• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro-Bernie group to boost Joe

He wont the two philosophies don't really have that much in common. What they do have in common, along with a whole lot of Independents, is knowledge that trump has got to go.

Actually Biden is moving closer to Sanders in a lot of his positions. As a Biden supporter that should concern you. Or not. Nice that you speak for all independents who are all of identical thought.
 
Actually Biden is moving closer to Sanders in a lot of his positions. As a Biden supporter that should concern you. Or not. Nice that you speak for all independents who are all of identical thought.

Nope, the Biden group will give a little to the Bernie group down the road but they are no where alike. Not actually a Biden supporter, though he is the better choice, more of trump opponent. Never said I did, but I know a lot of Real Independent voters, all would be considered Moderates, and none of them support trump, and really cannot see any Moderate or Left Leaning Indes supporting trump.
 
Nope, the Biden group will give a little to the Bernie group down the road but they are no where alike. Not actually a Biden supporter, though he is the better choice, more of trump opponent. Never said I did, but I know a lot of Real Independent voters, all would be considered Moderates, and none of them support trump, and really cannot see any Moderate or Left Leaning Indes supporting trump.

I was being sarcastic about you speaking for all independents. You only speak for the ones you know. And not even them. The truth is you only speak for yourself, like everyone else.

Biden has definitely been moving to the left and opening up to Sanders since he became the presumptive Dem candidate:

Biden’s silence on the riots, arson, vandalism, and statue destruction signals approval, which isn’t what mainstream Democrats, such as are left, likely expect from their presidential candidate.

Biden promised to pick a woman for his running mate, but that wasn’t enough. The party’s hard left wing demands a black woman, and last week he said he was considering four possible candidates. One name that surfaced was Karen Bass, who represents California’s 37th district in Congress.

The problem? In the past, Bass was a full-throated apologist for communist mass-murderer Fidel Castro and spent time in Cuba with the Venceremos Brigade, a front for Cuban intelligence.

Another problem for Biden might be his snuggling up to socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, another apologist for communist mass murderers, and Biden has even proposed ending American suburbs as we know them and forcing high-density housing for the poor into neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes.

“Biden’s plan is to force suburban towns with single-family homes and minimum lot sizes to build high-density affordable housing smack in the middle of their leafy neighborhoods — local preferences and local control be damned,” Betsy McCaughey reported in the New York Post.

Biden, McCaughey reported, will likely expand an Obama-era program that forced towns “to make it possible for low-income minorities to choose suburban living” and provide “adequate support to make their choices possible.”

Had the rule been implemented nationwide, towns everywhere would have had to scrap zoning, build bigger water and sewer lines to support high-density living, expand schools and social services and add mass transit. All pushing up local taxes. Towns that refused would lose their federal aid....

Biden and the equality warriors are using accusations of racism to accomplish something different. Their message is: You worked and saved to move to the suburbs, but you can’t have that way of life unless everyone else can, too....

Count on Trump to make Biden’s war on the suburbs a key issue in the election. In his Rose Garden news conference [on July 16], the president came out swinging, warning that Biden would “totally destroy the beautiful suburbs” by “placing far-left Washington bureaucrats in charge of local zoning.”

Biden’s Lead in Polls Narrows, Move to Hard Left Won’t Bode Well in November

and

The Biden-Sanders "Unity Task Forces" unveiled Wednesday an extensive list of policy recommendations crafted by advisors and allies of Biden - the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee - and Sanders, who was the final remaining challenger before endorsing the former vice president in April.

Those recommendations proposed by the economy-focused Unity Task Force included the creation of a vast new public banking infrastructure intended to expand access to basic financial services without the use of private-sector companies.

"Democrats will support and encourage Congressional efforts to guarantee affordable, transparent, trustworthy banking services for low- and middle-income families, including bank accounts and real-time payment systems through the Federal Reserve and easily accessible service locations, including postal banking," the task force wrote.

The recommendations call for using the Federal Reserve system to provide every American with "an affordable bank account" and payment services, and allow access to banking services at U.S. post offices. While the Fed is currently developing its own payment system, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell in June panned the creation of personal Fed accounts as a "dramatic change" that could undermine U.S. banks.

Progressive Democrats and advocates have also long supported offering basic banking services through the USPS as it did in the beginning of the 20th Century.

Biden-Sanders unity task force calls for Fed, US Postal Service consumer banking

Of course you don't hear much about this. Doesn't help the Democrats and most journalists are totally in the tank for the Dems.
 
I will be this year and did in 2018, the rest of the time I voted on each candidate Individually and same with the issues. The Dems have their issues also and a few of them are nonstarters for me.

