Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

Who are your favorite candidates?

  • Kamala Harris

    Votes: 43 8.0%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 99 18.4%
  • Julián Castro

    Votes: 16 3.0%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 51 9.5%
  • Kirsten Gillibrand

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • John Delaney

    Votes: 9 1.7%
  • Tulsi Gabbard

    Votes: 63 11.7%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 338 62.9%
  • Amy Klobuchar

    Votes: 12 2.2%
  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 45 8.4%
  • Andrew Yang

    Votes: 112 20.9%
  • Cory Booker

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • Marianne Williamson

    Votes: 19 3.5%
  • Mike Bloomberg

    Votes: 12 2.2%

  • Total voters
    537

THE_IRON_...KENYAN?

Banned deucer.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/bernie-sanders-tariffs-trade-war-sotu-cnntv/index.html

This is a complete dealbreaker for me. Tariffs are basically an embargo on yourself. You do an embargo on your enemies during wartime to hurt their economy, and a tariff is just an embargo - on yourself - in peacetime. Nuts.

Also his Green New Deal that unscientifically chastises nuclear power as unsafe and harmful when its really our only hope and perfectly safe. Except 2 times and both of them were freak accidents that the nuclear engineers of today constantly have in their minds when doing their jobs every day, making a repeat mistake virtually impossible. And we have the tech to make new or upgrade existing reactors so that they have a 0% chance of failing.
 

fanyfan

i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/bernie-sanders-tariffs-trade-war-sotu-cnntv/index.html

This is a complete dealbreaker for me. Tariffs are basically an embargo on yourself. You do an embargo on your enemies during wartime to hurt their economy, and a tariff is just an embargo - on yourself - in peacetime. Nuts.

Also his Green New Deal that unscientifically chastises nuclear power as unsafe and harmful when its really our only hope and perfectly safe. Except 2 times and both of them were freak accidents that the nuclear engineers of today constantly have in their minds when doing their jobs every day, making a repeat mistake virtually impossible. And we have the tech to make new or upgrade existing reactors so that they have a 0% chance of failing.
Why is nuclear our only hope? He’s laid out a plan that doesn’t include nuclear that still hits all the deadlines and such. It seems like based on that, that nuclear isn’t our only hope. Could you elaborate on that?
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Why is nuclear our only hope? He’s laid out a plan that doesn’t include nuclear that still hits all the deadlines and such. It seems like based on that, that nuclear isn’t our only hope. Could you elaborate on that?
The math to make the plan work is pretty optimistic, counting on things like efficiency improvements across the board, high speed rail (probably the least cost effective way of reducing c02 due to land cost). Yeah if we crack solar then it's no doubt a revolution and we can solarify the country. Nuclear power I'd call our only hope "right now", people are just too terrified of it without grounds. Orders of magnitude more people are injured by coal (http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf) than nuclear. This is in part because nuclear is so highly regulated to ensure the lowest possible chance of accidents.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/bernie-sanders-tariffs-trade-war-sotu-cnntv/index.html

This is a complete dealbreaker for me. Tariffs are basically an embargo on yourself. You do an embargo on your enemies during wartime to hurt their economy, and a tariff is just an embargo - on yourself - in peacetime. Nuts.

Also his Green New Deal that unscientifically chastises nuclear power as unsafe and harmful when its really our only hope and perfectly safe. Except 2 times and both of them were freak accidents that the nuclear engineers of today constantly have in their minds when doing their jobs every day, making a repeat mistake virtually impossible. And we have the tech to make new or upgrade existing reactors so that they have a 0% chance of failing.
Tariffs can be used for completely reasonable reasons.
They can be used to counteract lower prices in countries that don't have labour laws or environmental protections.

They go hand in hand with carbon taxes to put pressure on other countries to fight climate change.
The recent pushback from Ireland and France towards a Brazilian free-trade agreement is just that: using tariffs to push other governments to support environmental policies.

