All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Robotman]

The “in fighting” is pretty normal for a presidential debate. I think it is kinda necessary considering the opposition. One of the big qualities the democratic candidate is going need is toughness and the ability to stand up to the bully Trump. Biden looked weak and his performance raised a lot of concerns about whether he could take on Trump in a campaign/debate. I think so many people are praising Kamala because she proved that she can cut through the bullshit and make a strong case (obviously her time as a prosecutor is paying off here).

[aja_christopher]

Biden looked weak and his performance raised a lot of concerns about whether he could take on Trump in a campaign/debate. I think so many people are praising Kamala because she proved that she can cut through the bullshit and make a strong case (obviously her time as a prosecutor is paying off here).

There was no real way for Biden to win that argument -- he wasn't being weak so much as he just couldn't deal with the issue of racism in America directly ("busing" and racist segregation) on a national stage in a "debate" the same way many other white Americans won't address it directly either.

It was fair game, politically, but it was a no-win situation for Biden.



Short of telling the truth about institutionalized racism in America, which probably would lose him the election.

With that in mind, none of these candidates are perfect but I'd be fine with any one of them as president.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You've said that repeatedly but the bottom line is that your chosen candidate has yet to win the popular vote in the primaries much less the general election while "moderates" (like Clinton and Obama) are the ones who the people continue to vote for when presented with the choice between "progressives" and "moderates" even on the "left", and those are likewise the candidates who pass (or attempt to pass) "progressive" legislation once in power.

And while I'm not going to sit here and waste time arguing with you about the objectively reality where "progressives" are not the mainstream choice of the vast majority of American voters, I will point out that while you sit here fighting over who is the most "progressive" you are ignoring the fact that other voters (like myself) have a completely different view on "moderate" politics and will vote accordingly.

You likewise want to ignore the African-American vote when it suits your "progressive" interests and act as if it's "your way or the highway" when it comes to voting -- you're more than welcome to shoot yourself in the foot in that respect, but don't expect everyone else to agree with you, especially when it comes to choosing a candidate (like Sanders) to represent the Democratic party in the general election.

Keep arguing here all you want -- it won't have any real political validity until the "progressives" you keep promoting actually win nationwide elections.

False premise. Obama ran to the left in 08 even if he really was a moderate. Hillary lost to a Right wing joke and in the primary a bunch of red states built a firewall for her. If you want the strategy of catering to a bunch of voters who bring you no value towards winning, well you can die on that hill.

I don’t think you know what objective means. Why don’t you look at polls on progressive positions . It’s a waste of my time arguing with your opinion when there are metrics behind mine. Nobody really should worry about where you will vote. You’re among the most hard D Democrats here. As is most of the moderate wing. That bloc doesn’t add anything the Democrats won’t get to turn out anyways. You know who brings the young voters who don’t care and the independents? Yeah duh

I don’t ignore the African American vote. You don’t like Sanders so you do your little false gate keeping thing where you claim a guy who has been involved in the actual Civil Rights movement at its height isn’t good enough on those issues for “reasons”. Is there any doubt he’s a million degrees better on it than Trump ot any Republican? No not really. Do you have any reason to think he is harmful to African Americans? Again I’d love to see the real case instead of vague mentions you throw out every once in awhile

Meanwhile the moderate choice is Biden and he’s going around talking about how much he loves working with racists, has one of the worst records when it comes to African American issues and pulls the “I have a black friend” card whenever he can. Compelling case for your moderate viewpoint. Again reality isn’t particularly kind to it.

I can argue as much as I want, I’m sure you’ll claim you don’t want to and then you’ll magically show up again. Anyways I’m already validated by how far left the entire field is running. Biden is the only actual contender who hasn’t been swung further left largely because of the popularity of progressive candidates and platforms, and he just got eviscerated. Other harder moderates like Beto, Delaney, Hickenlooper, etc have been rendered non factors. Maybe watch what’s actually happening. The one real moderate threat is Biden and he’s flailing. The other maybe one is Booker and he’s been chasing the left since Trump got elected.

