-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
Let’s be real though I’m so over being shamed by gay friends, especially those from the northeast, for eating chick fil a. I’m over canceled culture generally but this one in particular gets me. Let me eat my delicious, homophobic chicken in peace. I’m gay and I’m no more bothered by their corporate behavior than that of dozens of other companies we all do business with. It’s just the world we live in. A world with delicious chicken.
Love this.
Oh I know--
We will compromise with the libertarians on war policy, social freedoms, and drug regulation.
We will compromise with the Teddy Roosevelt paleo-conservatives on regulation/antitrust, consumer protections, and environmental policy.
That's good bipartisanship, right? xD
Sometimes the product is so good the buyer will disregard the political stance of the corporation that supplies that product completely. That's why gay conservatives including Chadwick Moore, Milo and Blaire White love the chicken sandwiches there. In fact there are LGBT individuals who aren't even conservative that love the chicken chain.
It goes the other way to. I know a bunch of conservatives who still drink starbucks and buy Nike shoes (myself included) despite they are known for being very left leaning.
So what's the big deal the question is? Just let people decide where they want to eat and shop in peace and let people decide if they are willing to give up a product in order to not support a company that holds political views that you are against or not. Deliberately shaming or gaslighting someone that shops at a corporation that holds certain political principles and views regardless liberal or conservative is just bullying and hypocritical if you ask me.
Know what you mean. Howard Shitz is such a vapid asshole, gaslighting the left while seeming to have zero knowledge of how the economy or government works—
...but I still find myself at Starbucks way too often. I need Japan to declare free WiFi as a human right...
...but at least we have single payer healthcare, paid child leave, world class infrastructure, and democratic labor representation in corporate leadership.
Starbucks is left my ass. Donald Trump > Howard Shitz
Last edited:
Nothing to feed your righteous rage like Mike Gravel on the Jimmy Dore Show.
Last edited:
Those people are called sellouts.
I may not have any influence over the PoLiTiCaL pRoCeSs that continues to elect outwardly homophobic candidates in offices outside of my state, but I can still exert my granular percent of influence in my home state when I vote. Likewise, I can't really stop a corporate behemoth like CFA from funding anti-gay policies, but I can still keep their chicken from going into my mouth when I choose to eat out.
And feel free to prattle on about the multitude of other corporations that are eroding gay/human rights around the country. I'll listen. I have no problem cutting threads that I can trace back toward the businesses that are fully complicit in undermining my existence.
They are rated the best in terms of customer service multiple times in the past AND are on the path to be the 3rd largest revenue generating fast food chain behind only Mcdonalds and Starbucks despite not opening on Sundays AND constantly receiving boycott backlashes by LGBT and Pro Gay groups. That says something about their food.
But regardless CFA sandwiches taste soooooooooo good you're really missing out some quality fast food for boycotting. XD
Well I don't typically eat fast food in general. The last time I did it was Chipotle and I'm still ruffled over the teenager behind the grill loudly belching above the chicken he was cooking. I'll have to add them to my list...
The USDA tricked us and said carbohydrates should be the foundation of every meal, re: old food pyramid.
But this is getting too off topic, unless we can tie it into a candidate's platform for 2020?
Yeah, what EV said it’s the same cause of all our societal ills: corporatist capitalism. LOL
But I got to say, I do think the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic cultures are more susceptible to this because let’s face it their ethnic cuisines are comparatively bland and bleh.
Fatties: Americans, Brits, Germans
(Ethnic cuisine is awful)
Not fatties: Latin/Mediterranean Europe, East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia
(Ethnic cuisines are amazing)
Just sayin’
If Joe Biden is the nominee in 2020, Trump will win. If Trump doesnt win, someone is a lot smoother than Trump and probably an actual fascist will win in 2024, lmao
The launch video is finally here.
It's here with zero policy.
It's here with zero promises to the American people.
It's here with zero outlining of accomplishments.
It's here with zero reason to actually vote for Joe Biden.
Because Joe can't talk about his agenda... since his agenda is selling out the American people.
I've actually been wondering about this... what if we designed progressive candidates meant to run as GOP candidates? Think about it-- there are no super delegates, the opponents are totally feckless, and the voting base is actually all economically working class economic left and anti-war.
