• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Election 2020 The 2020 Candidates: Right, Left and Center!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain.Heroin said:
Click to expand...




Watching that, in Kamala's early turn regarding equal pay for women, I like that she says she's done discussing...the "We need to have a discussion on..." from Dems last Presidential Election got tiresome. Yes, talk to find the solution, but FIND a solution and ACT on it. I like she closed it with 'Time to Act'. However, when it comes to application, I think she is ungrounded. She wants to find a company 1% of annual profits for every % gap in pay? Again the question of practicality becomes an issue. Is this average pay for ALL women in the company against ALL men in the company? Is this gap male-female pay of a given position? How is performance factored in, or experience? Do the companies get a rebate from the gov't if they have a higher women's pay than men, however it is measured? It is great to move from 'talk' to 'act', but in order to act effectively you need a plan that makes sense. She doesn't have one.


Captain.Heroin said:
Click to expand...


The environment. Biden pauses midstatement to confirm "we create 15% of the pollution in the country". What? Who is 'we'? If the 'we' is Americans who live here...I suspect we make a lot more than 15% of the pollution in America. Or did he mean 50%? Or did he mean 'pollution in the world'? Ok, he clarified by explaining the other 85% of the pollution 'in the world' would be addressed by rejoining the Paris accord. And then he gets cut of for not getting to the point quickly enough. Ha!

Yang using the phrase 'move people to higher ground' being taken literally...which I don't believe he intended, maybe he did.

And Inslee opens the door for Biden to lay out his plan. Not to take the moment to give his own plan, but cedes the moment to Biden, who actually starts laying out steps to a plan that he believes will address the issue. I like seeing someone with a plan. I still question the feasibility of it, and ought to take that up in one of our other threads, but at least he has something beyond 'we oughtta... there should be a discussion on...'. AND he (Biden) and Yang keep the world view as part of it. I still have major issues with the GND, which many of these candidates are pushing.

Gillibrand with a nice story about water rushing into a MW kitchen because of climate change...what? Logic jump much? Is there a connection in there? I get you are short on time, but can you string thoughts together.

Gabbard's against GND (+1 in my book), lays out her efforts to date and how they are part of her plan. A realistic approach. I like this. Booker? I'd like to punch in the face. Though, he does have nice vocal tones, I admit.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
I’m not surprised she wants to bow to Assad. Russian puppet. *flashback* BABYKILLER

It just won’t end well with someone like Gabbard in office.
Click to expand...

Yes it will and that's not even the point (remember you know virtually nothing about middle East or Russian foreign policy).

The point is that this right here also exposes that people are not actually caring about election interference - they feign outrage when it's phantom Russians interfering to help Trump (allegedly, no evidence) yet they are silent when there's evidence of Google/Twitter interfering to hurt Gabbard - a Democrat!

You should separate this from delusional opinions regarding Assad that you've taken from media directly linked to interests that want Assad removed for financial and geopolitical reasons.
 
JGrimez said:
I'd like to know your honest opinion on Gabbard if you care to elaborate a little.
Click to expand...

She comes off to me as extremely Presidential. I personally love her serious demeanor and how she seems to operate on her own plane.
 
This article presents the opinions of GOP strategists from 2016 on the Democratic debates.

90


www.politico.com

Why Do the Democrats Want to Run Against Obama Instead of Trump?

Republican strategists from 2016 on the ‘mind-boggling’ second 2020 debate.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
Although I don’t think a lot of things these debates are important in terms of the general election (except for choosing the candidate lol), I do think attacking President Obama is an unwise tactic because of his popularity.

However, you are either talking about the Obama administration or you’re talking about Biden’s vote decades ago. So I guess in that sense, it’s the best way to go after Biden. But still...
90


www.politico.com

Why Do the Democrats Want to Run Against Obama Instead of Trump?

Republican strategists from 2016 on the ‘mind-boggling’ second 2020 debate.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
Captain.Heroin said:
You think RF is legitimate JG so your understanding is lacking. Thanks for making me feel enlightened.
Click to expand...

What's RF? (One of) your issues is that you decide to fill the gaps and assume I'm saying something. For eg "I don't think going to war with Iran is a good idea"

You: "you support Iran". It's more nuanced than that, but avoiding war should be a goal for any well-adjusted, non-psychopathic individual
 
cduggles said:
Although I don’t think a lot of things these debates are important in terms of the general election (except for choosing the candidate lol), I do think attacking President Obama is an unwise tactic because of his popularity.

However, you are either talking about the Obama administration or you’re talking about Biden’s vote decades ago. So I guess in that sense, it’s the best way to go after Biden. But still...
90


www.politico.com

Why Do the Democrats Want to Run Against Obama Instead of Trump?

Republican strategists from 2016 on the ‘mind-boggling’ second 2020 debate.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...


Thanks for continuing to post these. This one is odd in that the headline (attacking Obama) is only a few lines in the article, while the bulk of it is addressing all the 'mind boggling' choice of statements the candidates are putting out there. Sticking to the point of Obama, I can see the double edged sword in going after Biden in that he was secondary to Obama during those 8y. I've watched some go after Biden's time in Congress...but that was long ago, times have changed, people change. Yes, Biden is accountable to his decisions and votes while in Congress, but I don't know how much a man's actions a decade ago are representative of his potential as a President years later, with 8y as VP now under his belt.