[aja_christopher]

I don’t ignore the African American vote. You don’t like Sanders so you do your little false gate keeping thing where you claim a guy who has been involved in the actual Civil Rights movement at its height isn’t good enough on those issues for “reasons”.

You keep claiming I don't like Sanders when there's nothing I've said that proves otherwise -- in fact I support many of his policies even if I don't think (based on both past history and objective data) that the majority of Americans will vote for them, especially if it means higher taxes.

You can dodge that truth all you want but it doesn't change the facts behind what I'm saying: I'll believe people really support "progressives" and progressive policies when I see the votes behind them on a national level, both in midterms and presidential elections, and I say that as someone who preferred "progressives" like Kucinich to Obama but had no problem supporting Obama in the general election.

Until then, you're just arguing with a strawman because I've never once said I dislike Sanders -- I just don't blind myself to the weaknesses of "progressive politics" or the merits of other more "moderate" candidates in the process.

As many others have pointed out, it's Sanders supporters that tend to be the problem -- they seem to want to "fight" other Democrats more than Republicans.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You keep claiming I don't like Sanders when there's nothing I've said that proves otherwise -- in fact I support many of his policies even if I don't think the majority of Americans will vote for them.

You can dodge that truth all you want but it doesn't change the facts behind what I'm saying -- I'll believe people support "progressives" when I see the votes behind them on a national level.

Could you provide said facts then lol. Because we can just show the polls on higher taxes for the rich, Medicare for all, free higher education etc.

[aja_christopher]

Could you provide said facts then lol. Because we can just show the polls on higher taxes for the rich, Medicare for all, free higher education etc.

The facts are that moderate candidates like Clinton and Obama are the ones who generally win elections (and re-elections) for the Democratic party and pass "progressive" legislation, while on the other hand, candidates like Sanders can't even win the national primary.

You can post all the "polls" you want to but until people go out and actually vote those candidates and ideals into Congress and the Presidency, then they are basically irrelevant with regards to actual results.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The facts are that moderate candidates like Clinton and Obama are the ones who generally win elections (and re-elections) for the Democratic party and pass "progressive" legislation, while on the other hand, candidates like Sanders can't even win the national primary.

You can post all the "polls" you want to but until people go out and actually vote those candidates and ideals into Congress and the Presidency, then they are basically irrelevant with regards to actual results.

Again Obama didn’t run as a moderate. Clinton lost. She had the whole party but one guy people considered fringe clear out for her. She ended up having more of a race than she expected and that fringe guy ended up reshaping the party. Then she lost the general to a guy everyone thought was a freak show

[aja_christopher]

Again Obama didn’t run as a moderate. Clinton lost. She had the whole party but one guy people considered fringe clear out for her. She ended up having more of a race than she expected and that fringe guy ended up reshaping the party. Then she lost the general to a guy everyone thought was a freak show

Obama literally praised Reagan and corporations and talked about a "purple America" while he was running for president.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...merica/252923/

And you're still proving everyone right about Sanders supporters by constantly bashing Clinton (and other Democrats) in service to your own candidate.

It's likewise fair to argue that if Clinton hadn't tried to "veer left" and become more "progressive" (losing "moderates" in the process) then she might have won the election -- that's not something that I necessarily want to believe so much as I can't discount the truth behind it given American voting habits.

There's probably an argument to be made that the next generation of voters will be much more progressive as a whole, but until they show up at the voting booth and put their candidates at the forefront, it makes more sense to play the ball where it lies.

[Lord Falcon]

Luis Alvarez fought for 9/11 first responders who became sick. He has died at 53.

I'm glad major healthcare reform continues to be a driving force behind the Democrat party even after Obamacare passed.