We'll just get candidates stylistically like Richard Ojeda and make them say stuff like this:
"I love the constitution and am radically libertarian on our social issues. Keep the government off my weed!"
"I agree with Ron Paul that war is awful and the DEEP STATE military industrial complex has got us by the balls. I'm here to take our balls back for America."
"Foreign policy? I ain't like other Republicans... I ain't here to kiss the boots of the Saudis and Netanyahu. If they want to fight wars, they can pay for it on their own, or get Mexico to pay for it."
"I'm pro-life and think Abortion is murder, but I also think the government should keep its mitts offa' my daughter! I'm talkin' to you Joe Biden! Big Government can't tell a woman what to do with her body. Sometimes we have to accept sin that comes with liberty. That's freedom man. That's freedom."
"I'm a good libertarian who loves guns, and loves freedom. But I also believe in car licenses. If you want a car, you need a license. If you want a gun, you should need one too. Come friends, let's tap into our good Christian nature and think about what's best for our families."
"The great Theodore Roosevelt-- 2nd best Republican President of all time after mighty honest Abe-- ran on 3 C's for America. (1) Consumer protection-- I mean fightin' for the little guy. (2) Control Business-- break up these rigged monopolies and bring some actual competition to our markets!! Competition folks, it's what makes capitalism great, small businesses over corrupt robber barons. (3) CONSERVE the environment. I'm a Conservative because I care about fuckin' conservin' things-- our religion, our family values, and our WORLD. We conservatives don't want change, and I hella don't want my kids to grow up with no fishin' in the creek and no polar bears in the great red state of Alaska. Polar Bears folks! POLAR BEARS!!"
"Jesus was a revolutionary who fought for the little guy... who demanded we take care of the least amongst us, and chastised the rich who he would not see into heaven. That is why I am fighting for our government to give healthcare and jobs to all Americans. Jesus told me to do it."
...what could go wrong? xDD
2024: We run progressives-as-Republicans #JusticeRepublicans
Last edited:
Everybody talking about Democrats needing to move to the center to be more electable, is that actually a good strategy? I don't think so. If you look at any recent election, the more centrist of the two candidates usually loses.
If a Democrat candidate is just going to be neo-con lite, the American public probably just go with the real deal. I genuinely think that a legit progressive candidate like Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard would stomp this election.
Once the primaries start, a good way to see what candidate would do better in the general is to see who does comparatively better in open primary states, in 2016, that was Bernie in the Democrat primary and Trump in the Republican primary.
If a Democrat candidate is just going to be neo-con lite, the American public probably just go with the real deal. I genuinely think that a legit progressive candidate like Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard would stomp this election.
Once the primaries start, a good way to see what candidate would do better in the general is to see who does comparatively better in open primary states, in 2016, that was Bernie in the Democrat primary and Trump in the Republican primary.
In 2018, progressives lost almost all of their congressional elections. Moderate dems won the house.
Bernie did better than Hillary mostly just in caucasus, which is something people seem to conveniently ignore when discussing his hypothetical chances vs 2016 Trump. Thank god some states are eliminating caucasus in favor of legitimate elections in the upcoming primary, because they're an absurd way to judge the popularity of a candidate.
I don't think perceived electability is how we should be judging our candidates, but if you do, bernie/warren/kamala aren't the ones you should be rooting for.
Last edited:
Re: 1st paragraph, you’ve stated this a couple times without a source. This is especially problematic because the statements “in 2018 progressives lost almost all of their congressional races” and “moderate dems won back the house” both require context. For the first one, is this in primaries or generals (or both whenever a “progressive” ran)? Is it across all districts? A “progressive” losing in a R+34 district is pretty meaningless, because anyone with an (R) next to their name would win, even vs a moderate dem. Finally who is defining / what is the definition for progressive being used. For the second statement, again is this factoring primaries (did the moderate winners face a progressive primary opponent? are they comparing districts with similar leans that moderates picked up but progressives lost?). It makes a lot of sense that most flips were picked up by moderates because most districts that weren’t already democratic but flipppable were probably moderate/purple/purple-red districts. Obviously if the Democrats are picking up seats in Suburban Virginia, Oklahoma, and South Carolina they are going to do it with moderates. It seems like whatever source you are using is ignoring that several already blue seats became more progressive (either because they were open seats, or because the prior rep got primaried see AOC). I saw and article on 538 that this is the youngest, most progressive (freshman class or general congressional body?) of Democrats in the house ever, that I am too lazy to find right now.