I get that the candidates aren't fighting Trump, that failed in 2016 as a main agenda item. It can't fall off the list of promises, but it can't be used to distinguish a lead Dem candidate either. I wish there was a less confrontational 'tear down your opponent' approach to this, but that has been the primary modus operandi of the Dems for quite awhile. I'd prefer if they were supporting one another, perhaps criticizing one another's ideas for the future as a means of getting their intentions in front of voters AND sharpening those platform promises into something that is getting public support and is hardened into something feasible by the challenges. That way, whomever wins does so with an arsenal of policies to implement that have a real chance of being implemented, and can effectively counter what Trump's policies would be.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
Sticking to the point of Obama, I can see the double edged sword in going after Biden in that he was secondary to Obama during those 8y. I've watched some go after Biden's time in Congress...but that was long ago, times have changed, people change. Yes, Biden is accountable to his decisions and votes while in Congress, but I don't know how much a man's actions a decade ago are representative of his potential as a President years later, with 8y as VP now under his belt.
Click to expand...

I agree. Also, voting for a bill wasn’t entirely straightforward due to the tagging on of other legislation (“Christmas treeing”) or funding (earmarks) to a bill. Earmarks are not as much of a thing, but a clean bill is rare.

It’s just not a straightforward thing to point out a single vote.

I get that the candidates aren't fighting Trump, that failed in 2016 as a main agenda item. It can't fall off the list of promises, but it can't be used to distinguish a lead Dem candidate either.
Click to expand...

I disagree (edit: to some extent - it’s not a whole agenda) because that was before Trump was in office.

I wish there was a less confrontational 'tear down your opponent' approach to this, but that has been the primary modus operandi of the Dems for quite awhile.
Click to expand...

It’s not something I consider to be exclusively a Dem strategy. It will depend on how Dems coalesce on the candidate once they’re selected.

I'd prefer if they were supporting one another, perhaps criticizing one another's ideas for the future as a means of getting their intentions in front of voters AND sharpening those platform promises into something that is getting public support and is hardened into something feasible by the challenges. That way, whomever wins does so with an arsenal of policies to implement that have a real chance of being implemented, and can effectively counter what Trump's policies would be.
Click to expand...

That would (edited for redundancy) be great but primary politics are just a different beast, imo.

Also, one of these candidates will be debating Trump and they need to prove now that they know how to connect with a punch and follow through. I’m definitely looking for someone who will not get hammered in the debates with Trump, simply because that’s when and how most people tune in to choose someone.

Trump’s approval ratings don’t live up to the current economic situation, and he’s vulnerable with the right candidate taking him on.
 
Last edited:


fuck you bitch. depression is real. i need medication. I don't need to talk to CLERGY. Fuck your god. GAHHHH!

I hope she wins the nomination and loses to Trump, and spends like 18 months crying in bed unable to take care of herself and then she can say how evil the MEDICAL COMMUNITY PUSHING PILLS are. Fuck you bitch. Take a day in my shoes and you too will understand.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Do you hear yourself excusing his wealth though?
Click to expand...

(Late to the party but wanted to reply... this was in response to me saying Bernie is only wealthy because of his book)

The only people suggesting that being wealthy is wrong are extreme leftists like tathra. NO ONE running for president is trying to turn the country into Venezuela or say someone can't be wealthy. Bernie and others are suggesting we spend our tax dollars to benefit the people paying them instead of what we're doing now. Yes, I AM excusing his wealth. I hope to one day have a million dollars or 2, it would be great, I'd be able to invest it and live off the interest, spend my time doing things I love and benefitting other people. Having $2 million doesn't make you a bad person and it doesn't make Bernie a hypocrite in the slightest. My point with saying he only got rich from his book is that he's been a senator for a long time. In that time, he was only doing fine for himself, until he wrote a book and made money off of it. That shows he did not take bribes/etc from money interests unlike SO MANY other senators who end up hundreds of millions of dollars richer after their tenure as senators without actually producing something with their own hands except for bending over a table for corporations who pay them to serve their interests.

To suggest that Bernie is a hypocrite for having self-made $2 million shows a gross lack of understanding of his platform. He isn't saying and has never been saying that no one should be wealthy. He's simply been saying, hey, instead of spending the American taxpayer's money on wars, rich people, corporate tax breaks, and other stuff like that, let's put it towards making life easier for the people paying those fucking taxes. You know, the basis for taxation in the first place, the whole way and reason that a healthy society functions.

JGrimez said:
Lmao electoral fraud and political manipulation exists everywhere. Putin is not your enemy. Don't just don't be gay publicly in his country
Click to expand...

Russia stands to gain from our destabilization, as it seeks to become the dominant world power, as it has done for decades. I think it's pretty naive to think we have nothing to fear from Russia. I agree that we interfere with the world's electoral/governmental business too. Me expressing concern over Russia's doing it isn't me excusing us. We should stop too. But, being an American, I am concerned about Russia's interference in our process. I think it's only helping them out to keep suggesting Russia is our friendly ally and isn't doing anything to try to undermine our government and society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top