If you're against tariffs entirely, what would be your foreign policy strategy for fighting climate change?
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Monmouth Poll:
Bernie: 20%
Liz: 20%
Biden: 19%
Harris: 8%
Rest: Whatevs

It's happening guys... just one poll, but hope this starts a trend~~~ I'm ready for the race to be narrowed down to Bernie vs. Elizabeth. Let's ditch the rest of the clown car.
 
Monmouth Poll:
Bernie: 20%
Liz: 20%
Biden: 19%
Harris: 8%
Rest: Whatevs

It's happening guys... just one poll, but hope this starts a trend~~~ I'm ready for the race to be narrowed down to Bernie vs. Elizabeth. Let's ditch the rest of the clown car.
This is good news. Let's hope the dems don't sabotage Bernie again and make the same mistake as last time.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/596791/

So much is being made of Warren’s efforts to woo party leadership, super delegates, etc. reported in The Atlantic and New York Times. How her hand notes and phone calls saying she’s a team player and will not hostile take-over the party is swaying establishment support.

And predictably progressives getting enraged over this.

Opinions?

Personally, I think it’s a great win for the left if Elizabeth Warren becomes the establishment candidate... if all the oxygen and support in the party elite is going to get sucked up by her and not Biden or Harris. If it becomes a 2 person race, where the party’s starting offer is Elizabeth Warren— this seems like a great development to me.

I think we got to hold the fire for Warren until it really does become a 2 person race between her and Bernie. Then if that does happen we can go on the war path for a revolution.

It bothers me immensely that she says she’ll give her e-mail list and infrastructure to the party; pledged not to build a lasting political infrastructure independence of the DNC— glad I’m not one of her donors— that is really disappointing.

But it is a two way race between her and Bernie, than maybe we have room to negotiate even if she takes the advantage— our terms being that Our a Revolution must absolutely remain independent, and Bernie must be the VP.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/596791/

So much is being made of Warren’s efforts to woo party leadership, super delegates, etc. reported in The Atlantic and New York Times. How her hand notes and phone calls saying she’s a team player and will not hostile take-over the party is swaying establishment support.

And predictably progressives getting enraged over this.

Opinions?

Personally, I think it’s a great win for the left if Elizabeth Warren becomes the establishment candidate... if all the oxygen and support in the party elite is going to get sucked up by her and not Biden or Harris. If it becomes a 2 person race, where the party’s starting offer is Elizabeth Warren— this seems like a great development to me.

I think we got to hold the fire for Warren until it really does become a 2 person race between her and Bernie. Then if that does happen we can go on the war path for a revolution.

It bothers me immensely that she says she’ll give her e-mail list and infrastructure to the party; pledged not to build a lasting political infrastructure independence of the DNC— glad I’m not one of her donors— that is really disappointing.

But it is a two way race between her and Bernie, than maybe we have room to negotiate even if she takes the advantage— our terms being that Our a Revolution must absolutely remain independent, and Bernie must be the VP.
Yeah I pretty much agree. I've seen people who were ok with Warren before now condemning her and while I am a little skeptical on her cozying up to the elites, I don't know how much that will affect her policy, we'll just have to see. But the priority should be in making sure Bernie and her are shown for who they are and their policies and uplifted so that hopefully they become the top two and overtake Biden.
I think a good move from Warren in getting people more comfortable with her would be her reinforcing her support for Medicare for All, because if she is willing to really fight for that then that will be something people can get behind. She also needs to be a little more solid on foreign policy plans but unfortunately outside of the really dedicated left I don't think a lot of people voting democrat will be looking a lot at that, at least outside of China tariffs.
There are a lot of people on the left who will not vote for Biden but will probably vote for Warren (if she doesn't F up before then, that is).
My biggest wonder will be how they spin the whole "electability" thing if Biden drops and it is between Bernie and Warren. Right now the argument is vote for Biden because he's the most electable. When he falls the only other candidate who beats Trump consistently in polls and who is most electable is Bernie. I wonder how they're going to justify them suddenly dropping the whole electability argument.
I highly doubt she'll go with Bernie as VP. Two senators on a ticket who are both old sounds like a bad plan. I think at this point it's really one or the other.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
She also needs to be a little more solid on foreign policy plans but unfortunately outside of the really dedicated left I don't think a lot of people voting democrat will be looking a lot at that, at least outside of China tariffs.
I think what Bernie can do is expand the conversation on China beyond trade. I know he's been talking to Richard Wolff-- he should step in harder into the conversation on China because this is one of these weird gateways to breaking orthodoxy. I tried this on my Mom and Uncle, who are C-level executives at different mid-large enterprises, and I could see afterwords that it really had an impact-- noticeably impacted the way they see capitalism and the way they think about Bernie Sanders. Because they know clear as day, how intimidating China is economically.

