2020 Presidential Election

[C0LLETTE]

Jussie Smollet : got an opinion on how this is unfolding?

is this legitimate political fodder?

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Orema

I’m starting to look forward to the primaries. Thank goodness the Democrats will put forth a somewhat diverse selection. And I think from here on, the Democratic primaries will be more diverse than what we’ve had. That’s an important and good change for me.

I’m open to a lot of people in the primaries. Warren, Harris, Koblachar, Holder ... and I’m looking forward to hearing from Buttigieg, Castro, Beto etc. in the debates.

I think we’ll end up with the “same old same old” as the 2020 democratic nominee, but getting this country to accept a woman, LGBTQ person, or PoC as the top dog is a process.

Still, I’m feeling hopeful and looking forward to the Democrats debating and I’m wondering who will be the moderators.

I donated to Buttigieg today bc he posted that he has to have 65,000 donors to be in the debates.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I donated to Buttigieg today bc he posted that he has to have 65,000 donors to be in the debates.

Great idea. I will give a few $ too. Thanks for mentioning it.

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I donated to Buttigieg today bc he posted that he has to have 65,000 donors to be in the debates.

If I could, I would.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I donated to Buttigieg today bc he posted that he has to have 65,000 donors to be in the debates.

Also on Pod Save America this morning i finally heard someone pronounce his name but i already forgot how. I have not been very mature in my attempts.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Also on Pod Save America this morning i finally heard someone pronounce his name but i already forgot how. I have not been very mature in my attempts.

Boot-i-jug

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Boot-i-jug

I was listening to 'Ask Me Another' on the radio today and Mayor Pete was on the show. The host pronounced his name as

Boot-i-judge.

[Andrea]

Having to rethink my interest in Joe Biden.....

Joe Biden’s Drug War Record Is So Much Worse Than You Think

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/joe-bidens-drug-war-record-is-so-much-worse-than-you-think?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_cam paign=B2C%20Newsletter%20-%20Nat%27l%20-%2002/26/19&utm_content=Final&utm_term=%5BTWS%5D%20%26%20%5 BMaster%20%2B%20Not%20Dormant%5D

Former Vice President Joe Biden has begun tip-toeing towards throwing his hat in the ring as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary.
Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.

Political watchers are expecting him to formally announce any day now. But Biden, who carefully cultivated a genial “Uncle Joe” image during his eight years as Obama’s veep, knows he’s got a history that could drag him down. Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.

Just last month, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, he addressed a room full of civil rights activists on the subject of criminal justice, hoping to shore up support.

“I haven’t always been right,” Biden told the National Action Network, “but I’ve always tried.”

Try telling that to the millions of people and entire communities who’ve had their lives torn apart by laws championed by kindly old Uncle Joe. From green lighting civil asset forfeiture to incentivizing mass incarceration to cheerleading mandatory minimums and the militarization of the police, Joe Biden has been a driving force behind America’s disastrous approach to drug policy.

Original Drug War Architect
Many of the original architects of America’s drug war have retired or passed away. Biden remains one of the few still in power—and may soon reach for more.

His influence over drug policy and mass incarceration began in the 1980s, when, as a senator from Delaware, he served as chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.

Policies Biden personally put into place greatly expanded a racist, ineffective, costly, unjust and oppressive quagmire that was already an obvious failure when he first entered government service nearly 50 years ago. That same self-destructive drug war rages on today—in America and around the world.

America Changed, Biden Didn’t
Meanwhile, Biden remains one of very few prominent Democrats who’ve still failed to endorse cannabis legalization at the federal level. A policy that’s currently supported by 62% of Americans—including 45% of Republicans—and is already the law of the land in ten states remains too radical for him to sign off on.

Biden remains one of few prominent Democrats who’ve still failed to endorse cannabis legalization at the federal level.

At the very least, Biden seems to be aware of the fact that the times and public opinion are changing around him. He was plenty outspoken about drug policy in the 1980s, but has run silent on the issue for nearly a decade. The last time he substantively addressed legalization appears to be 2010, in an ABC News interview:

“There’s a difference between sending someone to jail for a few ounces and legalizing it,” he said. “The punishment should fit the crime. But I think legalization is a mistake. I still believe [marijuana] is a gateway drug.”

Well, Joe, it’s a free country—believe anything you want. But the gateway theory has long been thoroughly debunked. Even D.A.R.E. no longer promotes that old canard.

Biden: ‘Let’s Have a Drug Czar’
Let’s circle back to Biden’s humblebrag: that he hasn’t “always been right” when it comes to criminal justice.

