It's 2019 and the top 2 Democratic candidates are white men

Airyaman said:

Are they victims? That's the word you used.

Click to expand...

That's right... semantics is always a good way to avoid the ol' "hypocrite" trap.

WillyPete said:

Well, in hindsight I think it's clear the GOP should never have allowed Trump into the running. It's not like they were obliged to, and there were plenty of arguments against. I certainly hope he was a genuine anomaly.

I might be wrong. I only know personally I couldn't support an "exciting candidate" just because they were exciting. I don't think fighting crazy with different crazy is a winning strategy for the nation.

If the goal is to change the hysterical tone of the national conversation, the first step is to stop shouting over the competition, and start talking them off the ledge. Approach topics using a basic troubleshooting model most people can understand. Support common sense policy with an eye for the greater good.

I don't see much of that in the political stage today. I see a lot of hysterical shrieking and stunned silence on both sides.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that it was a mistake for the country and the goal should be to change the tone of the national conversation, and I hope the next administration does so. But if the Democratic Party prefers to win at all costs, then the crazy "street fighter" candidate might (sadly) be the right choice for the party. I was never going to vote for Trump, but how can you argue that running him was a mistake for the GOP? He beat all of the other nominees, and beat the democratic candidate. I think the GOP's only goal was to win, and they were successful. Maybe they learned a hard lesson, but maybe they didn't. I would be surprised if the Democrats' goal in 2020 is different. While I would rather they not make the same mistake for the country as the GOP did in 2016, they might not view it as a mistake for the party.

If they do run someone as crazy as Trump and he or she ends up getting the nomination, I wonder how many Democrats would bite the bullet and vote the party line for the lesser of two evils? Republicans certainly did so in 2016.

lwf said:

I agree with you that it was a mistake for the country and the goal should be to change the tone of the national conversation, and I hope the next administration does so. But if the Democratic Party prefers to win at all costs, then the crazy "street fighter" candidate might (sadly) be the right choice for the party.

Click to expand...

For the party, sure but not for the nation. That widening gap is the biggest challenge we're up against, I think.

I was never going to vote for Trump, but how can you argue that running him was a mistake for the GOP? He beat all of the other nominees, and beat the democratic candidate. I think the GOP's only goal was to win, and they were successful. Maybe they learned a hard lesson, but maybe they didn't. I would be surprised if the Democrats' goal in 2020 is different. While I would rather they not make the same mistake for the country as the GOP did in 2016, they might not view it as a mistake for the party.

Click to expand...

You're right but if that's their only purpose, then we're just failing as a nation. I'd hope there are still people in both parties that want to do well for the nation. If not things are way too far gone, and none of this matters.

If they do run someone as crazy as Trump and he or she ends up getting the nomination, I wonder how many Democrats would bite the bullet and vote the party line for the lesser of two evils? Republicans certainly did so in 2016.

Click to expand...

No doubt they would, and we'd all lose, just like we did in 2016.

AtlantaAdonis said:

I'm completely embarrassed for my party. We have a chance to show to women, minorities, and LGBTQI+ individuals that we are the party of inclusion and diversity and the two front runners are Joe "Smell her Hair" Biden and old coot Bernie Sanders.

All the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" who are more concerned about "social justice warriors" than literal nazis make me completely sick. Just vote Republicans in the primaries, please.

Rant over.

Click to expand...

Front runners a year out means jack ****.

SonOfDaedalus said:

I don't think you realize that you're taking a racist position. We should vote for the best candidate regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. That fact that Democrats have such a diverse set of candidates is a sign of progress. And it's very early in the race. Biden and Sanders have far more name recognition than the rest of the field.

Let's vote for the best candidate.

Click to expand...

Have you got one? So far nothing like that has popped up.

Nap said:

You have to understand, to be more inclusive you must exclude straight white males.

Click to expand...

That ain't gonna happen. All the oxygen is sucked out by the progressive fringe. Biden and Bernie are the leaders because there are still some sane D's.

Grim17 said:

That's right... semantics is always a good way to avoid the ol' "hypocrite" trap.

Click to expand...

No.

If someone does something to me that makes me uncomfortable, I don't consider myself a victim. I just feel uncomfortable.

So there is a huge difference. You called them victims. They did not call themselves victims.

AtlantaAdonis said:

I'm completely embarrassed for my party. We have a chance to show to women, minorities, and LGBTQI+ individuals that we are the party of inclusion and diversity and the two front runners are Joe "Smell her Hair" Biden and old coot Bernie Sanders.

All the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" who are more concerned about "social justice warriors" than literal nazis make me completely sick. Just vote Republicans in the primaries, please.

Rant over.

Click to expand...

I'm going with Pete B than you.

And no one here cares what you think.

Deuce said:

All of the criticism of Biden is coming from liberals.

Click to expand...

Well, the gotta do something to scuttle the campaign. He's the only one they have that this conservative would even consider voting for...