Just do what Richard Wolff does-- point out the clear fact that China's slowest years see double the GDP growth of our best years, that on average they've had 3-5 times us. Point out that the average real wage of their workers has quadrupled in 20 years, while ours has been flat since the 1970's. Point out that while we're debating if a Green New Deal is too much, they're leading green energy investment, massively expanding infrastructure at home-- hell they're working on a silk road all the way to Europe. Point out that whether it's China or us, we don't dig our treasure out of the ground like the Saudi's... the future prosperity of the country depends on how smart and fit your labor force is, how connected they are by infrastructure, and how deep their basic research goes that will fuel future innovation-- and that China has quadrupled its labor wages, is massively scaling infrastructure, and is investing tremendously in basic research and green energy.

Then say-- the Chinese have a plan, they believe in government planning... because they're Communists.

Clearly point out, look-- I don't like authoritarian governments. I don't like human rights abuses. What they're doing to the Muslims? Atrocious. What they're doing in Hong Kong? Unacceptable. But that doesn’t change the fact that the USSR and the People's Republic of China are the two biggest growth stories in modern history, and it is because of the Marxism... they plan, and therefore they have more productivity. The question is not about trade-- China just has a more powerful theory of production than we do.

What did capitalism do? Capitalism chased profit motif-- our business leaders sold China their technology and opened their delivery infrastructure and capital in order to gain access to China's cheap labor and big markets. MASSIVE profits made. But the capitalists sold the goose-- the tech, the plants, the labor-- in order to get a whole lot of eggs for the 1%. And now we're going to have the reckoning.

Trade is not the center of this debate-- trade is a distraction. What's really the issue is growth. What's really the issue is capitalism's failure to compete. America can go along with capitalism, and we can wait for capitalism to sell Authoritarian Communists dominance in the world-- which is about to ACCELERATE, not decelerate. OR we can at least give ourselves a fighting chance by creating a new American Democratic Socialism. A democratic form of socialism that at least has a plan to revamp infrastructure, give the people healthcare and education, and put them all to work on a jobs program. At least start to put up a fight by getting our ducks in a row (or should I see geese?).

The world's going to be dominated by socialists one way or the other. Do you want it to be the Authoritarian Chinese Communists? Or would you like it to be American Democratic Socialists? I choose the democratic kind.

And if we succeed in creating a better, fairer version of socialism that is both successful at lifting the people up, but also protects and celebrates their political freedoms and lifts up an example-- well eventually even the Communist Party of China may have to deal with 1 billion people standing up to say-- "We don't just want economic growth. We also want political rights. We want democracy in our society and work places."

Bernie needs to step into this message because it is one that flips minds. The fact that the Chinese, the fastest growing economy, are Marxists, is the elephant in the room.
 
