2020 Presidential Election

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by theoddz

I don't know. Biden probably will be the one to get the nomination. For some reason, historically, the Democratic party can't seem to muster the chutzpah to just go all the way into embracing progressivism. They can't seem to gather much courage to fight the boldness of the GOP and its willingness to just go whole hog with their agenda, either. I guess it's too busy trying to "make nice" and not offend anyone, especially the so-called "moderates". It's sure given the Democrats a reputation for a weak backbone and after a while, their entire modus operendi is just tiresome and self defeating.

I keep wondering if this election cycle will be the one where Democrats will finally pull up its big boy/girl drawers and engage the GOP with an equal but opposite amount of vigorous energy and F-I-G-H-T for what it stands for. Quit the fuck "making nice" and go in it to WIN. Fuck these dimwits who are afraid to wipe their own noses or throw a punch!! We can still fight for what we believe and do it with dignity and class.....but we need to DO IT. The DNC needs to quit going with the usual suspects and grow a damned spine!!! Quit with this "gentle polite tugging" to the left and let's give it a big SHOVE. Dammit.



~Theo~

They are not afraid. They are capitalism's backup plan.

The Democrats as they currently exist are allowed to diverge from the Republicans only to the degree which leaves the flow of wealth intact. The flow can narrow within certain margins if it has to, but it cannot be redistributed.

(As much as i have ranted against the idea in other threads, I'm not obtuse, I know that this is what Chapo Traphouse is talking about when they call identity issues a distraction. It is true that there can be huge differences in how the two parties treat minorities without any real threat to most industries' profits.)

As long as social stratification is preserved, capital ultimately doesn't care about the identities inside those strata. The GOP sees that it's easiest and most profitable to just preserve traditional race and gender stratification, while the Democrats are able to look progressive in their willingness to let identities mix within strata, or to sacrifice a variably-sized slice of still-healthy profits to keep people in the lowest strata alive.

Capital does not want to accommodate this sacrifice, but it can easily survive it. The GOP way is more profitable, and therefore preferable, but if they should happen to go too far and fall from grace for awhile, their Democratic replacements will be tolerable. A backup plan.

The thing is, capitalism is not going to survive the things humans are going to have to do to survive on this planet. We keep trying to find ways around that by using tax credits to reward capital for certain sacrifices, but it was already too late for that in 2008.

We are going to fight capital every step of the way and at the end? When what's left of us are eking out our survival down in the caves or whatever?

It's going to be socialist as heck down there.

[Apocalipstic]

I think it all depends on how bad the economy is and if the shit hits the fan. Because there is....shit.

I was thinking he might try to run Ivanka as VP.

Trying to have positive thoughts and manifest him being out of office. Remembering that even Nixon got elected to a second term before it all went down in flames.

If indeed Trump were president and were deposed/died/whetever gets him out of office, I would rather be left with NH than Pence.

[dark_crystal]

Small local controversy here in Houston following the debate-- Beto rented a craft brewery for a rally and that brewery was in the suburb of Katy, where there are a lot of Republicans.

The brewery posted a statement on their facebook page which said "the brewery can be rented by anyone."

I went to the post and the comments were MESSED UP, many of them along the lines of this one:

"the issue with Beto in particular is he's advocating a policy, which if implemented, would result in massive massive violence. If No Label is going to enforce this [rental] policy blindly, then i presume they won't turn away the klan or black lives matter or antifa... as long as they're not violent inside the brewery"

Coupla things: i see here the seeds of a rhetoric which would label anyone who wants any kind of ban as a terrorist (by claiming that Beto is advocating for "massive massive violence") and also holds up Black Lives Matter as basically the POC equivalent of the Klan.

There were several comments that used that comparison, each time joining the Klan to Black Lives Matter-- an organization which was born in response to white supremacist violence is now cast as the equivalent to the original embodiment of white supremacist violence, and can thus be used to excuse the Klan's continued existence.

If this is a preview of the rhetoric that is going to be deployed around anyone who supports a ban on assault weapons, it is very insidious.

