolution
 
Red Dreams said:
Slavery ended with a Civil war. it was not gradual. many died to make that change.

Segregation/ Voting Rights Act came with a lot of pain too.
JFK supported MLK and others.

It starts from the top.
Click to expand...
Well look on the positive side then. It can happen. No, it wasn’t easy then and it won’t be easy in the future, but it will happen. There are enough Dems running for President now to find a decent one and the majority will decide who that is going to be. If they don’t win the Presidency this time then maybe it will take a civil war to force change, but it’s not a wise path to take although it may be an inevitable path.

It’s up to the voters which path they choose to take..
 
Eboue said:
My one vote is being focused on though. If I had voted for Clinton the result would have stayed the same but all the people on here scolding me for not voting for that war criminal would have to actually think about my points instead of just dismissing them.
Click to expand...

Well the people here can't talk to millions of people, they can talk to you though.
 
No one can deny that Clinton isn’t hawkish, but there’s little evidence that she’s ideological to the point of committing into a long drawn out war like Bush/Cheney. The most likely scenario would be an impasse with NK similar to under Obama, continuation of the signed Iran nuclear deal and a good deal of subterfuge, drone strikes and covert ops in the ME/East Africa, and a backed coup with NATO support in Venezuela.

The only way it’d be worse is if she Libya’d Venezuela, but it’s not like the Cheeto-in-Chief wasn’t trying either, just too incompetent to pull it off.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
No one can deny that Clinton isn’t hawkish, but there’s little evidence that she’s ideological to the point of committing into a long drawn out war like Bush/Cheney. The most likely scenario would be an impasse with NK similar to under Obama, continuation of the signed Iran nuclear deal and a good deal of subterfuge, drone strikes and covert ops in the ME/East Africa, and a backed coup with NATO support in Venezuela.

The only way it’d be worse is if she Libya’d Venezuela, but it’s not like the Cheeto-in-Chief wasn’t trying either, just too incompetent to pull it off.
Click to expand...

Lazy and incompetent and bored with foreign intervention, in a way she'd never be (for better and worse).
 
berbatrick said:
Lazy and incompetent and bored with foreign intervention, in a way she'd never be (for better and worse).
Click to expand...
Well John Bolton isn’t.

It’s a turd and shit sandwich, you can either have a very interested for the wrong reason President Clinton, or a disinterested President Trump who outsourced his duty to the neocons, despite his primaries protestations.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Well John Bolton isn’t.

It’s a turd and shit sandwich, you can either have a very interested for the wrong reason President Clinton, or a disinterested President Trump who outsourced his duty to the neocons, despite his primaries protestations.
Click to expand...

at least based on reports, the pattern seems to be - bolton and he decide to fous on some country, bolton ratchets up the tension and trump does the same on twitter, the other country fights back rhetorically, nothing on the ground changes, and then trump gets bored or fed-up or angry with bolton.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
That's an opinion not a fact. Trump + AOC is ultimately better than a HRC with no AOC Presidency because the only chance for America is if the Democrats are a party that represents the people not corporate elite interests. At least with Trump there is an opposition. An HRC or Biden working across the isle with Mitch McConnell sets America back a generation rather than just a Presidency of 4 years.
Click to expand...


This is actually exactly what I was getting at when I said it was probably better for America to have trump voted in over Hillary. Didn't realise it would spark all of this discussion!

With Trump in a lot more people are engaged in politics, the frailty of American politics have come up big and bold, the progressive movement has become even more dominant in the democratic party, medicare for all is now basically a mainstream idea among so many other things.

Having HRC in would mean no dem primary for another 8 years, all of these ideas coming out from Warren and Bernie and the other "progressives " would have had to have waited for 8 years of centrism or 4 years of centrism and then a loss of the presidency to some other Conservative.

This was the point I was getting at. I wasn't trying to downplay the hurt that minorities are facing under trump (they probably still would have been hurting almost as much under Hillary we just wouldn't know about it because trump does his ill deeds on public with a megaphone)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.