Last edited:

fanyfan

i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
I highly doubt she'll go with Bernie as VP. Two senators on a ticket who are both old sounds like a bad plan. I think at this point it's really one or the other.
Out of curiosity, who do you think would be a good vp for Warren if she gets the nom. Personally, I’d really want it to be Bernie, but I can see and understand the argument against it. A cool idea could be Yang, try to stick to at least somewhat progressive. I’d be really sad if it was Kamala Pete or Beto or someone like that, but I suppose they are possibilities too.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Out of curiosity, who do you think would be a good vp for Warren if she gets the nom. Personally, I’d really want it to be Bernie, but I can see and understand the argument against it. A cool idea could be Yang, try to stick to at least somewhat progressive. I’d be really sad if it was Kamala Pete or Beto or someone like that, but I suppose they are possibilities too.
No the idea is that we rally super hard to get it to be Bernie. Especially since Bernie is going to get a lot of delegates— we play major hard ball. Bernie is the only VP candidate we accept. Period. That is the attitude progressives need to take.

And Our Revolution remains independent, and Bernie doesn’t give his e-mail list. Otherwise, we go mad Bernie-or-bust-protest-vote.

Better— if they put a centrist on the ticket, Bernie should threaten to start a third party— and the squad, Tulsi, and others should back the threat. The Democratic Party can no longer afford to lose the Bernie movement if it wants to remain viable. If he and his followers leave, they got no shot of survival as a party.

We are talking about the most donated to candidate in the race with almost double the donations and donors of Warren. The biggest volunteer infrastructure. Our Revolution. Justice Democrats. Brand New Congress. Sunrise. Democratic Socialists of America.

Meanwhile the Democratic establishment and the Russia gate centrist media is absolutely loathed by the base and energy of the party. If Bernie and the squad say we’re going 3rd party, the DNC’s future viability is just smashed in the knees. They know there is also a danger for them in not playing nice.
 
Last edited:

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Buttigieg is an excellent vp pick for anyone only because of how he matches up with Pence in particular, not that I necessarily think the vp debate 'matters' in most elections. He also has incentive to do it because it's a huge political career advancement for him. It would line him up well to run for the senate or eventually president again.

I don't see what Harris or Bernie would get out of it to be honest. They likely have more influence as senators anyway. Beto is just lol. I don't see what he adds to anyone's ticket. Yang is not going to happen.

I think the most likely VP picks at this point (almost regardless of who wins the nomination) are Buttigeig and Castro, with maybe Klobuchar as a distant third.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Buttigieg is an excellent vp pick for anyone only because of how he matches up with Pence in particular, not that I necessarily think the vp debate 'matters' in most elections. He also has incentive to do it because it's a huge political career advancement for him. It would line him up well to run for the senate or eventually president again.

I don't see what Harris or Bernie would get out of it to be honest. They likely have more influence as senators anyway. Beto is just lol. I don't see what he adds to anyone's ticket. Yang is not going to happen.

I think the most likely VP picks at this point (almost regardless of who wins the nomination) are Buttigeig and Castro, with maybe Klobuchar as a distant third.
We're not thinking about politics that cares for self promotion. VP Bernie is possibly even more terrifying for Washington than President Bernie.

Because depending on how the President sets up the administration, VP could have jack shit actual responsibilities to do-- regardless, VP has more flexible time than President.

So Vice President Sanders hits the campaign trail 12 months of a year and sets it a blaze-- he's campaigning in Kentucky, he's campaigning in California... and those who oppose President Warren's agenda, Democrat or Republican are seeing thousand and millions of people pouring out in their districts and pouring into their mail boxes and phone lines to rally behind the most popular Vice President (and President) the country has ever seen. Even as VP, Bernie could be Organizer in Chief. Our Revolution is driving forth the progressive agenda, and Democrats who don't fall in line will be primaried. Republicans of every flavor will be evicted from office. We'll massively expanding Brand New Congress and Democratic Socialists of America as we rally with them, and elect progressives up and down the ballot.

Vice President Bernie, alongside a President Warren who gives him the green light, could be every bit as transformative if not moreso than FDR-- and Washington will shake.
 
Last edited:

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Do you even live in the usa any more?
Nope, but I’d like to see it become a liveable country again. Not to mention my family/friends who live there, and I’d want it to be a country I or my kids could consider living in in the future.

Besides— there really is no escaping the politics of the US. You realize this living abroad.