Basically what it looks like to me is the real domestic terrorists trying to broaden the definition of terrorism so that it splashes over onto those trying to fight domestic terrorism.

In the same way that Obama was "the real racist," gun control activists will be labeled as "the real terrorists."

Beto is not advocating violence, he is advocating a policy to which the right has declared they will respond with violence. By continuing to advocate for a ban in light of this threat, Beto therefore becomes responsible for the illegal violence the right has promised-- it is out of their hands!

In the same way, the right claims racism was "fixed" until Obama supposedly brought it back with his "divisiveness". If it was really fixed, electing a POC would have been a non-event. Since it was most emphatically NOT a non-event, and instead caused the white folks to lose their minds, the white people made their reaction Obama's fault.

The white folks' message is "we are violent, and if you do not let the threat of that violence silence you, you are inviting that violence and therefore our violence is your fault"

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Small local controversy here in Houston following the debate-- Beto rented a craft brewery for a rally and that brewery was in the suburb of Katy, where there are a lot of Republicans.

The brewery posted a statement on their facebook page which said "the brewery can be rented by anyone."

I went to the post and the comments were MESSED UP, many of them along the lines of this one:

"the issue with Beto in particular is he's advocating a policy, which if implemented, would result in massive massive violence. If No Label is going to enforce this [rental] policy blindly, then i presume they won't turn away the klan or black lives matter or antifa... as long as they're not violent inside the brewery"

Coupla things: i see here the seeds of a rhetoric which would label anyone who wants any kind of ban as a terrorist (by claiming that Beto is advocating for "massive massive violence") and also holds up Black Lives Matter as basically the POC equivalent of the Klan.

There were several comments that used that comparison, each time joining the Klan to Black Lives Matter-- an organization which was born in response to white supremacist violence is now cast as the equivalent to the original embodiment of white supremacist violence, and can thus be used to excuse the Klan's continued existence.

If this is a preview of the rhetoric that is going to be deployed around anyone who supports a ban on assault weapons, it is very insidious.

Basically what it looks like to me is the real domestic terrorists trying to broaden the definition of terrorism so that it splashes over onto those trying to fight domestic terrorism.

In the same way that Obama was "the real racist," gun control activists will be labeled as "the real terrorists."

Beto is not advocating violence, he is advocating a policy to which the right has declared they will respond with violence. By continuing to advocate for a ban in light of this threat, Beto therefore becomes responsible for the illegal violence the right has promised-- it is out of their hands!

In the same way, the right claims racism was "fixed" until Obama supposedly brought it back with his "divisiveness". If it was really fixed, electing a POC would have been a non-event. Since it was most emphatically NOT a non-event, and instead caused the white folks to lose their minds, the white people made their reaction Obama's fault.

The white folks' message is "we are violent, and if you do not let the threat of that violence silence you, you are inviting that violence and therefore our violence is your fault"

What a great post!~

I think no matter what happens, there will be continued violence. The pot is already stirred.

As those of us who have lived in the US for a while know, racism has always been present and if we allow one group of perceived extremists the right to protest, we must give the other side's perceived extremists the same right.

I remember as a teenager, being so aghast that the klan was allowed to have rallys. But being able to complain about the government and rally is part of our civil liberty...and the right of all US citizens.

We have to hunker down and try to make sure everyone we know votes. We need to have a strong landslide so that there is no question the cheeto must go, then when he refuses, he can be removed.

People lie and blame the other side. I see no way to stop that.

[Kätzchen]

I keep hearing positive news reports about Senator Elizabeth Warren's bid for the POTUS, and how she's been talking about policy regarding Ethics, and policy regarding Health Care. I don't know much about any position she might advocate and build policy around, concerning Labor, but I imagine she has a strong stand on these and other policy issues, which stand on the precipice of being annihilated by the horrible GOP & that infernal "Can't and Won't Tell The Truth" ~~~>>>>> T^^^P.

I dreamed the other night that Senator Warren was elected POTUS by a small percentage of votes, over that horrible person in the WH. It felt like a very scary dream, because no one in the media was quite sure if she won or not. But, in my dream, because of last minute voter reform efforts at ballot stations nation wide, and because news reporter's kept reporting, while being told to not report, by that horrible WH monster and his minions, it finally came to pass, via 'Breaking Headline News', that every single horrible person who had a hand in trying to take over the world (T, et al) were teleported by Star Trek's Vulcan of the hour, Spock, to the Neutron-Eating Star, which spit them out into the Black Hole of the Universe, never to be heard from or seen again. That was the good part of my dream, but omg, my dream scared me so much.

Anyhooooo. I sure do like how things are shaping up concerning Senator Warren's bid for the POTUS. Hopefully, the prevailing winds will carry her over the nomination line and land her in the WH, where she'll hopefully be able to salvage what's left of America and help rebuild policy and help AOC get her Green Policy for Climate Change given top priority.

I heard Naomi Klein on Democracy Now, earlier today on the drive home, and she's got a new book out, concerning Climate Change and she talked about what people can do right now, going forward. I can't remember the name of her book, but her interview was enlightening and the young lady who received the Amnesty International recognition award today, was inspirational. Greta Thunberg. That is her name. If interested in listening to either story about Naomi or Greta, you can find both stories, and accompanying videos, on the home page of: www.democracynow.org.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Did anyone catch Elizabeth Warren on Colbert last night? It is a really interesting interview, kind of a “must see” for anyone thinking of voting for a pusher of “Medicare for all.”

In a nutshell, Colbert asked if “Medicare for all” would raise taxes on the middle class, and he did his best to make her stop avoiding the question.

It really is worth a watch.

**not a fan of political double speak.

[Kelt]

I watched the clip and it was interesting. While I like the utopian concept of Medicare for all it does in fact have to be paid for. I watched the debate a few nights ago and a couple of the candidates were saying things like no premiums, no deductibles, free Medicare.

The money to pay for it will come from tax revenue just as it does now. I think that Warren, couched in doublespeak, acknowledges this in a very backhanded way generally but not in this interview. None of the candidates want to say directly that yes, the middle class and every other class of taxpayer will pay for added services, there’s nowhere else for it to come from.

Medicare isn’t free now, there are premiums and deductibles and co-pays currently. Are they proposing to revamp Medicare to make it free for those already on it and then add a large number of people? What about the doctors? Where are we going to find them? Will they be compelled to accept Medicare payments? Many do not accept Medicare patients now.

I would like to see any candidate answer these questions clearly in some sort of policy document. Not holding my breath.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

They are not afraid. They are capitalism's backup plan.

The Democrats as they currently exist are allowed to diverge from the Republicans only to the degree which leaves the flow of wealth intact. The flow can narrow within certain margins if it has to, but it cannot be redistributed.

(As much as i have ranted against the idea in other threads, I'm not obtuse, I know that this is what Chapo Traphouse is talking about when they call identity issues a distraction. It is true that there can be huge differences in how the two parties treat minorities without any real threat to most industries' profits.)

As long as social stratification is preserved, capital ultimately doesn't care about the identities inside those strata. The GOP sees that it's easiest and most profitable to just preserve traditional race and gender stratification, while the Democrats are able to look progressive in their willingness to let identities mix within strata, or to sacrifice a variably-sized slice of still-healthy profits to keep people in the lowest strata alive.

Capital does not want to accommodate this sacrifice, but it can easily survive it. The GOP way is more profitable, and therefore preferable, but if they should happen to go too far and fall from grace for awhile, their Democratic replacements will be tolerable. A backup plan.

The thing is, capitalism is not going to survive the things humans are going to have to do to survive on this planet. We keep trying to find ways around that by using tax credits to reward capital for certain sacrifices, but it was already too late for that in 2008.

We are going to fight capital every step of the way and at the end? When what's left of us are eking out our survival down in the caves or whatever?

It's going to be socialist as heck down there.

oh i see i am repeating myself