When pressed for specifics, he says that after pushing for vastly harsher punishments for crack than for powder cocaine, he “spent years” working to undo his own racist fuckup. But in terms of accountability, that’s basically the end of it. Biden has never truly come to terms with the scope of the damage he’s done.

Plenty of politicians from both parties supported the drug war. Only Biden went further and cooked up the idea of a Drug Czar.

A lot of politicians from both parties vocally supported the war on drugs back in the days of “Just Say No.” But it was Joe Biden who pretty much singlehandedly dreamed up the idea of a cabinet level “Drug Czar”—a term he coined in a 1982 interview with the New York Times. Seven years later, after working in tandem with the Reagan administration, he saw that dream come to life when the White House created the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).

Charged with formulating and administrating America’s drug prohibition game plan, the ONDCP almost immediately began agitating for a massive expansion of interdiction, enforcement, and incarceration efforts. A 1989 report to Congress put it in dollar figures:

No attempt should be made to disguise the fact that significant new resources will be required to pay for the many proposals advanced in this report… Last February, this Administration requested nearly $717 million in new drug budget authority for Fiscal Year 1990. Now, after six months of careful study, we have identified an immediate need for $1.478 billion more. With this report, the Administration is requesting FY 1990 drug budget authority totaling $7.864 billion—the largest single-year dollar increase in history.

Doubling Down on Propoganda
In 1996, when the ONDCP came up for reauthorization, Biden voted in the senate for a bill that basically required the Drug Czar to spearhead a massive propaganda campaign directed at the American people.

“The Director shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of [such] a substance (in any form).”

Which basically boils down to: No matter how much evidence comes to light showing cannabis is a safe and effective medicine, the Drug Czar is required, by law, to lie about it. No matter how much evidence piles up showing that the benefits of legalization far outweigh any potential harms, the Drug Czar is required by law to lie about it. Which they have all done.

The lying continues today. Under Donald Trump, the ONDCP supports the work of a secretive White House anti-cannabis committee whose membership list reads like a murderer’s row of discredited drug warriors.

A Disparity of 100:1
Should Biden decide to jump into the race for the Presidency, he’ll have to either make a late conversion to cannabis legalization or explain why not. Either way, it’s not a good look. He’s also open to charges that his signature piece of legislation in the US Senate—the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—played a key role in supercharging the for-profit prison industry and turning the United States into the nation with the world’s highest incarceration rate.

That same law spurred a ramping up of aggressive policing in poor and minority neighborhoods, while establishing a weight disparity for crack to powder cocaine at 100:1 (for the purposes of federal sentencing guidelines). Distribution of five grams of crack triggered a five-year mandatory minimum, as opposed to 500 grams of powder. Predictably, this meant the law vastly disproportionately targeted people of color and other at-risk communities.

According to a 2006 report from the American Civil Liberties Union, Cracks in the System: Twenty Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law:

In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49% higher. The effects of mandatory minimums not only contribute to these disproportionately high incarceration rates, but also separate fathers from families, separate mothers with sentences for minor possession crimes from their children, create massive disfranchisement of those with felony convictions, and prohibit previously incarcerated people from receiving some social services for the betterment of their families.

Golf Clap for ‘Reform’
That all sounds pretty terrible. But keep in mind, while Biden may not have always been right, he was always trying. And this is the one fuckup he reversed, right? In 2010 the Fair Sentencing Act—signed by President Obama while Biden served as his Vice President—reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine all the way down to 18:1—though not retroactively.

The Sins of the Father
With a crowded field of Democrats already in the race, cannabis policy and criminal justice reform could emerge as a major wedge issue during a hotly contested primary season. So far, every declared Democratic candidate fully supports federal cannabis legalization. Some, like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, have been early sponsors of bills to do just that. So why should you vote for a guy who still thinks peaceful adults should get busted for weed?

Especially when the same rules don’t seem to apply to his own children.

In September 1998, Biden’s daughter Ashley was arrested for cannabis possession in Louisiana—a state notorious for giving decade-long sentences for miniscule amounts of marijuana. But there’s no record of a conviction in Ashley Biden’s case.

In 2014, Biden’s son Hunter tested positive for cocaine on a drug test and was discharged from the Navy just a month after reporting for duty. No criminal charges were filed.

There’s zero evidence either of them received any special treatment because of their father’s position as a powerful politician, though it’s certainly possible. What doesn’t seem possible is that Joe Biden would support one of his own children spending years behind bars for possession of a personal amount of drugs—not now, and not back in 1994 when he championed the crime bill.

I can’t even imagine the person who would want that for their own children. So how can you want it for someone else’s?