Re: third paragraph. I think you really overvalue how important actual policy is in electability. Sure Bernie is to the left of the average person in America on policy but he is charismatic, and a man, both of which I honestly think are more important for electability than ideas. Which is unfortunate cause I’d like to vote for Warren based on policy but I honestly just don’t think she has it in her to win. I mean it’s not like Trump won on policy, given he 1) didn’t have many clear policies during the election and 2) had a couple defined policies that would hurt his own base (tariffs). But people decided that they’d rather drink a beer with DT than Hilary so they voted for a racist moron.
Anyway, did anyone see the town hall extravaganza? It was really interesting seeing how each of the candidates compared back-to-back, though I wish Beto and Kirsten showed up. My thoughts:
She was okay, but she definitely didn't perform well enough to boost her place in the polls. If this is all she has to offer for the next year, I don't think she's going to get very far. She's not an unlikely VP pick, though, especially if a progressive candidate takes the nomination.
Did even better than expected. Her answer to the sexism question was incredible, and I think she really solidified herself as a viable candidate. I'll be very surprised if she doesn't steal a substantial number of supporters from other candidates, particularly Bernie (even though 25% of current Bernie supporters said they'd vote for Trump over Warren lmao).
Was a bit underwhelming compared to his usual interviews. As per usual, he was great at answering every question with his stump speech, but he had a few bad moments this time around. In particular, he seemed really rattled by the communism question and the "should the boston bomber be able to vote from prison" question, to the point where even Fox News is attacking him on it. Granted, they were bad questions, and his positions weren't necessarily wrong (his platform is definitely not communism, prisoners arguably should have a right to vote), but everyone else did much better with their 'gotcha' questions, imo, even Amy. It didn't help that he kept trying to interrupt everyone. I think people are going to quickly get tired of the angry old man vibe and avoiding most questions by pivoting to "millionaires and billionaires", especially when we have some seriously charming candidates this time around who will be standing right next to him on stage. A bit better than Amy, worse than everyone else. It sucks that he happened to drop the ball at this particular event considering he had the prime-time slot.
And while we're on the topic, his She The People performance was atrocious, but that's p much what we would expect from Bernie at an event completely focused on female/POC issues lol. Even then, I'm baffled that he actually used the "I marched with mlk" meme line, especially as a response to being called out for not addressing the question ("What will you do about white supremacy?"). Many of his supporters are defending him in the most offensive, tasteless ways possible, but, again, what else did we expect?
And while we're on the topic, his She The People performance was atrocious, but that's p much what we would expect from Bernie at an event completely focused on female/POC issues lol. Even then, I'm baffled that he actually used the "I marched with mlk" meme line, especially as a response to being called out for not addressing the question ("What will you do about white supremacy?"). Many of his supporters are defending him in the most offensive, tasteless ways possible, but, again, what else did we expect?
Like Warren, Kamala absolutely knocked it out of the park and solidified herself as a huge, progressive threat going forward. She did a legitimately incredible job defending Medicare for All, particularly the elimination of private insurance. Her discussion on her truancy policy was also fantastic, and she even went above and beyond in accepting responsibility and apologizing for the incarcerations caused by other truancy policies, despite the fact that her own office never imprisoned anyone. I think her strong take on impeachment will be a big boon going forward as well, and it has the great side effect of highlighting the benefits of her being a former prosecutor. She and Warren were by far the best of the night, and their notable successes (e.g. warren being captivating, kamala unapologetically promoting progressive policies) were such a pleasant surprise.
Same as all of his other interviews (i.e. practically flawless). There isn't much else to say except that this was probably his biggest exposure event so far, and his biggest focus atm is recognition and brand-building. So even in the late-night weekday slot where most older people went to sleep already, this was a massive success.