[aja_christopher]

"Trump Says He Won't Take Climate Action Because It Would Threaten Corporate Profits"

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is at a record high, Europe is in the midst of a hellish heat wave, and extreme weather is ravaging large swaths of the globe, but President Donald Trump dismissed the need for climate action during the G20 summit in Japan on Saturday and falsely claimed that air and water in the U.S. are the "cleanest" they have ever been.

Trump told reporters during a press conference Saturday morning that he is not ignoring the threat of the climate crisis, but he doesn't want to take action to confront the emergency because such a move would threaten corporate profits.

"So we have the best numbers that we've ever had recently," Trump said. "I'm not looking to put our companies out of business."

"I'm not looking to create a standard that is so high that we're going to lose 20-25 percent of our production. I'm not willing to do that," Trump continued. "We have the cleanest water we've ever had, we have the cleanest air—you saw the reports come out recently. We have the cleanest air we've ever had. But I'm not willing to sacrifice the tremendous power of what we've built up over a long period of time, and what I've enhanced and revived."

As the Associated Press reported after Trump claimed earlier this month that the U.S. is "setting records environmentally" with its air and water quality, the "U.S. does not have the cleanest air, and it hasn't gotten better under the Trump administration."

"The U.S. ranks poorly on smog pollution, which kills 24,000 Americans per year," according to AP. "On a scale from the cleanest to the dirtiest, the U.S. is at 123 out of 195 countries measured."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...would-threaten

[Robotman]

Running as a moderate, while I don’t agree with the platform, is actually a sound strategy given the nature of the electoral college. They’re basically running for president of the swing states. I live in California. My vote doesn’t really matter as much as a person who lives in Ohio. Biden is running for president of the Rust Belt. He’s not that concerned with the opinions of the coastal states because they’re gonna vote blue.

[Iron Maiden]

I live in Indiana and our primaries are so late in the season, that they've become irrelevant in deciding who the Democratic nominee will be. But I also vote for whoever it is and won't stay home, even if it is Marianne Williamson.

[aja_christopher]

I live in Indiana and our primaries are so late in the season, that they've become irrelevant in deciding who the Democratic nominee will be. But I also vote for whoever it is and won't stay home, even if it is Marianne Williamson.

I want her to win something if only so I can hear her speeches more often.

It's not her fault people aren't ready to harness love yet -- the Boomers talked a good game but never followed through.

[Tami]

Trump Consultant Is Trolling Democrats With Biden Site That Isn’t Biden’s

AUSTIN, Tex. — For much of the last three months, the most popular Joseph R. Biden Jr. website has been a slick little piece of disinformation that is designed to look like the former vice president’s official campaign page, yet is most definitely not pro-Biden.

From top to bottom, the website, JoeBiden.info, breezily mocks the candidate in terms that would warm the heart of any Bernie Sanders supporter: There are GIFs of Mr. Biden touching women and girls, and blurbs about his less-than-liberal policy positions, including his opposition to court-ordered busing in the 1970s and his support for the Iraq war. Pull quotes highlight some of his more famous verbal gaffes, like his description of his future boss, Barack Obama, as “articulate and bright and clean.” The introductory text declares, “Uncle Joe is back and ready to take a hands-on approach to America’s problems!”

All the site says about its creator is buried in the fine print at the bottom of the page. The site, it says, is a political parody built and paid for “BY AN American citizen FOR American citizens,” and not the work of any campaign or political action committee.

There is indeed an American behind the website — that much is unambiguously true. But he is very much a political player, and a Republican one at that. His name is Patrick Mauldin, and he makes videos and other digital content for President’s Trump’s re-election campaign. Together with his brother Ryan, Mr. Mauldin also runs Vici Media Group, a Republican political consulting firm in Austin whose website opens with the line “We Kick” followed by the image of a donkey — the Democratic Party symbol often known by another, three-letter, name.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I live in Indiana and our primaries are so late in the season, that they've become irrelevant in deciding who the Democratic nominee will be. But I also vote for whoever it is and won't stay home, even if it is Marianne Williamson.

Williamson is a deeply kind person. She has no business up there