I think people who are newer to politics, tend to 'vote for the person' more.

I think that is naive and misguided, as well-intended as it is.

It comes down to "retail politics", that parties actually do stand for things they may not be up front about, and the politicians tend to do what I call 'sing and dance' for votes - to do whatever they can to get vote. Look folksy, look sincere, look patriotic, pander, kiss babies, have a great smile, anything, and most of what most politicians do is irrelevant to whether they are a good choice.

Ultimately what really does matter most, like 80% to 90% perhaps, is simply the vote count for each party - in other words, as repulsive as it might sound, voting for party and not person is almost the whole issue. Which party has control. It's very rare for the 'person' to matter more than the party in who will be best. Newer people think that sounds 'extremely partisan'; if they get more informed they understand it's right.

That's different than people who don't really fit a party, which seems rare to me, since parties have picked sides on almost everything. You didn't mention what issues some dems have, so I can't comment. Of course some Democrats are terrible, and perhaps so much so you couldn't feel right voting for them, and it's bad if the party (or primary voters) put you in that position.
 
I think people who are newer to politics, tend to 'vote for the person' more.

I think that is naive and misguided, as well-intended as it is.

It comes down to "retail politics", that parties actually do stand for things they may not be up front about, and the politicians tend to do what I call 'sing and dance' for votes - to do whatever they can to get vote. Look folksy, look sincere, look patriotic, pander, kiss babies, have a great smile, anything, and most of what most politicians do is irrelevant to whether they are a good choice.

Ultimately what really does matter most, like 80% to 90% perhaps, is simply the vote count for each party - in other words, as repulsive as it might sound, voting for party and not person is almost the whole issue. Which party has control. It's very rare for the 'person' to matter more than the party in who will be best. Newer people think that sounds 'extremely partisan'; if they get more informed they understand it's right.

That's different than people who don't really fit a party, which seems rare to me, since parties have picked sides on almost everything. You didn't mention what issues some dems have, so I can't comment. Of course some Democrats are terrible, and perhaps so much so you couldn't feel right voting for them, and it's bad if the party (or primary voters) put you in that position.
Because neither Party has all the answers it is just that the Dems are the far better choice at this time.

Issues with the Dems; defense spending cuts not done rationally, the desire of the Dems to disarm legal gun owners, nonsense like reparations', and paying for everyone's college education, or a monthly salary just for being an American, to name a couple.
 
Wait a second. I have a very low opinion of Nixon, but he won re-election by 49 states. What forced him out wasn't dislike, but evidence of crimes and a Congress that actually would impeach and convict. The dislike came after.
Not really. I get what you're saying, as Nixon had decent support until near the very end, when it drooped like a stone after the release of the tapes. But those crimes were part of Nixon & his Presidency, so I don't see how you can pull them out of the equation. IIRC, he left office at 26% approval.
 
Not really. I get what you're saying, as Nixon had decent support until near the very end, when it drooped like a stone after the release of the tapes. But those crimes were part of Nixon & his Presidency, so I don't see how you can pull them out of the equation. IIRC, he left office at 26% approval.

Well, the statement was that 'dislike of Nixon is what forced him out of office'. My reply was that he was re-elected by 49 states, as for 'forcing him out for dislike'. It was the fact that his crimes were then exposed that forced his resignation, and it was the crimes being exposed that led to the dislike - but the resignation came from the crimes leading to impeachment, not the low ratings. He had planned to stay in office, until the impeachment.
 
Well, the statement was that 'dislike of Nixon is what forced him out of office'. My reply was that he was re-elected by 49 states, as for 'forcing him out for dislike'. It was the fact that his crimes were then exposed that forced his resignation, and it was the crimes being exposed that led to the dislike - but the resignation came from the crimes leading to impeachment, not the low ratings. He had planned to stay in office, until the impeachment.
I won't quibble, beyond saying I was referring to the public turning against him to the point of his facing what appeared to be a successful impeachment & removal. I might have been clearer when I stated, " ... forced Nixon out preemptively".

I was referring to the People (via the Senate & House) forcing him out facing impeachment/removal.
 
I won't quibble, beyond saying I was referring to the public turning against him to the point of his facing what appeared to be a successful impeachment & removal. I might have been clearer when I stated, " ... forced Nixon out preemptively".

I was referring to the People (via the Senate & House) forcing him out facing impeachment/removal.

I understand.

I think my point was that public sentiment didn't really have the power to force him out; it was the law, his crimes, and impeachment that did.
 
Back
Top Bottom