Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[Celticpride]

FDR won almost all of the states.

So did Reagan, LBJ and freaking Nixon.

and here’s another important point-- we are not as ideologically "beat Trump over everything else," because we see the Dems as being pretty much as bad; or we see the problem as much more deeply rooted than Trump.

This is fundamentally false, unless you’re ignoring the Civil Rights erosion happening now. The fact is that Trump awakened something awful in this country. Before we talk about economic redistribution, we need to oust those that discriminate against the other, where the “other” are LGTB, Black, Latino, Muslim. It’s easy to say an economic cure will heal those ills - if you live in a blue state, and those ills really don’t apply to you. Try being gay in Texas or Black in Alabama and then tell me that the Democrats are as bad as Trump.

 

[Chou Toshio]

So did Reagan, LBJ and freaking Nixon.

Doesn't discredit the politics that we are aiming for.

This is fundamentally false, unless you’re ignoring the Civil Rights erosion happening now. The fact is that Trump awakened something awful in this country. Before we talk about economic redistribution, we need to oust those that discriminate against the other, where the “other” are LGTB, Black, Latino, Muslim. It’s easy to say an economic cure will heal those ills - if you live in a blue state, and those ills really don’t apply to you. Try being gay in Texas or Black in Alabama and then tell me that the Democrats are as bad as Trump.

You can read my earlier post on the last page friend-- that I think, if a neoliberal were to win, ultimately we would make it worse. The ugly thing that Trump has awoken would get progressively stronger. It's ridiculous and divorced from the reality of economic data, but right now they have been in some ways placated-- white working class views of the outlook of the country have become more positive since Trump won. It's actually a huge opportunity for an economic progressive populist now that these people are getting pissed with their taxes raised, and people like Anne Coulter are telling them Trump betrayed them! Now, what if he loses? And moreso, what if he loses to a Democrat that actually makes their lives worse than Trump did, and doesn't go populist? And what if next time a right wing Nationalist decides he is going to run he goes full-blown Keynesian (for white people) like Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon's ideal candidate would?

Now there is a real tribal disaster situation.

You can discount the threat of that scenario if you don't think it credible-- I personally find it extremely credible as someone who pays attention to the populist right. Their ideas are popular, because as disgustingly tribal as it is, they're speaking more about the untold truths in our country than people like Hillary or Biden do. On foreign affairs and economics Tucker Carlson is far left of the DNC (at times even spewing stuff left of Bernie), and the Fox viewer base LOVES him. Ben Shapiro's audience prefers Tucker to Ben Shapiro. It would be so easy for a populist nationalist to wreck the RNC's shit and do REAL damage by gaining loyalty through actually doing good work for [white] people.

And ultimately we're returning to our different view on Trump. You see him as the problem; I see him as a symptom. And I see a neoliberal candidate as a symptom treatment that actually makes the underlying sickness worse. There is no cure that lets you dampen tribalism that doesn't involve eliminating austerity. Human nature allows for human beings to be extremely benevolent upstanding moral beings-- when there is plenty to go around, making conflict far more costly than cooperation. Austerity (which is pretty much the core of Neoliberalism-- just look at France right now) is the best way to feed tribalism.

 

[Myzozoa]

So, what concessions are the Bernie contingent willing to give to the more centrist minded Democrats? The centrists aren’t just going to fall in line behind Bernie if he wins the party nomination... kind of like how the Bernie faction didn’t fall in line behind Hillary when she won the nomination. Sanders having some kind of perceived ideological purity doesn’t excuse him from having to bring together multiple parts of the Democratic Party through compromise on a shared agenda.

“If you want the votes of voters like me make us an offer we can’t refuse” it’s this kind of rhetoric that makes progressives so damn unlikeable. And I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primary in 2016 and is in general a left of center democrat. The Bernie or Bust crowd has this terrible holier-than-thou attitiude that is a huge turnoff to people not already supporting Bernie. They’re a voting contingent that probably should have been listened to more in 2016, but they seem to think Sanders and his ideas are the magical cure all for the Democrats when they aren’t.

this thread reminds me why it's impossible to work with liberal fake elftists: they always prefer to tear each other apart than the structures of oppression.

the sanders contingent got behind clinton and fell in line for every practical purpose, thats the truth. if you want to deny this truth, then know that you have no potential as a revolutionary class because you prefer to name your co conspirators supposed betrayals as your greivences rather than the state apparatus, i.e the electoral college. which actually stole the election.

and the imagined 'hillary contingent' has so much more to answer for wrt to alienating voters, only a rich privileged person could see moving center as not alienating voters, because as a rich person they are personally alienated from a progressive agenda in the age of rampant inequality and not alienated by centrist agenda.

this impulse to compromise with rich centrists who share none of your political policies is what killed the democrats, centrists want republican neoliberalism way more than democrats so moving center is a losing game.

it's like ur saying that sanders should be milquetoast and spineless to bring together the last handful of biollionaires who still vote for fake progressive policy.

it's ppl's lives and our society's principles, it's unbelievably insulting and myopic to assert sanders supporters are holier than thou because they have taken ppl besides themselves' interests into account in their policy considerations. yes, sanders supporters are just so smug because they want to end the military industrial complex... the whole world pays for this <- line of myopic thinking, just realize that if u can

its the easiest rhetoric in the world to, when faced with superior reasoning, accuse one's opponents of having a smug attitude or bad attitude as this moves away from how poorly thought out and executed one's position is.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/berni...er-his-support-amid-anti-semitism-controversy
sanders is the only candidate who is even close to being different from a republican, not that hopeful, but some hope is better than none. sanders is currently the only candidate who even has his head wrapped around a longterm leftist vision, the rest of the field are honestly career politicians making it up as they go along, theyll be happy to deliver us to another demagogue and let the world burn around them as long as their legacy is cemented.

I pray stacey abrams runs and that when she does sanders will throw his support behind her and his supporters will fall in line.

quick reality check on who isn't falling in line, lets go back to 2008 if little fake leftists can remember that far:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday chalked up the fact that some of his supporters during 2016’s Democratic primaries eventually voted for Donald Trump in the general election to “the nature of politics.”

“People say not everybody who voted for Bernie ended up voting for Hillary, no kidding!" Sanders said on "Meet The Press."


He added, "That's what happens in politics," specifically pointing to some samples that have showed as many as a quarter of Clinton's primary voters in 2008 ended up voting for John McCain in the general election.


there is no eyeroll in the world large enough for ppl still looking to cast aspersions on sanders supportertsin the name of clinton 2016

 

[Machoke]

So I was a little nervous about Andrew Yang first seeing as he was an entrepreneur rather than someone with political experience but seeing his campaign is actually pretty refreshing. I have doubts that he's going to receive support from democrats especially since he's not running in a conventional manner (he hasn't held office anywhere) but my hope is that his campaign will at least push people to talk more about the biggest issue he is trying to promote:

Universal Basic Income

Right away he addresses automation in his ad (albeit in a bit of a "scary bad technology" way) and it looks like he gets that automation is going to one of the biggest factors in determining job area and count in the future. I think this is one of the big things that some politicians fail to understand. I remember hearing a lot of "these people lost their manufacturing jobs!" and "these people lost their mining jobs!" and it being blamed on a particular administration rather than on the natural progression of technology in the workforce. Of course they lost their jobs, their jobs have become increasingly automated.

And it's not inherently a bad thing. The automation means less people have to work dangerous jobs and jobs can be done speedier and with more precision. The bad part is the "uh oh, now I can't survive" part. But! With universal basic income, that would be alleviated, which I think is the key factor missing in discussions for jobs being lost due to automation.

He proposes that business that make use of the automation get taxed to help fund this. That's an absolutely brilliant idea, because those businesses have capital that is producing free labor for them and replacing jobs for people. They are essentially not having to pay a wage to machines that can do better jobs than people. As a result, they'll be getting huge long-term economic benefits for simply having that technology. Makes sense to tax it to me.

I still have to look into the others as the only person I know a lot about is Bernie because of his last presidential run. I decided to start with Yang because he's the one I know about least, but I'm hoping he's representative of the direction that democrats are starting to go in as a whole.

 

[Myzozoa]

So I was a little nervous about Andrew Yang first seeing as he was an entrepreneur rather than someone with political experience but seeing his campaign is actually pretty refreshing. I have doubts that he's going to receive support from democrats especially since he's not running in a conventional manner (he hasn't held office anywhere) but my hope is that his campaign will at least push people to talk more about the biggest issue he is trying to promote:

Universal Basic Income

Right away he addresses automation in his ad (albeit in a bit of a "scary bad technology" way) and it looks like he gets that automation is going to one of the biggest factors in determining job area and count in the future. I think this is one of the big things that some politicians fail to understand. I remember hearing a lot of "these people lost their manufacturing jobs!" and "these people lost their mining jobs!" and it being blamed on a particular administration rather than on the natural progression of technology in the workforce. Of course they lost their jobs, their jobs have become increasingly automated.

And it's not inherently a bad thing. The automation means less people have to work dangerous jobs and jobs can be done speedier and with more precision. The bad part is the "uh oh, now I can't survive" part. But! With universal basic income, that would be alleviated, which I think is the key factor missing in discussions for jobs being lost due to automation.

He proposes that business that make use of the automation get taxed to help fund this. That's an absolutely brilliant idea, because those businesses have capital that is producing free labor for them and replacing jobs for people. They are essentially not having to pay a wage to machines that can do better jobs than people. As a result, they'll be getting huge long-term economic benefits for simply having that technology. Makes sense to tax it to me.

I still have to look into the others as the only person I know a lot about is Bernie because of his last presidential run. I decided to start with Yang because he's the one I know about least, but I'm hoping he's representative of the direction that democrats are starting to go in as a whole.

Universal basic income would be great, but I am always waiting for the candidate (which looks like it will be no one, but just may be a candidate that has to fund a lot of social programs...) that explicitly says they're going to provide these things (various social programs) by reducing military spending. I am pretty much done w this thread because the grievances and dissonances of electoral politics elicit my frustration, but the key for me w electoral politics is to find the candidate that stands to most reduce the amount of blood shed by the American military-industrial complex and the prison-industrial complex. The idea I have is that the candidates who promise the largest domestic spending agendas will be most likely to make cuts to these life destroying institutions, so it isn't the best thing in my view, to talk about (taxing automation to fund) universal basic income, if, as we see every election cycle afaik, discussions of demilitarization aren't accompanying it. I try to asses how each candidate will impact violence all over the globe. So, if a supposedly leftist candidate promises reform but that reform doesn't include sweeping cutbacks to our military and prison apparatus, then I worry that reform will turn out to maintain or further American imperialism.

 

[Machoke]

Universal basic income would be great, but I am always waiting for the candidate (which looks like it will be no one, but just may be a candidate that has to fund a lot of social programs...) that explicitly says they're going to provide these things (various social programs) by reducing military spending. I am pretty much done w this thread because the grievances and dissonances of electoral politics elicit my frustration, but the key for me w electoral politics is to find the candidate that stands to most reduce the amount of blood shed by the American military-industrial complex and the prison-industrial complex. The idea I have is that the candidates who promise the largest domestic spending agendas will be most likely to make cuts to these life destroying institutions, so it isn't the best thing in my view, to talk about (taxing automation to fund) universal basic income, if, as we see every election cycle afaik, discussions of demilitarization aren't accompanying it. I try to asses how each candidate will impact violence all over the globe. So, if a supposedly leftist candidate promises reform but that reform doesn't include sweeping cutbacks to our military and prison apparatus, then I worry that reform will turn out to maintain or further American imperialism.