Even living in Japan is like living under US rule except that local government provides universal healthcare and there are no mass shootings. But the future outlook of the global economy and the planet really counts on us not fucking up this election.
 

Celever

i am town
is a Community Contributor
Nope, but I’d like to see it become a liveable country again. Not to mention my family/friends who live there, and I’d want it to be a country I or my kids could consider living in in the future.

Besides— there really is no escaping the politics of the US. You realize this living abroad.

Even living in Japan is like living under US rule except that local government provides universal healthcare and there are no mass shootings. But the future outlook of the global economy and the planet really counts on us not fucking up this election.
To back up this statement, in my politics A Level (2 year qualification in the UK before university) the course is 33% UK Politics, 33% Ideology and 33% US Politics. US politics may not be so conspicuously relevant to other countries as it is to the UK, with us having hundreds of pages of textbook deemed necessary for us to know about American politics, but it certainly is important globally. Since the US is the figurehead of not just western ideology but "developed" ideology, it rarely if ever gets challenged when it does stuff wrong, which then gives license to other countries to follow suit. The best example I can think of being its lax attitude towards environmentalism giving countries like Russia and China free license to deforest as much as it wants, whereas in the age of Al Gore both countries (well, all countries) had much more pressure to start conservation schemes.

If the US starts doing things right, all the countries that support the US no matter what gain more ability to challenge the countries who are still doing things wrong, without worrying about denouncing America in the process. That's very significant, particularly when it comes to the "developing" world who are still focussed on economic growth above all else and so "developed" practices like environmental conservation take a back seat in the name of wealth. The morality of America sets the baseline of morality for everyone else, which is why few countries have parties further right than the Republican Party.
 
Nope, but I’d like to see it become a liveable country again. Not to mention my family/friends who live there, and I’d want it to be a country I or my kids could consider living in in the future.

Besides— there really is no escaping the politics of the US. You realize this living abroad.

Even living in Japan is like living under US rule except that local government provides universal healthcare and there are no mass shootings. But the future outlook of the global economy and the planet really counts on us not fucking up this election.
See that’s the disconnect. You talk about holding the Democrats to a progressive agenda, and it’s easy to do that from across the ocean. You don’t have to deal with the increase in bigotry and racism that exists in everyday America. Saying living in Japan is like living in America with universal healthcare and no mass shootings is ignorant and reductionist.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
(It’s called privilege)

But the future outlook of the global economy and the planet really counts on us not fucking up this election.
Which is why if Warren is the elect and doesn’t choose Sanders for what is essentially a ceremonial role that arguably has less power than a sitting senator you propose a protest vote that would aid in the reelection of Trump? Like I’d get it if it were some non-progressive (ie Biden) but this seems like a weird reaction to a candidate that is ideologically the closest to your top choice. And maybe my perspective is different because if my top choice isn’t the candidate (Warren) I wouldn’t want her to be the VP because I think she’s more useful as a senator (and maybe this is because she is better at writing legislation than Bernie), but this is a weird stand to take. I assume that whoever the nominee is will be doing some electoral math to come up with who the best vp choice for them is and I would guess Bernie would check out as a viable choice if it is Warren, but I doubt he’ll be the only one that makes sense.

Bughouse I feel like Stacy Abrams is low key running for VP even though she isn’t running for President, and there are a couple candidates who would probably benefit from her on their ticket. Definitely a better choice than Amy (who I also doubt would want to settle for VP).
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
(It’s called privilege)


Which is why if Warren is the elect and doesn’t choose Sanders for what is essentially a ceremonial role that arguably has less power than a sitting senator you propose a protest vote that would aid in the reelection of Trump? Like I’d get it if it were some non-progressive (ie Biden) but this seems like a weird reaction to a candidate that is ideologically the closest to your top choice. And maybe my perspective is different because if my top choice isn’t the candidate (Warren) I wouldn’t want her to be the VP because I think she’s more useful as a senator (and maybe this is because she is better at writing legislation than Bernie), but this is a weird stand to take. I assume that whoever the nominee is will be doing some electoral math to come up with who the best vp choice for them is and I would guess Bernie would check out as a viable choice if it is Warren, but I doubt he’ll be the only one that makes sense.

