General Politics Discussion (VI) [ARCHIVED] • Page 21

It just comes across like you’re tone policing on one of the most centerist candidates in a very left-leaning — with regards to where the party was at — party. Just pretend we’re all nicely saying he’s a big pharma, gladhanding dude who wants to please everyone instead of pushing policies that will benefit the people he purports to represent instead of calling him “bad.”

 

When you add the qualifier you already lost the point. The "most part" admits they do have awful and bad policies. Which are what we're talking about.

So, one more time: when there are candidates have really bad policies, and they are running for office on those policies, that matters.

 

Also, I really hope Bernie does not pick Kamala, because if it comes to it I do not trust her to be the tiebreaker in certain things...

 

someone tell David there’s a middle ground between “supporting every candidate because unity” and “supporting no candidates because no one agrees with me 100% on everything”

 

Historically, a VP pick isn't what flips states.

 

No. We’re saying “so and so is completely awful don’t want that as president”, not “so and so would be pretty good but we’ve gotta push for change on this and this because he/she is pretty bad/inconsistent/etc.”

Those are two different styles of rhetoric that convey different points and information about the candidates, IMO.

 

Interesting.

Going to love for it to come out and it be everything we already know ... which is enough to impeach and the biggest political scandal of our lives ... and other people being like "that's it."

 

Yeeep

 

Booker wouldn't even be "pretty good" though.

 

I’d honestly feel better about Texas than FL...I give up trying to understand Florida at all and want to wash my hands of it. Fuck that state so hard.

 

Come on people, Sanders/Gritty

 

I do not think that people that have bad policies, that I do not like, that they're promoting right now as a reason to vote for them will be "pretty good." I do not want a President with those policies. That's the entire point of a primary, to say: NO.

I do not believe your second point, which is why I'm not saying it. I do not think Booker would be pretty good. I think he would fucking suck and be a milquetoast one term President that did nothing and opened up the space for a smarter Far Right Republican winning in 2024 -- because of what he's saying he would do. That is not "pretty good." That is bad.

 

Exactly this.

His current argument is basically "I'm kinda like Trudeau/Macron." Uh. We know what that looks like ... no.

That's not pretty good. That's actively bad. That's literally the problem that got us here.

 

I don't think the entire discussion around the different candidates can be boiled down to the way hillarybots are talking on twitter.

The exact differences between these candidates is going to make or break the democratic platform in this election. What I mean is that the primary is for hashing out the exact differences between one candidate or another, and no you don't have to compromise at this point. In 2016 it was a much smaller field and because Bernie created such a wave of progressive support, it forced Hillary to the left. Now we have a primary full of candidates on a spectrum of policies and we are having a discussion on exactly what we want to see in health care, climate change policy, etc. It is precisely the time to be saying this isn't enough or that isn't enough.

I don't really care to extrapolate out how well Biden or Booker would do as president when they don't even fit my values right now.

 

Has a VP ever broken a tie in favor of the opposition party? I don't think that's ever actually happened. Not that it can't, just curious.

 

Reading more about this out of curiosity: Pence has the 7th most tiebreaking votes of any Vice President in just 2 years. Everyone above him served a minimum of 4 years and most served much more.

 

The most pressing issue of this election is climate change imo. We have what, like 12 to maybe 20 years to enact a radical climate policy or we go extinct. There's no room for concessions or compromise on this. Bernie and Warren, and possibly Gillibrand though i haven't been paying much attention to her, are the only ones who have said they take climate change seriously and have said we need immediate action. I really don't trust Harris despite what she says or puts out there, and absolutely Booker will not do anything close to what is necessary so he's a nonstarter and it makes 0 sense to me to defend him at all.

 

Yes, in January 1832 when Vice President John C. Calhoun (who had served as VP under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson) cast tie-breaking votes on two different occasions to kill President Jackson’s nomination of Martin Van Buren to be the U.S. Minister to England.

I looked it up fo you. Haha.

 

Haha I found that too but didn't wanna triple post. 1832 is a looooong time ago.

 

Well said.

 

Cool. Cool.

 

This seems bad. If Barr is the one announcing its complete, sounds more like he's killing it than Mueller is finished...

 

Only 222?