• 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.
Wilson Wilson said:
This still sounds like a moral position to me, particularly "protection of innocence." That's a very emotionally loaded terminology.
Click to expand...

I guess I meant protecting innocence and those who can't defend themselves are pretty intrinsic values necessary for any society to thrive. That could be interpreted as morality, humanism I suppose.

No one advocates for abortion at eight months. This is a bit of a strawman argument. The generally agreed upon limit is three months into pregnancy unless there are exceptional circumstances (medical emergency etc).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they do. As you can see from tathra's posts , some see the fetus as nothing but a blood sucking parasite. So killing it at three months or eight makes no difference. It's not a straw man.

So we effectively agree in the end, even if we share different personal views on the issue, we agree in how the government should treat it.
Click to expand...

I think so, yeah. I don't know how different things are in your country than here.

Certainly very few things in life are black and white, it seems to me that activists on both sides are very emotionally driven and therefore see this issue as either "women have no freedom" or "you want to murder babies" when clearly neither is really true.

I am continuously surprised by how each side of the debate cares less about defending and supporting their own view and more about trying to make the other side look as evil as possible. Not just with regards to abortion but I mean just politics in general. People become emotionally invested in political causes and attack those they perceive to be enemies of that cause. Everything is so polarised.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
Yeah the Democratic strategy so far has been...not great, and that's charitable. The impeachment effort is DOA and all-consuming in the American media, despite the fact that there are very real, legitimate issues that people care about which the Democrats could HAMMER Trump and the Republicans with.

For example: the issue of allowing the government to negotiate drug prices for programs like Medicare...it passed the House, but it's DOA in the Senate or, if it somehow passes there, it'll get vetoed by Trump. Why haven't the Democrats weaponized this issue and constantly bring it up? There's a huge amount of anger and frustration in this country regarding the private insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, various aspects of industrial medicine which have totally failed the American people of both parties and all political affiliations. Healthcare consistently ranks as one of the top issues for voters.

www.politico.com

Democrats box in Republicans on drug pricing

The GOP may need to satisfy Trump’s desire for sweeping reform without angering Big Pharma.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

RE: abortion, I don't see how it's some kind of definitive issue personally...seems more like a niche issue with a dedicated core of activists, both pro and anti, but I don't think it's a major issue for voters in the same way that healthcare generally is. I don't think the primary lesson from Clinton losing the crucial states in the upper midwest was an absolutist, pro-baby murder position on her part...it was a tremendous (and very legitimate and warranted IMO) lack of enthusiasm on the part of voters who twice won those states for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
 
Abortion is a litmus issue, I think. How many people don’t at least have an opinion about it?

And as to discussion above, women can be pregnant for months and not know it. Plus if they want an abortion, they have to make an appointment, to take time off work, etc. I’d give it two trimesters safely.

I’m actually just pro-abortion, but I wanted to make the point that not all women know immediately when they are.
 
cduggles said:
Why do people want to just go ahead and have a rigged election already? Impeachment keeps Trumptastic under scrutiny from rigging it.
Click to expand...

You think it wasn't rigged before? Or that only Trump might rig it going forward? Interesting.

tathra said:
to the surprise of absolutely no one

Warren Backs Down on Medicare for All, Now Says It’s a ‘Choice’
Click to expand...

Aye. To remain viable she had to adjust her position. Let's see where other agenda points get shifted as the Dem party tries to figure out who to put up against Trump. While the debates to date have been...debatable, there hasn't been huge shifts, more like a buffet of progressive opinions trying to feel out how far left the base wants it to go. Soon we should see the field narrow, and the remaining candidates adjust their positions more to capture the votes. Will it undermine their platform, or strengthen their position? Idunno, but I'm looking forward to seeing it play out.
 
mal3volent said:
Pro abortion? Are you trying to be funny or what?

I think it should be safe and legal but why would you say "pro" abortion?
Click to expand...

I'm pro-abortion as well. And I think this sums up the points rather well..

I’m pro-abortion because being able to delay and limit childbearing is fundamental to female empowerment and equality. A woman who lacks the means to manage her fertility lacks the means to manage her life. Any plans, dreams, aspirations, responsibilities or commitments—no matter how important—have a great big contingency clause built-in: “… until or unless I get pregnant, in which case all bets are off.” Think of any professional woman you know. She wouldn’t be in that role if she hadn’t been able to time and limit her childbearing. Think of any girl you know who imagines becoming a professional woman. She won’t get there unless she has effective, reliable means to manage her fertility. In generations past, nursing care was provided by nuns and teachers who were spinsters, because avoiding sexual intimacy was the only way women could avoid unpredictable childbearing and so be freed up to serve their communities in other capacities. But if you think that abstinence should be our model for modern fertility management, consider the little graves that get found every so often under old nunneries and Catholic homes for unwed mothers.
Click to expand...

Why I Am Pro-Abortion, Not Just Pro-Choice | Free Inquiry

Why be pro-abortion? Because of all the genuine, unquestioned goods it makes possible.
secularhumanism.org secularhumanism.org
 
tathra said:
Republican-lite isn't a viable position for Democrats. the only election Democrats have won in the past 20 years was because they ran a progressive platform. they're going to keep losing until they finally listen to their base
Click to expand...