[Gráinne]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Jussie Smollet : got an opinion on how this is unfolding?

is this legitimate political fodder?

How stupid can he be?

At the least, it was a stunt to somehow help his career. I guess said career is a goner, now.

At the worst, I've heard that it was a much bigger conspiracy involving some of the Democrats running for President.

No doubt there will be a trial, and he's looking at federal prison.

[charley]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Having to rethink my interest in Joe Biden.....

Joe Biden’s Drug War Record Is So Much Worse Than You Think
...

Political watchers are expecting him to formally announce any day now. But Biden, who carefully cultivated a genial “Uncle Joe” image during his eight years as Obama’s veep, knows he’s got a history that could drag him down. Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.
...

Biden has never truly come to terms with the scope of the damage he’s done.

Indeed!, well said Andrea,
And this is not the only thing about Biden...

Moreover:

Biden has been recently criticised by Cynthia Nixon for supporting Pence, the most anti-LGBTQ leader:

Joe Biden said something nice about Mike Pence. Big mistake.

"CNN)On Thursday in Omaha, Nebraska, former Vice President Joe Biden said this about current Vice President Mike Pence: "The fact of the matter is it was followed on by a guy who's a decent guy, our vice president, who stood before this group of allies and leaders and said, 'I'm here on behalf of President Trump,' and there was dead silence. Dead silence."

"Biden was referencing the rocky reception Pence received last month at a security conference in Munich as a way to illustrate the damage President Donald Trump has done to our relationships with our allies across the world. The idea Biden was pushing was that Pence, in and of himself, is someone who would get a perfectly polite reception at a conference like the one in Munich but, because of Trump, Pence had been given the silent treatment. It was, as criticisms of Trump go, relatively pedestrian.

"Except that Biden referred to Pence as a "decent guy." Which the liberal left -- especially on Twitter -- immediately seized. Cynthia Nixon, actress and unsuccessful candidate for governor in New York, tweeted this at Biden: "@JoeBiden you've just called America's most anti-LGBT elected leader 'a decent guy.' Please consider how this falls on the ears of our community."

"Biden quickly responded to Nixon, offering an apology. "You're right, Cynthia," wrote Biden. "I was making a point in a foreign policy context, that under normal circumstances a Vice President wouldn't be given a silent reaction on the world stage," he said. "But there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President."

"This entire episode is very revealing -- about Biden, his near-certain run for the 2020 Democratic nomination and the state of the party that Biden wants to lead. Here are three things it tells us:

"1) Biden is a creature of a totally different political time. Biden is a political anachronism. He's been in politics for almost 50 years; he was first elected to the Senate in 1972! Politics back then (and all the way through the mid- to late-1990s) was far more genteel and polite than it is now. Biden is a hail-fellow-well-met sort of guy. My guess is he has called roughly 200,000 people (NOTE: This is an estimate) a "decent guy" over the course of his political life. That doesn't mean he agrees with them. Or that he even likes them. Rather, it's a reflection of the general collegiality that reigned in politics when Biden came up in the game.

"Things have changed drastically since then, however. And this kerfuffle is a sign of things to come for Biden. He is a benefit-of-the-doubt guy running to lead a party who views the other side as not just dumb and incompetent, but evil. This may be the first time who Biden is as a politician runs directly into the new governing reality of the Democratic Party.

"2) Biden is definitely running for president. OK, in truth, there hasn't been much doubt about Biden's plans to run in 2020 for a while now. But just in case there was any doubt, his rapid response to Nixon should clear that up. If Biden was leaning against the 2020 race -- or had made up his mind not to run (even if he hadn't announced it publicly) -- it's hard for me to see that he would even respond to Nixon, much less do so as quickly and apologetically as he did.

"3) Biden is going to try to placate the left. While we've known that Biden is running for a while now -- see No. 2 -- it's been less clear how he will run. Will he run as an unapologetic centrist, a pillar of the establishment and conventional thinking that a candidate for the Democratic nomination can't move too far left or run the risk of losing the sensible center in the general election? Or will Biden seek to make the case that he is just as much of a liberal champion as the likes of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? Biden's decision to engage Nixon and to say sorry so quickly suggests that he will be more reactive to the purity demands of the liberal left than I, for one, thought he might be.

"Sometime soon Biden is going to get into the presidential race. And on the day he does, he will become the front-runner for the nomination -- based on his pole position in both early state and national polling. But this "decent guy" controversy suggests that the former VP will not have an easy road. Can he adapt to the changed political world -- in his party and in the country at large? Or will it eat him alive?"