Nap said:

I'm actually for the UBI as a replacement for the broken welfare system, but not as an addition to it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's Yang's position. You can get 1,000 bucks no strings attached, or you can get traditional welfare programs which come with stipulations. This brings the cost way down from what napkin math would suggest, especially since people who chose to go with the freedom dividend would be cutting bureaucratic bloat.

Grim17 said:

Joe Biden? What's he doing still running?

I thought that democrats and their progressive supporters made it quite clear during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings that all victims were to be believed?

That being the case, how come democrats haven't demanded he drop out, and where are all those angry women protesters from the #metoo movement voicing their anger over this?

Click to expand...

Biden is in a weird place.

His accuser(s?) Say they were uncomfortable but that they didn't feel it was sexual.

Innappropriate but not predatory.

So he doesn't exactly fit the #metoo "profile".

But they're a "no prisoners" kind of group. So he may go down eventually.

And if they keep it up we might go extinct.

KAG2020 said:

Sorry Lefties, Trump will win in 2020.
The people hate your socialism, infanticide, and Russia hoax.

Click to expand...

Well, the whole things broke and ain't worth fixing.

So lets just get it over with.

Trump told you he was for the working man and has just handed more to the same rich folk the republicans always do. And of course he is one of those rich people he helped so much.

But you keep listening to what you are told he meant and anything that looks shady AF is just eight dimensional chess or whatever the number is now.

I'm ready for something REALLY new.

Master Debator said:

Yes economic power would allow smaller, poorer communities to resist unwanted and harmful policies. Yes the federal government should be limited. Im still however unclear to what form of government you're advocating and what it would look like. The Amish and their communities exist currently inside America so it does seem that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

It just means that you have to find a way to redistribute wealth without increasing centralized government power. The big problem with the welfare state is that it got so tied up in centralization that it created a system with a perverse incentives, and also developed a bloated bureaucrat class which then needed to justify its existence. Someone on welfare today gets economically taken out of the kneecaps when they try to escape poverty. A program like UBI has very little need for bureaucrats because it isn't means-tested. It's also universal, so people are incentivized to maximize their income with no worries of losing benefits.

The Amish exist, but they exist because they're 'grandfathered in' and rely on a lot of legal exemptions for religious regions, probably the largest (and most shocking to outsiders) is that they're one of the few groups which doesn't have to pay in to social security. They're also exempted from a lot of medical regulations as well. If your normal community tried to become 'more Amish-like' in the modern day they would likely be slapped down. Hell, a judge just ruled that a charter school (which is entirely option to sign one's children up to) wasn't allowed to have a dress code which forced girls to wear skirts. If you are just a normal American community, you are forced into participating in this larger modern society. Think about it, every time a community becomes Amish, all those friendly corporations get cut out of that market. We can't be having that, so they sic their pet politicians and bureaucrats on anyone who looks like they're trying to sneak out of our wonderful consumer markets.

$1000 said:

Yeah, that's Yang's position. You can get 1,000 bucks no strings attached, or you can get traditional welfare programs which come with stipulations. This brings the cost way down from what napkin math would suggest, especially since people who chose to go with the freedom dividend would be cutting bureaucratic bloat.

Click to expand...

Good luck to him then as drastic welfare reform is much needed and in my opinion that would lead to far better outcomes than our current system.

AtlantaAdonis said:

I'm completely embarrassed for my party. We have a chance to show to women, minorities, and LGBTQI+ individuals that we are the party of inclusion and diversity and the two front runners are Joe "Smell her Hair" Biden and old coot Bernie Sanders.

All the so-called "liberals" and "progressives" who are more concerned about "social justice warriors" than literal nazis make me completely sick. Just vote Republicans in the primaries, please.

Rant over.

Click to expand...

It's still early, there's plenty of time yet. There's going to be a couple more that will get into the race before the first debate in June. I watch interviews with the candidates whenever I catch them on TV and I have watched a couple with Pete Buttegieg and have to say that I'm really impressed with this young man. He almost seems too good to be true. He's not forced, his answers are immediate and well thought out. Gen X voters are really excited about him because he represents them, not some old guys with the same old ideas that old guys have had for decades.

There's one other, that may be getting into the race and that's the congressman from Colorado, Michael Bennet. He was just diagnosed with prostate cancer and he's thankful the good health insurance that he as a congressman is given. Prognosis for early detection of prostate cancer is very good so hopefully it will work out for him. But I like the guy, he's genuine. He was on TV earlier saying he had no symptoms at all and tells people to get an annual physical to catch these things early. I like him because he gave a very angry speech castigating Ted Cruz on the Senate floor during the shutdown.

$1000 said:

Yeah, that's Yang's position. You can get 1,000 bucks no strings attached, or you can get traditional welfare programs which come with stipulations. This brings the cost way down from what napkin math would suggest, especially since people who chose to go with the freedom dividend would be cutting bureaucratic bloat.

Click to expand...

FYI, Just heard Yang will be on the Ben Shapiro Sunday Special this weekend. Should be an interesting conversation.