I think the term we are looking for isn't pragmatism, its "sell out." I've never been quite sure nor will I ever stand the liberal mentality of softening the impact of a statement to cast the other person in a better light. Warren sold out her position or rather, she's merely decided to show us what her "progressive" values actually means. And what it means is buying into the corporate Demo line of "Medicare if we let you have it."
 
mal3volent said:
Pro abortion? Are you trying to be funny or what?

I think it should be safe and legal but why would you say "pro" abortion?
Click to expand...

No, no, I was not trying to be funny at all, and I wasn’t trying to be crass either. I just wanted to clarify my pro-choice (including abortion) stance, but since it was specifically with regard to abortion, I was specific. That’s all I meant.
 
cduggles said:
I think he’ll keep trying (maybe he’ll seek out corruption related to Bernie and Buttigieg abroad
Click to expand...

I know you're joking. Neither of those guys have any real connections outside the US that I'm aware of. But there are a lot of power Dems that do, and have a history that shows steady wealth building and family connections in other countries. Biden is just the visible one given his leveraging US aid to Ukraine in order to meddle in their sovereign gov't. It is a diff thread, but I believe all that shit (Dems AND Reps) ought to have their foreign connections and personal gains looked at more closely, and we'll need other country's help in finding the truth.

You dodged half my question to make a joke. Do you believe there is no collusion, or corruption, that has occurred outside of the Trump invtestigations to date? More specifically, of the Dems working with Ukraine against Trump for 2016? If you believe it happened or not, should that truth be sought? And if it happened or not, is it possible both in the past and in the future?

I'll keep this question in this thread as it does cast a shadow over Biden, and for now he's still the most likely Dem candidate. What happens if he wins the nomination and Mueller pt2 is launched? Does it destroy his candidacy in the election and take out the best Dem candidate? I'm sure progressives see this as Trump's plan - take out the front runner. I see the requested investigation being about more than just Biden, but in this thread we're talking Dem candidates, so Biden it is for now. Would corruption, or the shadow of it, damage Biden's front runner status? Hasn't seemed to effect it as yet. But if it does, how does the field shake out? It appears to me Warren will likely fade, and Bernie will be left standing. Somewhat karmic given how many view he was pushed aside for Hillary last time.
 
Dems haven't settled on a candidate yet - it appears we have more debates through Feb'20 and primaries from Feb thru June, leaving JUL-NOV for 'the' candidate to run the campaign against Trump.

Is it too early to start talking VP? Who would likely be a good counterpart for the leading candidates at this point? What are the winning teams as you can envision them? Go with another candidate as VP, or go with someone younger and start grooming them for a future Presidential run?
 
TheLoveBandit said:
Do you believe there is no collusion, or corruption, that has occurred outside of the Trump invtestigations to date? More specifically, of the Dems working with Ukraine against Trump for 2016? If you believe it happened or not, should that truth be sought? And if it happened or not, is it possible both in the past and in the future?
Click to expand...
I have a high fever (really), and in my hazy state I thought your question was rhetorical (and kind of whataboutish).

And while it’s not the question on deck atm (re impeachment, etc.), I’m going to have to go with the opinion of the intelligence community that Ukraine didn’t influence our 2016 elections beyond an op-ed and expressing some opinions. I see that as different than a highly coordinated disinformation campaign. Ukraine has been a bit busy being invaded and such and they don’t have the infrastructure to mount the type of influence or effort that say Russia could.

And yes what Hunter Biden did was shady. It wasn’t illegal. I wish it didn’t happen, but I think the examples Trump has set with his own kids is more disgusting and I’d rather them be paid off than have the influence they do, given a choice (or should I say rather than both?). Obviously, neither would be preferable, but powerful people get jobs for their kids (see Trump, generations) and it’s not an excuse for Trump’s election-rigging behavior.

As for the more amorphous aspects of your question, yes I think there is corruption tied to elections, yes I think many groups seek to influence the outcome, and yes I think they do be combatted, from voter suppression to gerrymandering to undue foreign influence to disinformation, and a lot of things like undermining the veracity of facts (like Republicans denying that Trump had a chance to participate in his own trial).

Hope that suffices because that is what my tired brain can produce atm. ☹

Edit: and yes I mixed up election and impeachment stuff, but I felt the point is in there somewhere 😕
 
I have to note that Andrew Yang is a very likable guy with some interesting ideas. Tech czar, maybe?
I’m not a huge fan of Klobuchar, but she has some good points.
Imo, Biden and Sanders did very well, and Warren was good as usual. The field is narrowing...
 
cduggles said:
I have to note that Andrew Yang is a very likable guy with some interesting ideas. Tech czar, maybe?
I’m not a huge fan of Klobuchar, but she has some good points.
Imo, Biden and Sanders did very well, and Warren was good as usual. The field is narrowing...
Click to expand...

I don't like or trust Warren but I admit, she had the best line last night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top