As per:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/01/p...020/index.html
___

Personally, my definition of decency is in no way the same as Biden's. For me, decency implies goodness. Such an old-fashioned word, "goodness", but I like it. I have a horror of people who throw out words like "decency" just to curry favour with the the gullible. In my mind, Biden will say anything to win, but his track record is not indicative of a decent person, a good person. Just because someone does not commit "crimes and misdemeanors", pays his or her taxes, works or as I have heard all too often when people want others to like them only because they are working and supporting the GDP, "I have one" (i.e. a job) - does not mean that they are a good person.

Just think about this for one second, how many women have married men because of the idea that they would offer such women financial security (the "decent" guy), only to end up as two old people who have absolutely nothing to say to each other, or as what usually happens - divorce!!!

When push comes to shove, no doubt Biden will support the illusory dreams of the silent majority - even the ones who had voted for Trump and supported him, just to have power, to wield power, to add to his reputation. And, that means, he may not be the right person to defend the weak and vulnerable minority (minorities), such as the LGBTQ community, let alone other vulnerable groups of people.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I was listening to 'Ask Me Another' on the radio today and Mayor Pete was on the show. The host pronounced his name as

Boot-i-judge.

I listened to his interview on Pod Save America this morning and i like him! He's a little centrist in health care, though.

Well, not centrist so much as incrementalist. He wants to put a Medicare-for-all plan in among the other plans you can choose on the exchanges and let people come to their support through experience.

He said that is how we got from the "Death Panel" town halls in 2010 to the "Save the ACA" town halls of 2017-- people's impressions changed after the issue was no longer theoretical and had become part of their experience.

I also like that he is a veteran and that he is very serious and that Bernie is the politician he most admires.

Oh! And that he calls out the condescension that coastal progressives show to the midwest, which is a huge problem that only the right seems to call out (that i've noticed)

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I listened to his interview on Pod Save America this morning and i like him! He's a little centrist in health care, though.

Well, not centrist so much as incrementalist. He wants to put a Medicare-for-all plan in among the other plans you can choose on the exchanges and let people come to their support through experience.

He said that is how we got from the "Death Panel" town halls in 2010 to the "Save the ACA" town halls of 2017-- people's impressions changed after the issue was no longer theoretical and had become part of their experience.

I also like that he is a veteran and that he is very serious and that Bernie is the politician he most admires.

Oh! And that he calls out the condescension that coastal progressives show to the midwest, which is a huge problem that only the right seems to call out (that i've noticed)

I like him, too. He has good ideas and a good temperament. But I think he's just too young and green. He should run for Governor first and get more seasoned.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I like him, too. He has good ideas and a good temperament. But I think he's just too young and green. He should run for Governor first and get more seasoned.

Yah, Mayor of South Bend is not much. The City i work for has the same population and any of the four mayors i've worked under would be laughed out of a Presidential primary, with cause.

[Martina]

I am not sure that there is anyone among the Dems running who people dislike as much as Hillary, so I guess it's encouraging. Or not. The Dems are not to be trusted. They still blame everyone else but Clinton for the loss. Anyway, this was interesting:

"Trump was able to win in 2016 because that election came down to a choice between him and Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the second-least-liked major party nominee of all time, and there was 18% of the electorate that liked neither Clinton nor Trump. Trump won this 18% of the electorate by 17 points and with it the election. In other words, Trump was seen as the lesser of two evils."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/05/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

[Andrea]

Since I find it difficult to remember the good and the bad for so many different 2020 candidates, I suspect others have the same problem. Heck, I am having trouble just keeping up with who has announced a run and who is just considering a run.

Would it be of interest to have one thread for each candidate? A place to list what we like about them and what we don't like?

[homoe]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Since I find it difficult to remember the good and the bad for so many different 2020 candidates, I suspect others have the same problem. Heck, I am having trouble just keeping up with who has announced a run and who is just considering a run.

Would it be of interest to have one thread for each candidate? A place to list what we like about them and what we don't like?

This is food for thought! I'm thinking maybe we should wait for individual threads for each until a bit close to election time.

Thanks for posting, I searched and searched for this thread but gave up and posted in the Breaking News thread about Bill Shine heading Trump's 2020 re-election campaign!

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by Martina

I am not sure that there is anyone among the Dems running who people dislike as much as Hillary, so I guess it's encouraging. Or not. The Dems are not to be trusted. They still blame everyone else but Clinton for the loss. Anyway, this was interesting:

"Trump was able to win in 2016 because that election came down to a choice between him and Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the second-least-liked major party nominee of all time, and there was 18% of the electorate that liked neither Clinton nor Trump. Trump won this 18% of the electorate by 17 points and with it the election. In other words, Trump was seen as the lesser of two evils."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/05/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

Please give me one good reason why Hillary was the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time. When did that happen? Who made that happen? You all really believe there was ever only one nominee less Satanic than Hillary?