Bughouse I feel like Stacy Abrams is low key running for VP even though she isn’t running for President, and there are a couple candidates who would probably benefit from her on their ticket. Definitely a better choice than Amy (who I also doubt would want to settle for VP).
I would absolutely love Stacy Abrams and think she also would make a lot of sense if Biden wins the nomination. Not so much for other candidates other than maaaaaybe Buttigieg but I don’t realistically think Buttigieg can win the nomination anyway.

I don’t think it’s on her radar though. She just started up an organization about voting access and seems very committed to it.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
(It’s called privilege)


Which is why if Warren is the elect and doesn’t choose Sanders for what is essentially a ceremonial role that arguably has less power than a sitting senator you propose a protest vote that would aid in the reelection of Trump? Like I’d get it if it were some non-progressive (ie Biden) but this seems like a weird reaction to a candidate that is ideologically the closest to your top choice. And maybe my perspective is different because if my top choice isn’t the candidate (Warren) I wouldn’t want her to be the VP because I think she’s more useful as a senator (and maybe this is because she is better at writing legislation than Bernie), but this is a weird stand to take. I assume that whoever the nominee is will be doing some electoral math to come up with who the best vp choice for them is and I would guess Bernie would check out as a viable choice if it is Warren, but I doubt he’ll be the only one that makes sense.

Bughouse I feel like Stacy Abrams is low key running for VP even though she isn’t running for President, and there are a couple candidates who would probably benefit from her on their ticket. Definitely a better choice than Amy (who I also doubt would want to settle for VP).
Oh no, I’d vote for Warren even if her VP was Tim Kaine. (Note: I would write in Bernie if it was Joe Biden) I’m just saying Progressives should fight hard for Bernie or the most progressive VP possible until the end of the conversation... and after I would absolutely back progressives making a more viable 3rd party.

I think we just have a different theory of politics here— and the theory is that the only real driving force for change on politicians is the threat of the people deciding to remove them from office. And on that note the more powerful the grass roots movement, the more engaged it is, the more likely anything gets done.

You already read my reasoning. As you said, VP is ceremonial in terms of work load— but it comes with prestige, and with that lighter work load it would come with lots and lots of time for Bernie to be rallying the people in states with resisting representatives.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
See that’s the disconnect. You talk about holding the Democrats to a progressive agenda, and it’s easy to do that from across the ocean. You don’t have to deal with the increase in bigotry and racism that exists in everyday America. Saying living in Japan is like living in America with universal healthcare and no mass shootings is ignorant and reductionist.
You’d be saying the same thing if I lived in Hawaii. You’d say the same if I lived in some liberal bastion in a blue state. You could say the same to me if I was a poor, opium addicted white from Appalachia. The point of intersectionality is not to line up privileges and oppressions to decide who has the most legitimate voice—

The point is to build solidarity, to create a common good will to hear each other’s voices, to fight for each other’s causes, and to overcome differences with open discourse. The left never has power except in solidarity.

I’m willing to listen to any pains that you have. And I will hear and see you brothers and sisters— but I also have a perspective to share, having lived in a satellite state, and now a satellite country of the US empire. I have a valuable perspective as an American who’s experienced how vital single Payer and childcare leave has meant to my family, or lived in Communist China. My guess though is that at the end of such dialogue I would tell you that the answer is not to settle for less— MLK would never have settled for less— the answer is to make sure that we raise up your needs and voices.

The philosophies of the left are not meant to divide, but meant to unite for solidarity— allowing the issues of the oppressed to be raised, but also allowing the more privileged to be welcomed to be included in the movement and also be heard.

I really love this line from a black feminist on an episode of the (amazing) “Hear the Bern” podcast speaking about oppression and intersecionality: “The American people are united yes in their mutual suffering, but also in the hope of future change.”
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top