This is a really good point. Even a quarter cut in military spending would be enough to fund the promises that a lot of democrats have on their campaigns while reducing blood on soil that we are directly responsible for. I'm going to try and see how the people who are up to the plate intend to cut back on military spending and reduce US imperialism but if they're supporting that it doesn't look like they're doing so very publicly.
I haven't been as in touch with politics as before (work ugh) and therefore I haven't been as in touch with how people view military but a few years ago I thought there was a reasonable amount of people who wanted to reduce it. When midterms were happening in AZ, I went to see the debate between Sinema and McSally. What surprised me was that McSally said "we are finally rebuilding our military" and I was like WAIT WHAT?! Rebuilding? As if it's ever been knocked down even a tad in the first place?!
So I guess there's at least, on some level, this narrative that the US military is actually too small (which is wild to think about).
I really wonder what it's going to take for reducing imperialism and reducing military spending to be a key platform a politician will run on.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Unfortunately Yang is not representative of the field; he is the only one who is going to be pushing the “what do we do about automation” message; though Bernie has recently started mentioning the issue. I agree with you that this is a candidate who must make the debate stage— and he’s actually on track to do so. I’ve already donated $5 to see it happen.

By the way, on the right, Tucker Carlson is demanding that the Republicans return to the politics of Teddy Roosevelt (you know; the original progressive) and demanding we ban autonomous vehicles altogether (in order to save middle aged men’s jobs).

The right wing working voters LOVE that message. That’s what we might be up against in the future politically— one more reason to tackle it NOW.

This is a really good point. Even a quarter cut in military spending would be enough to fund the promises that a lot of democrats have on their campaigns while reducing blood on soil that we are directly responsible for. I'm going to try and see how the people who are up to the plate intend to cut back on military spending and reduce US imperialism but if they're supporting that it doesn't look like they're doing so very publicly.
I haven't been as in touch with politics as before (work ugh) and therefore I haven't been as in touch with how people view military but a few years ago I thought there was a reasonable amount of people who wanted to reduce it. When midterms were happening in AZ, I went to see the debate between Sinema and McSally. What surprised me was that McSally said "we are finally rebuilding our military" and I was like WAIT WHAT?! Rebuilding? As if it's ever been knocked down even a tad in the first place?!
So I guess there's at least, on some level, this narrative that the US military is actually too small (which is wild to think about).
I really wonder what it's going to take for reducing imperialism and reducing military spending to be a key platform a politician will run on.

The candidate you’re looking for is Tulsi Gabbard, unapologetically running in on no regime change wars.

Her taking MSM bullshit on the view:

Though Warren and Bernie have been moving left on Foreign Policy, Tulsi is the one putting it front and center.

We got to give her credit— since the media and Dems are so aligned with the military industrial complex, she’s taking so much bullshit. Donated to her too— hope she can become Bernie’s Secretary of State.

You’re right that there are a lot of people who want to reduce the military. Trumpists and libertarians on the right, progressives on the left. The base voters of both parties strongly want to stop interventions. Unfortunately, like most bipartisan efforts, this is one where both parties are aligned with power against the people.

That said, with Trump’s election, the anti-interventionist faction on the right have become increasingly vocal (despite Trump bringing Bolton and a bunch of new neocon monsters into the White House), and I think that’s a big part of what let Bernie’s bill on Yemen see so much success.

 

[Machoke]

Unfortunately Yang is not representative of the field; he is the only one who is going to be pushing the “what do we do about automation” message; though Bernie has recently started mentioning the issue. I agree with you that this is a candidate who must make the debate stage— and he’s actually on track to do so. I’ve already donated $5 to see it happen.

By the way, on the right, Tucker Carlson is demanding that the Republicans return to the politics of Teddy Roosevelt (you know; the original progressive) and demanding we ban autonomous vehicles altogether (in order to save middle aged men’s jobs).

The right wing working voters LOVE that message. That’s what we might be up against in the future politically— one more reason to tackle it NOW.

This is pretty frightening to hear. I think something we really need to emphasize is that automation is not inherently bad. Self driving cars would save people from dying in crashes more than human drivers would and would also help people be able to leave jobs that are detrimental to their health (I know a lot of truckers here in AZ who really struggle under the harsh lifestyle). I think people see it more as "stealing jobs" rather than "liberating people" from jobs that are hard to work.

I just wish people could see automation as exposing the problems with our economy - hoarding of untaxed capital for extreme profit, economic inequality, devaluation of labor, etc. rather than a problem in itself. Banning autonomous vehicles would be a disservice to the future of transportation and road safety.

The candidate you’re looking for is Tulsi Gabbard, unapologetically running in on no regime change wars.

Her taking MSM bullshit on the view:

Though Warren and Bernie have been moving left on Foreign Policy, Tulsi is the one putting it front and center.

We got to give her credit— since the media and Dems are so aligned with the military industrial complex, she’s taking so much bullshit. Donated to her too— hope she can become Bernie’s Secretary of State.

You’re right that there are a lot of people who want to reduce the military. Trumpists and libertarians on the right, progressives on the left. The base voters of both parties strongly want to stop interventions. Unfortunately, like most bipartisan efforts, this is one where both parties are aligned with power against the people.

That said, with Trump’s election, the anti-interventionist faction on the right have become increasingly vocal (despite Trump bringing Bolton and a bunch of new neocon monsters into the White House), and I think that’s a big part of what let Bernie’s bill on Yemen see so much success.

Haven't looked much into Gabbard yet, but after watching that I have to give her respect for what she's said. Wow. Especially as someone who is Cuban and Panamanian this is the kind of message people need to hear more about American interventionism affects people around the world.

I imagine she isn't too popular with democrats/the party for this one? Regardless I'm glad to hear she's making it the center of her campaign.

 

[Chou Toshio]

This is pretty frightening to hear. I think something we really need to emphasize is that automation is not inherently bad. Self driving cars would save people from dying in crashes more than human drivers would and would also help people be able to leave jobs that are detrimental to their health (I know a lot of truckers here in AZ who really struggle under the harsh lifestyle). I think people see it more as "stealing jobs" rather than "liberating people" from jobs that are hard to work.

I just wish people could see automation as exposing the problems with our economy - hoarding of untaxed capital for extreme profit, economic inequality, devaluation of labor, etc. rather than a problem in itself. Banning autonomous vehicles would be a disservice to the future of transportation and road safety.

This is essentially the difference between Progressives and Economic left Paleo-Conservatives— even when we fear the same problem and even agree it is a problem; we want progress in new solutions, they instinctively prefer conservation.

But here’s where I’d steal talking points from Socialist professor Richard Wolff— throughput history whenever we had new technology to increase productivity we had a choice: (1) fire workers/pay them less and give more profits to owners or (2) reduce the hours of all workers while keeping their pay the same.

Paleo conservatives would be right that we’ve never done #2; we don’t know if #2 is politically feasible. If we don’t want the workers abused by the owners, we got to stop progress to prevent this conversation completely.

A progressive social democrat would say “We’re not going to be able to stop progress either, and we shouldn’t. Let’s redistribute the profits with taxes in the form of social insurance/education programs.”

A democratic socialist would say: You know, if we had Democracy in the work place, if workers were making the decisions about how to run the business, we would simply fix this by choosing option 2.

Ultimately, we got to convince the average GOP voter that the left is right on this issue. I personally prefer a Jeremy Corbyn style "Right of Refusal" (where any company that tries to sell itself, ship over seas, etc. first has to give workers the option to buy the operation and turn it into a worker co-op with the government providing a loan to make it happen); but a left libertarian solution like Yang's Freedom Dividend is more politically feasible in the short run and also utilizes a core competency of the US government (which is very good at accurately and securely sending people $$).

Haven't looked much into Gabbard yet, but after watching that I have to give her respect for what she's said. Wow. Especially as someone who is Cuban and Panamanian this is the kind of message people need to hear more about American interventionism affects people around the world.

I imagine she isn't too popular with democrats/the party for this one? Regardless I'm glad to hear she's making it the center of her campaign.

Gabbard is taking all kinds of crap from the media. They even regularly don’t even show her on the lists. Every MSM appearance is like an interrogation.

It’s also an insane anecdote that the loudest voice in the MSM defending her is Tucker Carlson— and again, the populist right/libertarians love Tulsi Gabbard because of her anti-war message and being a veteran.

From the left it’s not like there aren’t legitimate critiques of Gabbard (the Intercept article is worth the read).

But watching her step down as DNC Vice Chair in 2016 in order to indorse Bernie Sanders—specifically because of war— and now in 2020 running a campaign calling out neolibs and neocons by those terms and demanding an end to regime change... she is making herself the enemy of the worst enemies to have and paying the political price for that. As a voter from Hawaii I am eminently proud of her courage and Aloha.

 

[Ryolain]

I think Tulsi’s campaign is DOA between her homophobic past and her anti-interventionist stance, especially in regards to Syria. I think the tides are turning a little in the US but far too many people still think of us as the world police and can’t fathom the idea that Assad attacking his own citizens isn’t our issue to solve. Add that to a lack of name recognition compared to some of the other candidates and I’d be shocked if she lasted more than a few states into the primary.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I think Tulsi’s campaign is DOA between her homophobic past and her anti-interventionist stance, especially in regards to Syria. I think the tides are turning a little in the US but far too many people still think of us as the world police and can’t fathom the idea that Assad attacking his own citizens isn’t our issue to solve. Add that to a lack of name recognition compared to some of the other candidates and I’d be shocked if she lasted more than a few states into the primary.

I think she’s running for a spot in the Bernie administration and when she endorses him again she’s going to bring a lot of anti war voters from both sides of the party spectrum with her.

In this context it’s fine that the MSM hates her— this actually makes her MORE popular with the independents who lost faith in Bernie after he endorsed Hillary. The important thing is that the normal people she’s meeting on the campaign trail in key states love her and her message; as do all the anti-establishment voters who see her on Joe Rogan— making appearances all over alternative media.

 

[Ryolain]

Joe Rogan sucks tho. He happily gives platforms to conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and general alt-right trash. I would not see going on his show as a positive.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Joe Rogan sucks tho. He happily gives platforms to conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and general alt-right trash. I would not see going on his show as a positive.

Biggest podcast on the internet. Joe is pretty dumb at times, but he has treated left wing voices like Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski well. I would have reservations about Bernie going on there, but Tulsi and Andrew Yang going on have massively expanded the alternative media reach of both candidates-- and that's a good thing. If you have no faith in the *alt right white supremacist trash" of Joe Rogan's audience-- go read the comments on those two Youtube videos and see the massive amount of overwhelming support both "Hindu/Samoan Woman of Color" Tulsi Gabbard as well as "Chinese Communist" Andrew Yang got. The Yang podcast in particular is super serious, one of the best episodes for sure. Joe doesn't go off topic for the first hour 40 mins-- they drill down into the issues and now Yang is probably the most popular candidate for that audience (Tulsi 2nd).

Also when New York Times writer Bari Weiss went on and ridiculously slandered Tulsi, the audience got super hate-triggered and reared up fiercely to defend Tulsi.

577 likes, 3.5k dislikes, 100k views
Damn, son, damn. Also it's a real sad state of affairs that the writers at NYT are this bad at journalism.

JRE, for all the ridiculous love for Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro is ultimately going to be a force for good at the end of the day here... and I look forward to the next time Kyle or another leftist goes on. Tulsi should go on again.

 

[Ryolain]

I mean Bari Weiss sucks ass too. I know JRE’s audience isn’t all terrible but I question his judgment in who he gives voices too. I’d say it’s net neutral at best.

ETA: In other words, I wouldn’t give much credit to Joe himself insofar as he’ll basically have on anyone he thinks might be interesting, and that kind of platform agnosticism is something the “Intellectual Dark Web” clamors for. I think his past guests are gonna tarnish any boost Gabbard et al might get from going on his show. If they can take advantage of that platform to reach and audience they might otherwise not, good for them I suppose, but I have reservations about agreeing to go on a show like that to begin with.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I mean Bari Weiss sucks ass too. I know JRE’s audience isn’t all terrible but I question his judgment in who he gives voices too. I’d say it’s net neutral at best.

ETA: In other words, I wouldn’t give much credit to Joe himself insofar as he’ll basically have on anyone he thinks might be interesting, and that kind of platform agnosticism is something the “Intellectual Dark Web” clamors for. I think his past guests are gonna tarnish any boost Gabbard et al might get from going on his show. If they can take advantage of that platform to reach and audience they might otherwise not, good for them I suppose, but I have reservations about agreeing to go on a show like that to begin with.

Andrew Yang going on Sam Harris' podcast is also a big part of what boosted his media presence. The new Atheist base is now strongly in Yang's corner; now waiting to see if he will succeed in breaking the barrier to entry.

As for JRE and the IDW... this is where my left libertarian streak comes in because I'm not for deplatforming, and I actually am fine with Joe's agnosticism there. As long as it actually IS neutral. I wouldn't have a problem with the Intellectual Dark Web if they actually practiced what they preached-- engaged in the battle of ideas.

If Jordan Peterson followed through on having a debate with Richard Wolff, if Ben Shapiro didn't run away from debating David Pakman, if Dave Rubin brought on Sam Sedar-- if I saw more intellectual sincerity in their "marketplace of ideas" stance, I'd be cool with it. Problem is, that all of those discussions would end up with the right-wingers getting WRECKED which is why they won't happen. They'll keep taking Koch money and putting on this fake victim act as they run from actually engaging.

But... hey, Eric Weinstein agreed to appear on the David Pakman show. We shall see if that actually happens-- if it does, that will be VERY interesting. Frankly the two progressives (Eric and Bret Weinstein) are the only ones "in the IDW" worth paying attention to; and it was very entertaining to watch Eric subtly and masterfully destroy Rubin, Shapiro, and Peterson on the Rubin Report and point out that none of them know anything about economics or institutional corruption.

Whether a good faith conversation between Weinstein and an actual left wing media/policy wonk like Pakman can work out-- whether that conversation can happen at all-- is something to pay attention to.

 

[Sam]

577 likes, 3.5k dislikes, 100k views
Damn, son, damn. Also it's a real sad state of affairs that the writers at NYT are this bad at journalism.

using youtube like and dislike to rate someone's ability as a journalist is one of the worst takes I have seen in a very long time

re: primary

I liked Klobuchar but I think the whole staff thing is a serious issue to the point where I can't consciously support her. After her I probably most align politically with Booker, but really any one of Booker/Harris/Warren/O'Rourke I would be completely content with. No Biden please.

I've never been able to take Bernie seriously after his NYDN interview and I think he is a pretty garbage person. I will be pretty vehemently against Bernie unless he becomes the democratic nominee, at which point I will do all I can to get him elected.

 

[orch]

is there any legitimate reason that mainstream media is any better than jre or whatever? all forms of media covering politics are essentially a show and useless for any serious political consideration.

 

[Ryolain]

Please god no Biden. Does he even support a single policy anyone wants or do people just want him to run because he seems like he’d be fun at a family reunion?

Re: deplatforming, I’m in favor of it when it comes to the kind of intellectually dishonest people we’re discussing when they’re not held accountable to anything they say. Letting them on the air to spew their nonsense with no one to say “that makes no sense/is not supported by any facts” isn’t a platform I think they should be free to have. And even then, bringing these people in for debates implies there’s legitimacy to their positions that’s worth debating. You can’t debate with someone who refuses to engage with basic facts.

is there any legitimate reason that mainstream media is any better than jre or whatever? all forms of media covering politics are essentially a show and useless for any serious political consideration.

I don’t think it’s really any better, per se; CNN’s method of bringing on a panel of 12 people with opposing views to scream at each other for a few minutes sucks. But I’m not in favor of JRE allowing dumb grifters like Shapiro and Rubin to just say whatever they want to his giant audience either. At least (most of) the MSM attempts to have some semblance of balance, although those arguments never really convince anyone of anything. It’s always hilarious when you go on Twitter after a particularly fiery segment and the right is saying the conservative wrecked the liberal and vice versa.

ETA: At this point I basically just stick to following some journalists on Twitter that I like (Libby Watson and Ashley Feinberg are the main ones that come to mind) and ignore everything else.

 

[Chou Toshio]

using youtube like and dislike to rate someone's ability as a journalist is one of the worst takes I have seen in a very long time

re: primary

I liked Klobuchar but I think the whole staff thing is a serious issue to the point where I can't consciously support her. After her I probably most align politically with Booker, but really any one of Booker/Harris/Warren/O'Rourke I would be completely content with. No Biden please.

I've never been able to take Bernie seriously after his NYDN interview and I think he is a pretty garbage person. I will be pretty vehemently against Bernie unless he becomes the democratic nominee, at which point I will do all I can to get him elected.

It’s not the YouTube data alone— more like it reflects just a really really bad faith and incompetent smear on her part.

Please god no Biden. Does he even support a single policy anyone wants or do people just want him to run because he seems like he’d be fun at a family reunion?

Re: deplatforming, I’m in favor of it when it comes to the kind of intellectually dishonest people we’re discussing when they’re not held accountable to anything they say. Letting them on the air to spew their nonsense with no one to say “that makes no sense/is not supported by any facts” isn’t a platform I think they should be free to have. And even then, bringing these people in for debates implies there’s legitimacy to their positions that’s worth debating. You can’t debate with someone who refuses to engage with basic facts.


I don’t think it’s really any better, per se; CNN’s method of bringing on a panel of 12 people with opposing views to scream at each other for a few minutes sucks. But I’m not in favor of JRE allowing dumb grifters like Shapiro and Rubin to just say whatever they want to his giant audience either. At least (most of) the MSM attempts to have some semblance of balance, although those arguments never really convince anyone of anything. It’s always hilarious when you go on Twitter after a particularly fiery segment and the right is saying the conservative wrecked the liberal and vice versa.

ETA: At this point I basically just stick to following some journalists on Twitter that I like (Libby Watson and Ashley Feinberg are the main ones that come to mind) and ignore everything else.

Obviously this is a legitimate position to have to when we’re basically discussing not rights but to what degree as a society we want to value the spirit of free speech within the broader question of liberty vs security— no one has absolute free speech or right to platform but I think I am just going to fall more on the libertarian side of this one. Even with the IDW, even if they are mostly cynical and often ridiculous; believing in their extreme view of dialogue and a battle of ideas can open the gateway for an IDWer who genuinely believes that and genuinely tries engaging with ideas when they find themselves watching the Michael Brooks for the first time at random.

What’s most important for this thread is that candidates like Tulsi and Yang (Yang especially) is getting a better shot at the debate stage because of JRE and Sam Harris (participation is partly dependent on # of donations). This also offers more data points showing how progressive ideas can win independents and even people who think themselves conservatives or center-right. I hope JRE brings on more lefties going forward.

I think it would be amazing to see Tulsi or Yang appear on Ron Paul’s Liberty Report YouTube channel— as Yang is already making the rounds within libertarian media/forums.

I think both of them should go on the Tucker Carlson Show.

As Tulsi said of her meetings with Assad “We have to be able to meet with those we disagree with... because when talks break down, the only other option is war.”

 

[MikeDawg]

577 likes, 3.5k dislikes, 100k views

Please don't use YouTube likes (or any online polling, tbh) to quantify anything about the American political landscape. lol

Every single political video is constantly brigaded by edgy conservative children and Bernie supporters. Any left-wing video that's either anti-bernie or about another Dem candidate will be in the negatives, and every comment will be either "I JUST SENT BERNIE $27 MATCH ME!!" or "LOL stupid liberal communist snowflakes #MAGA".

Bernie fired up the kinds of children who send death threats to reality tv characters they don't like. This is the unfortunate and obnoxious impact of their political involvement.

I've never been able to take Bernie seriously after his NYDN interview and I think he is a pretty garbage person. I will be pretty vehemently against Bernie unless he becomes the democratic nominee, at which point I will do all I can to get him elected.

This sums up my feelings entirely, including seeing the NYDN interview as the turning point. I'm not sure why nobody brings it up, but the fact that he couldn't present any semblance of a plan for his single biggest issue is unbelievable.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Please don't use YouTube likes (or any online polling, tbh) to quantify anything about the American political landscape. lol

Every single political video is constantly brigaded by edgy conservative children and Bernie supporters. Any left-wing video that's either anti-bernie or about another Dem candidate will be in the negatives, and every comment will be either "I JUST SENT BERNIE $27 MATCH ME!!" or "LOL stupid liberal communist snowflakes #MAGA".

Bernie fired up the kinds of children who send death threats to reality tv characters they don't like. This is the unfortunate and obnoxious impact of their political involvement.



This sums up my feelings entirely, including seeing the NYDN interview as the turning point. I'm not sure why nobody brings it up, but the fact that he couldn't present any semblance of a plan for his single biggest issue is unbelievable.

So you think Bari Weiss was being intelligent and fair there?

 

[Machoke]

Ok, so after looking into these candidates today these are my thoughts so far.

Cory Booker - Not a huge fan of his foreign policy stances. A bit hawkish for my taste and way too Zionist. I am seeing some things that are present in other candidates but they seem watered down in comparison. No commitment to stopping intervention in places that we shouldn't be in my opinion. Universal basic income plan was not as comprehensive as other candidates.

Julian Castro (TX) - I don't know if it's just me, but why is he so... political speaky? All his videos and a ton of writings on him are so "look at his journey!" I don't want to know his journey. I want to know his stances. After finally trying to unearth what some of his stances were, they seem ok, but I can't really identify what his main campaign platform is. Uh... at least he seems nice? Doesn't really stand out though.

John Delaney (MD) - Hard pass. Feels really weak in what he would like to propose and not consistent with what working class Americans need.

Tulsi Gabbard (HI) - I am a big fan of her vocal support in withdrawing from regime change interventionism and reducing US imperialism. Like, very big fan. Most of her other stances seem cool, but I'm going to have to dig deeper into seeing what some of her hawkish pro-drone allegations are, since that is confusing to me. I'm well aware that she is having a massive smear campaign over her (probably fueled by her anti-war stance and her withdrawal from her DNC position in the past), so I'm going to have to look for information with skepticism and a magnifying glass here. Also if I hear another person say she is anti-LGBTQ because of stuff she said a decade ago that she apologized for (and ftr has a 100% score with the HRC on pro-LGBTQ policies) I think I'm gonna scream lol.

Kamala Harris (CA) - It looks like she's one of the favorites to win the bid. I'm seeing a lot of people saying she's The New Hillary in terms of who is backing her corporately but she says she's not taking money from corporate PACs, so I'm gonna have to look more into it. Not a fan of her foreign policy, especially how AIPAC-y she is. Feels kinda in the same boat as Cory Brooker in that she has some things other candidates are pushing for just watered down. A lot of her material looks like "vote for me, I'm good for America" instead of focusing on stances and prominent campaign goals.

Amy Klobuchar (MN) - Something I appreciate about her is that her website actually has a lot of information! Finally! On there it seems like one of the big issues she's putting forward is healthcare and bringing down costs. While I think there's some good things she wants to go for, I think her reluctance in supporting universal healthcare now is unattractive. Paired with her Zionism (can we ever escape it? lol), I'm not a huge fan.

Bernie Sanders (VT) - One of the candidates I think will have one of the biggest chances of getting the nominations. Ran for president before and has a huge fanbase. He also has a long history of political involvement. I am curious to see if he will center his campaign around key issues this time around. Before it seemed like a big one was minimum wage increase and tuition free education. I want to see him talk more about foreign policy and see if he is willing to publicly support reducing interventionism. So far I think he will be one of the frontrunners and that's fine by me.

Elizabeth Warren (MA) - Haven't looked too much into her because I was frankly really put off by her claiming of Native American ancestry and how much of a mess that was. From what I've read and heard, she has some good progressive positions on the table though. Not sure how far she will make it vs. bigger names.

Andrew Yang (NY) - Really eloquent and articulate campaign. Clearly states where he is on a variety of issues and plans that he has for the future for those issues. This is offset by the fact that he doesn't have political experience, however, which is going to be one of his biggest setbacks in his campaign. His biggest thing is promoting universal basic income as a result of increased automation in the US, which I can get behind. He also promotes universal healthcare and reduction in military spending (10% - I would like more but this is a start I suppose) and reduction in interventionism. Couldn't find a stance on Israel but was leery of his praise of them for having 18 year olds compulsorily serve in the military. Yuck. Still, overall he seems to have a solid vision just wondering if he would be able to put it into practice.

So yeah. I still have a lot to look into and there will still be debates and such to look at in the future. I don't think I have a favorite so far but there's a lot of different candidates here bringing up different key issues that I think deserve attention. Gabbard and Yang, although I think they are definitely underdogs in popularity right now, are especially bringing up two key issues that deserve more attention from democrats and the national discourse as a whole.

Also as a final note please Joe Biden DO NOT run lmao.

 

[MikeDawg]

My favorite part is how Bernie supporters can dig up and rally around no-context sound bites to attack other candidates, but major, documented "quirks" like these somehow go completely unnoticed. One quote that I thought was especially interesting:

Around that time, the candidate brought on Symone Sanders to serve as his national press secretary and one of the first black faces of his campaign. During her first week on the job, she said, she told Sanders that he had to treat racial inequality and economic inequality as “parallel issues” — a suggestion she said he ran with. “I [told him], you know, economic equality is an issue. It’s something we need to address. But for some people it doesn’t matter how much money you make, it doesn’t matter where you went to school, it doesn’t matter what your parents do. It doesn’t matter that Sandra Bland had a job and was on her way to teach for her alma mater. It doesn’t matter. None of that matters.”

By the time his campaign aides scrambled to release a detailed criminal justice platform on Aug. 9, Sanders was still struggling. In a September meeting with Campaign Zero, a movement formed out of the Ferguson protests, activists asked Sanders why, in his opinion, there were a disproportionate amount of people of color in jail for nonviolent drug offenses. Sanders, seated across the table, a yellow legal pad at hand, responded with a question of his own, according to two people present: “Aren’t most of the people who sell the drugs African American?” The candidate, whose aides froze in the moment, was quickly rebuffed: The answer, the activists told him, was no. Even confronted with figures and data to the contrary, Sanders appeared to have still struggled to grasp that he had made an error, the two people present said.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Ok, so after looking into these candidates today these are my thoughts so far.

Cory Booker - Not a huge fan of his foreign policy stances. A bit hawkish for my taste and way too Zionist. I am seeing some things that are present in other candidates but they seem watered down in comparison. No commitment to stopping intervention in places that we shouldn't be in my opinion. Universal basic income plan was not as comprehensive as other candidates.

Julian Castro (TX) - I don't know if it's just me, but why is he so... political speaky? All his videos and a ton of writings on him are so "look at his journey!" I don't want to know his journey. I want to know his stances. After finally trying to unearth what some of his stances were, they seem ok, but I can't really identify what his main campaign platform is. Uh... at least he seems nice? Doesn't really stand out though.

John Delaney (MD) - Hard pass. Feels really weak in what he would like to propose and not consistent with what working class Americans need.

Tulsi Gabbard (HI) - I am a big fan of her vocal support in withdrawing from regime change interventionism and reducing US imperialism. Like, very big fan. Most of her other stances seem cool, but I'm going to have to dig deeper into seeing what some of her hawkish pro-drone allegations are, since that is confusing to me. I'm well aware that she is having a massive smear campaign over her (probably fueled by her anti-war stance and her withdrawal from her DNC position in the past), so I'm going to have to look for information with skepticism and a magnifying glass here. Also if I hear another person say she is anti-LGBTQ because of stuff she said a decade ago that she apologized for (and ftr has a 100% score with the HRC on pro-LGBTQ policies) I think I'm gonna scream lol.