I've never really understood why Democrats and the Left allow Repubs and the Right to define and smear their candidates, accept the smear as legit, and then spend the rest of their political thought defending agst straw man bullshit

Why are so many of you such cowering wimps, so eager to self flagellate and accept every nasty distraction tossed at you.

Ignore the A..Holes. That's what they do because they understand that the public is too ignorant to distinguish fine argument.being constantly on the defensive is just dumb.

Stop going on abt how bad Hillary was. Leave that to the Right.
Want the perfect male candidate, resurrect Jesus.
Want the perfect female candidate, dig up Mother Teresa.
Want the worst possible candidate, let the Right pick one for you and then go on and on about whether they got it right.
What a divisive waste of time and resources.

[Martina]

One? One? Google for God's sake. Seriously???? And this post got thanked by sane people???

How about her strong support of the Iraq War?

How about her continuing to tout welfare reform in her 2008 campaign, legislation which increased extreme poverty by 150%. I remember that. I didn't vote for Bill the second time because of welfare reform. He said, oh we'll clean it up with further legislation. But they didn't. They didn't even follow what happened to the kids removed from welfare. We now know it was a fucking nightmare. And then, in a mind-blowingly cynical act of hypocrisy, in 2016, Hillary kept talking about her time working with Marion Wright Edelman. The Marion Wright Edelman who didn't speak to her for five years after welfare reform. But since she was dead in 2016, she couldn't be asked about it.

How about her close ties to the Walton's and her efforts to undermine labor unions in Arkansas?

How about her support for charters? How about her bone ignorance of education issues except to follow the lead of her billionaire buddies in the tech industry?

How about her opposition to nearly every effort that will probably be part of the 2020 Democratic platform?

How about her close ties to Wall Street? The money from Goldman Sachs being the tip of the iceberg?

How about the foundation which was just more cozying up to corporations from whom the Clinton's made a fortune via speaking and consulting frees.

How about the way she refused to acknowledge economic inequality until forced to? And how she continues to talk about our system as a meritocracy when there is tons of research showing upward mobility is harder than ever and that class privilege predetermines success in almost every arena.

How about her basic support for the TPP, saying it just needed tweaking, continuing her husband's disastrous economic policies which have hollowed out the American middle class?

How about her hesitation on the minimum wage?

How about her interventionist strategy in Libya, which she now regrets?

How about the phrases super-predator and the deserving poor? Those phrases came out of her mouth.

How about her support of every neo-liberal, anti-worker, anti-poor, racist policy her husband's administration came up with?

Google. You'll find more.

Oh, and I sure as hell ain't no cowering wimp. Nor am I self-flagellating when I oppose candidates like Hillary Clinton. I have NOTHING in common with the people who have been destroying our nation for thirty years. And I have about as much in common with a hard core Hillary supporter as I do a Trump supporter. You don't like left wing populists? Who the fuck cares? Bernie had to give an extra speech in Iowa today because there were so many people who couldn't get into the venue. There are lots of us, and we don't give a good God damn what you think.

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics.

[dark_crystal]

The Clintons were yuppies.

Bill won because people still liked yuppies in the early 90s and because GHWB was somehow equal parts wimpy and sinister.

I personally had a hard time with Clinton bc she reminded me of my most annoying second-wave boss, but i do not understand why people vilify her so specifically.

Every problematic thing either Clinton ever supported was typical yuppie shit.

We need to recognize and own, as a culture, everything that was wrong with the entire ethos of the have-it-all eighties and quit projecting it all onto a single woman.

She was dirty from day one bc she entered the workforce at a time when every single thing was gatekept by a male, and female empowerment, back then, was possible only under the terms set by men, which required a wholehearted embrace of capitalism. There were a zillion movies about it.

You had to get dirty to play-- it was still either that or be a teacher/nurse/secretary, and even then, while you may not have to be like men, you at least had to be for them-- compliantly pretty and demure and tolerant of mild harassment and light assault.

There is a whole lot of pernicious shit that any woman in her generation would have internalized, that we are only just now even able to begin to challenge. This is why she still has supporters-- a whole lot of women who had those same experiences are still voting.

She's not evil, she's just a yuppie.

Should she have realized, before running, that the time was past when a yuppie was anything anybody still needed?

Has any yuppie realized this, ever?

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Has any yuppie realized this, ever?

...in the interest of keeping it 2020 and not relitigating 2016: