Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[MikeDawg]

If she's another Washington consensus politician, why is the entire political establishment fighting her candidacy so fiercely?

Um, who exactly is fighting her candidacy? lmao There are valid concerns about Bernie getting resistance considering he's a very relevant candidate right now, but nobody gives a shit about Tulsi. She usually polls at 0%.

That's like saying the Grammys are biased against JoJo Siwa.

She's the only candidate besides Bernie to unequivocally back Medicare for All

Kamala Harris

 

[Chou Toshio]

On the topic, Ron Paul has shown favorability Tulsi Gabbard previously, but just made a clear statement that she is the best candidate for the presidency:

 

[Myzozoa]

Mmm... I don't agree man. I mean...
She's been extremely critical of our involvement in Venezuela (where Biden is openly defending Trump's moves there...), she's focused on not racheting up tension with Russia (which is what Russiagate is doing), she's the only major candidate in the race to full-stop support Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, she's extremely focused on North Korea because she's from Hawaii, and she's critiqued overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Iran and many other interventions in the Middle East as part of the problematic regime-change legacy by the US that perpetuates the problem with North Korea. Even heavy socialist critics of her like Michael Brooks were impressed with her defense of Ilhan Omar. I could go on. I don't think this critique holds.

I feel this is not really meaningful without greater context, it's easy to have a vague anti-imperialist seeming agenda when critiquing U.S foreign policy decisions, but the key with Gabbard is omissions and the dubious past connections to fascist political groups. Russia's current domestic/regional politics is predicated on Islamophobia along the same strategic lines as Gabbard has taken up even touting herself as 'hawk'. I have no idea what youre referring to with her defense of Omar, so I'll hold out judgement until I see evidence of a substantial defense of Omar. i.e, link plz.

If she's another Washington consensus politician, why is the entire political establishment fighting her candidacy so fiercely?

this is just not convincing, I don't know how you can even substantiate such a claim. To be sure there are some opposed to her, and it's probably hasty of me to say she's a washington consensus politician entirely, since she isn't in perfect step, but her views on the middle east are clearly dangerously close with a pro-russia camp that currently occupies the executive:

https://ummahwide.com/my-personal-e...ds-islamophobia-at-standing-rock-9edbb5fde6e6

And if Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are both backing her candidacy, you’ll have to admit that better minds than mine in the anti war movement also “don’t get it.”

sure, they also don't get it, ttbh ron paul is barely better than and not at all removed from "where is aleppo" and mike gravel's twitter are run by high school students that lack significant experience unpacking geopolitics in messaging. she isn't coming off as anti-war, just anti-wars that would upset Russian interests, her past history is filled with worrying connections to politicians and groups that preside over 'ethnic cleansing' and security states. Btw, that Ron paul backs her verifies my point since he occupies the sino-phobic centre right nouveau-riche libertarian crew's v. minor power vacuum, but thats just my tin foil hat opinion

She's the only candidate besides Bernie to unequivocally back Medicare for All and she's spoken to the policy more intelligently than any candidate in the race besides Bernie and arguably Kamala Harris. She is uncomfortable with the Green New Deal's vagueness, but the OFF Act she introduced is probably the strongest detailed proposals to address the issue. She was one of only 3 house dems alongside AOC and Rho Khanna to vote against Pay-Go. And while every other politician (including Bernie frankly) raged about Russian Election interference, Tulsi was the one who introduced a paper ballot backed voting solution and has aggressively pointed out that the states that have paper ballots and more robust election procedures are dispproportionately states that went to Bernie Sanders in the primary (she's been saying that the 2016 primary had a lot of election fraud that needs to be addressed).

exaggerated imo, Gabbard is the only candidate to back medicare for all 'unequivocally'? whatever that means, I don't see how that can be the case. especially with all the politicians youve mentioned in your post that are running that back medicare for all unequivocally.

Even more than any of the points I've outlined here about her actions though, I don't know why you are so overly concerned about my support for Tulsi's Candidacy as my 2nd favorite because at the end of the day, her campaign isn't going anywhere. If Elizabeth Warren cannot successfully take over Bernie's lane, than Tulsi certainly can't. At the end of the day, Tulsi's future in the 2020 administration is almost entirely dependent on the success of Bernie's campaign, and whether or not he believes she should be part of his administration.

i am not concerned about your shades of support just support in total, it shows the wool is being pulled over ppls eyes if they take her the same as progressives

And while Tulsi is a favorite potential VP pick for Sanders by many progressive circles, he could just as easily pick Warren, Nina Turner, Rho Khanna or even Kamala Harris. It will be entirely his call whether she is a progressive and whether she is THE progressive to run by his side as VP or represent the US as Secretary of State. And I trust Bernie's judgement on that too.

you shouldnt be so trusting, skeptical seems a better attitude to reserve for politicians

 

[Laurel]

I'm here for my biweekly support of candidate Mayor Pete

 

[Chou Toshio]

you shouldnt be so trusting, skeptical seems a better attitude to reserve for politicians

What would you have progressives do in 2019/2020 Myzozoa? I think that real change is needed, and real change will only happen with real representation-- that people need to be woken up to the need for an actual progressive party and progressive ideas, and that representation will only come through reforming the Democratic party or creating a legitimate 3rd one.

To that end, we need to use the energy of the Sanders' campaign, that can rally a million volunteers from every district and create organizations like Justice Democrats and Our Revolution; and we need voices that will bravely put anti-establishment/populist ideas front and center. I think Tulsi is eminently a valuable voice in educating the wider populace that doesn't question American imperialism or regime change. I think that her presence on the debate stage will eminently help Bernie draw the distinction, and amplify the presence of a real and necessary divide emerging within the Democrats. Her political motivations are aligned with Bernie; I don't see her personally benefitting more from any realistic outcome than him winning.

Sanders needs to win, and then use the grass roots network he has and the political force of his popularity to reform the party and do good works-- that's the best route I see to securing the political future of progressivism and ensuring a progression towards justice in society. Do you see a different/better one?

 

[MikeDawg]

Progressives should vote for their favorite candidate in the primaries, then vote for their favorite candidate in the general (which will hopefully be someone who will keep Donald out of the white house). Just like everyone else does every 4 years.

Bernie almost certainly isn't going to win this time (though I hope it isn't Biden who beats him) given how fast his poll numbers are falling, so do your best to respectfully campaign for him, then get over it and vote for the next progressive in 2024. As the electorate changes, so will the candidates. Clearly progressive policies are becoming popular, so more candidates will adopt them as time goes on.

The most progressive choice out of 2 in the general is the person who will do the most good and least harm over the next 4 years.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Tulsi has twice as much gum than she does teeth and likes Bashar Al Assad. Im gonna have to PASS on that one, Dawg

 

[faint]

Sanders campaign has unionized

Time to see who follows. Adapt or get left behind.

 

[Shrug]

what does the word "progressive" mean? who does it exclude? what are the necessary conditions for it to be applied?

 

[tcr]

The main premise of progressivism is that advances in technology and social connectivity lead to an overall increase in societal welfare.

What this means is that any policy / platform that strives for social reform in a positive direction can be labelled as progressive, though most surely the line would be drawn at supporting platforms that are not well liked by the traditional antithetical political hegemony. Candidates that are also happen to oppose policies such as Universal Health Care, prison reform (including police and justice system reform and legislature reform), campaign finance reform, dark money in politics are not progressive due to their normalizing of a (perceived) misaligned status quo

Other issues in my opinion are not important (or not as important) because they do not actually lead to social reform. It's all fine to be on the same side for climate change futures, calling for 5T$ to spend fighting climate change, but when your policy doesn't support manhandling campaign finance or dark money and you actually get 500k+$ in oil lobby donations, then you can't call yourself a progressive candidate and shouldn't actually be seen as such.

When you mention that you're socially aware enough to talk about reparations and abolishment of death penalty but at the same time you also fight to keep people in prison after they are proven innocent and defend the death penalty in California court, then in my eyes you can't possibly be a progressive candidate.

Implicitly I think people that don't argue for reforms on justice, reforms on campaign finance, and health care reform, then you can't possibly be labelled as a progressive. Those to me are the 3 pillars that constitute my idea of progressivism, as I think campaign finance reform will in turn naturally lead to efforts to combat climate change, efforts to control the gun lobby, and address the drug war; similarly justice reforms would target police brutality, inequal action taken on laws, drug reform, and class warfare (in courts); lastly health care reform is hugely impactful for economic uplifting.

edit: to be clear i think that if you aren't calling for things like prison reform or the above then you implicitly acknowledge the normality of these issues and thus are not progressive.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

What makes abolishing the death penalty a progressive stance? I've seen arguments either way, I didn't think it was claimed exclusively by progressive backers

 

[tcr]

abolishing the death sentence indicates a stance on reorienting the justice system towards a rehabilitation focused system rather than a punitive one, which in my eyes is a form of positive social reform

I think its important as society to recognize that people should not be beholden to mistakes theyve made (or mistakes the justice system has made). this is not to say those on death row made “a mistake” so dont take it that way, but more that the uncompromising motives behind a death penalty, rooted in old testament eye for an eye behavior, should be done away with

 

[Chou Toshio]

In short hand: Fighting for Economic Justice, Social Justice, Environmental Justice, and a Foreign Policy promoting peace.




Some small bullet points I would add to tcr’s post:

*you actually have to be careful about the term “Universal Healthcare” since many Democrats use it as a stand-in for an expanded Obamacare that still keeps the abuses of a market system in place. It’s better to be specific and say “Single Payer”. A NHS system would also be progressive but I don’t think there’s evidence that completely socializing the hospitals outperforms just socializing insurance for patients.

*We need to be careful against candidates who say they oppose “dark money”. We want all bribes out of politics, not just the illegal bribes; we don’t want legal bribing either.

 

[Celticpride]

Why not third term Obama almost everyone liked him or liked hating him.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Why not third term Obama almost everyone liked him or liked hating him.

If Obama had broken up the banks, put Wallstreet criminals in jail, gave us Medicare for All (or even a Public Option at that point in time), gotten us out of the Middle East and launched a massive Federal Jobs & Infrastructure program, I think he would have gotten another term. FDR got 4

 

[MikeDawg]

Nope, he still would have gotten 2 terms. That's the law.

 

[TheValkyries]

If this presidency has proven anything it’s that Laws actually don’t apply to presidents.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Nope, he still would have gotten 2 terms. That's the law.

A law we changed after FDR died to ensure another FDR wouldn’t happen... and a law that could be changed back.

 

[billymills]

A law we changed after FDR died to ensure another FDR wouldn’t happen... and a law that could be changed back.

I think there are more pressing constitutional changes

 

[GatoDelFuego]

abolishing the death sentence indicates a stance on reorienting the justice system towards a rehabilitation focused system rather than a punitive one, which in my eyes is a form of positive social reform

sure--why not focus on more impactful aspects of the system then? Like vocational training. We can teach felons to code (lol). Is it really a big brain progressive stance to say yeah, we can reform jeffrey dahmer or the vegas shooter? The usa isn't exactly executing a lot of people. Why get hung up on a candidate's stance on a binary issue? (death penalty allowed/forbidden)

 

[Chou Toshio]

I think there are more pressing constitutional changes

Absolutely. I just meant that in this casual theoritical, if Obama had been a massive hero of a president, I don't see why in that alternative reality he might not have ended up with more terms.

 

[ManOfMany]

sure--why not focus on more impactful aspects of the system then? Like vocational training. We can teach felons to code (lol). Is it really a big brain progressive stance to say yeah, we can reform jeffrey dahmer or the vegas shooter? The usa isn't exactly executing a lot of people. Why get hung up on a candidate's stance on a binary issue? (death penalty allowed/forbidden)

You can focus on multiple things at once. The death penalty certainly isn't the most important issue regarding criminal justice reform, but like tcr said, it is indicative of a broader stance on believing in punitive justice over rehabilitation. It shouldn't be one single issue to make a break a candidate, but I think it is important to keep in mind for any given politician. Would it be a surprise, for example, if someone who supports state-sanctioned killing via the death penalty does not take a strong stance against excessive use of force by police? Additionally, there have been many cases in the past of using it on people who were found to be not guilty and there is a history of racism behind it as well; they aren't all jeffrey dahmers. The only moral justification for the death penalty is the theory that it acts as a deterrent to murder but this is not supported by statistical evidence (admittedly the sample size is small).

 

[tcr]

my list of examples were not exclusive, you can focus on more issues than the ones outlined, i thought that was implicit considering itd be hard for me to feasibly list every single example of environmental, technological, and judicial reform

 

[GatoDelFuego]

my list of examples were not exclusive, you can focus on more issues than the ones outlined, i thought that was implicit considering itd be hard for me to feasibly list every single example of environmental, technological, and judicial reform

Sure. I just wouldn't exclude somebody from being progressive just because they support the death penalty. Harris is disqualified from that category for other reasons tho ofc.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

If somebody black had the voting record of Joe Biden, we would be calling them Uncle Tom instead of Uncle Joe