Kamala Harris (CA) - It looks like she's one of the favorites to win the bid. I'm seeing a lot of people saying she's The New Hillary in terms of who is backing her corporately but she says she's not taking money from corporate PACs, so I'm gonna have to look more into it. Not a fan of her foreign policy, especially how AIPAC-y she is. Feels kinda in the same boat as Cory Brooker in that she has some things other candidates are pushing for just watered down. A lot of her material looks like "vote for me, I'm good for America" instead of focusing on stances and prominent campaign goals.

Amy Klobuchar (MN) - Something I appreciate about her is that her website actually has a lot of information! Finally! On there it seems like one of the big issues she's putting forward is healthcare and bringing down costs. While I think there's some good things she wants to go for, I think her reluctance in supporting universal healthcare now is unattractive. Paired with her Zionism (can we ever escape it? lol), I'm not a huge fan.

Bernie Sanders (VT) - One of the candidates I think will have one of the biggest chances of getting the nominations. Ran for president before and has a huge fanbase. He also has a long history of political involvement. I am curious to see if he will center his campaign around key issues this time around. Before it seemed like a big one was minimum wage increase and tuition free education. I want to see him talk more about foreign policy and see if he is willing to publicly support reducing interventionism. So far I think he will be one of the frontrunners and that's fine by me.

Elizabeth Warren (MA) - Haven't looked too much into her because I was frankly really put off by her claiming of Native American ancestry and how much of a mess that was. From what I've read and heard, she has some good progressive positions on the table though. Not sure how far she will make it vs. bigger names.

Andrew Yang (NY) - Really eloquent and articulate campaign. Clearly states where he is on a variety of issues and plans that he has for the future for those issues. This is offset by the fact that he doesn't have political experience, however, which is going to be one of his biggest setbacks in his campaign. His biggest thing is promoting universal basic income as a result of increased automation in the US, which I can get behind. He also promotes universal healthcare and reduction in military spending (10% - I would like more but this is a start I suppose) and reduction in interventionism. Couldn't find a stance on Israel but was leery of his praise of them for having 18 year olds compulsorily serve in the military. Yuck. Still, overall he seems to have a solid vision just wondering if he would be able to put it into practice.

So yeah. I still have a lot to look into and there will still be debates and such to look at in the future. I don't think I have a favorite so far but there's a lot of different candidates here bringing up different key issues that I think deserve attention. Gabbard and Yang, although I think they are definitely underdogs in popularity right now, are especially bringing up two key issues that deserve more attention from democrats and the national discourse as a whole.

Also as a final note please Joe Biden DO NOT run lmao.

Wow, that was fast, and you’ve pretty much arrived at the same positions as me.
(Except I TOTALLY want Joe Biden to run— he’ll help split the centrist vote)
Nah screw that— we need Hillary 2020. Come on Hill; you’ve been waiting to rule for so long— one last run for old time’s sake!

The notes I would add talking about the 4 best candidates:

Tulsi’s so far on record for saying she’s a hawk on terror and a dove on intervention. She vehemently doesn’t want to step on the sovereignty of other nations but I believe she is okay with attacking terrorists with drones; and overall is unsupportive of using troops in general (probably because she has strong sympathies for the front line). Honestly I wish she was more of a dove with drones too but including Bernie there is no one left of her on this one; we’re not going to get a more anti-war candidate among the Dems.

Yang concerns me on foreign policy too. The JRE podcast was overall amazing but I didn’t like the joke he made about threatening Russia over election interference. I mean it’s not an unreasonable position, but it tells me something if after barely talking about foreign policy the first thing he wants to talk about is sending vague threats to Russia.

Warren is noteworthy to me because so far she has the most aggressive anti-corruption policy laid out. I agree with her that money and politics and election reform is issue #1 because of how it affects everything else. Absolutely true— but I still don’t want her talking about “many paths to Medicare for All.” I also don’t think she’s got what it takes to fight Trump after the Native American thing.


An interesting topic for Bernie is how he’s already somewhat shown his hand in terms of his VP pick. He said he wants a young, non-male fierce progressive who will help him carry the banner across the country. We’re probably talking about Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner. It’s also noteworthy that Tulsi held talks with Bernie about the election before this started though she feigned not knowing his plans.

Because I don’t think Tulsi has a prayer of winning on her own and doesn’t really have the economic message to make her stand out, I am thinking that her campaign is being orchestrated as part of a bigger progressive strategy that involves shifting the discussion and putting out a strong WoC to break the taboos of discussing war, in a similar vein to how Bernie smashed the taboo of discussing Socialism. We’ll see. Nina and Tulsi would both make fantastic VP picks imo.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Oh and Amy really is a respectable candidate. I really respect her for being TOTALLY honest about her Centrism and playing zero games in what she’s about. With all the others pretending to be Bernie, it’s great to see another candidate level with the American people and tell us what she’s about. That takes guts.

That said her honesty is going to reward her with a puny amount of the vote, and a meer trickle of donor support. She’s basically the Kasich of the Democratic field; a good faith actor that we can all respect but just not someone who is going anywhere in terms of winning.

Biden is probably getting wet feet because he’s seeing how incredibly unpopular Schitz is; realizing that he might not have a prayer with this year’s base. Biden has done this twice before and each time he started massively popular because of name recognition and likeability but he fizzled out both times because the more the guy talks the less inspiring he is. He’s basically the anti-Bernie. But who knows, he’s definitely a real contender if he jumps in.