2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[acbytesla]

This is some top-notch cognitive dissonance. The party in favor of euthanasia is the same party that's in favor of abortion. They go hand in hand, just like opposition to abortion and opposition to euthanasia.

They don't. It's one thing to allow someone with a painful terminal illness to die with dignity and what rich prick Republicans seem to think about the poor. That "if we can only get rid of them"? One of the threads the other day had an ongoing dialogue that suggested that is what should be done about over-population. Just knock off half of humanity. As long is they're in the half that remains.

 

[Brainster]

Mayor Pete has to do the apology routine for saying the politically incorrect (and logically coherent) thing:

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg said Thursday that he was unaware when he said "all lives matter" in 2015 that the phrase was being used to undercut the Black Lives Matter movement.
Buttigieg spoke about his past comment after a speech at the National Action Network, a politically powerful organization founded by Rev. Al Sharpton. The phrase "all lives matter" has been used by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement to push back on the view that closer attention needs to be paid to the deaths of African American men and women at the hand of law enforcement.
"At that time, I was talking about a lot of issues around racial reconciliation in our community. What I did not understand at that time, was that phrase, just early into mid-2015, was coming to be viewed as a sort of counter slogan to Black Lives Matter," Buttigieg said. "And so, this statement, that seems very anodyne and something that nobody could be against, actually wound up being used to devalue what the Black Lives Matter movement was telling us."

+1 for using the word "anodyne."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let’s see... there are a bunch of opinions on it. It’s not a new idea. It’s magical socialism. The companies will leave town. Sounds like something the Bernie Bros would do. The GOP will have a field day. OMG do you like totally want Donald Trump to win? Wait while I post a random bunch of links that I don’t read.

Did I leave anything out?

Yep, you left a lot out, like all the realistic stuff.

Here's the thing, those are what I think will do the most good. I think the UBI is naive.

You apparently are only interested in selling your UBI and since I'm not interested in reading the sales pitch, how about we just disagree and move on?

As for Yang, it's just like Bernie, a bunch of people are recruiting for the cult and don't like it when people are not interested.

 

[acbytesla]

Yep, you left a lot out, like all the realistic stuff.

Here's the thing, those are what I think will do the most good. I think the UBI is naive.

You apparently are only interested in selling your UBI and since I'm not interested in reading the sales pitch, how about we just disagree and move on?

As for Yang, it's just like Bernie, a bunch of people are recruiting for the cult and don't like it when people are not interested.

I'm kind of with you on this Ginger. I'm not sure if the UBI is naive. I can see a place for it one day as more things get automated. But we're not anywhere near there yet.

 

[Belz...]

But it is the case with abortion and euthanasia. I can discuss what I think the differences are, but they don't really matter, because regardless of the reasons it's still an observed fact that abortion and euthanasia views are positively correlated.

I see you've sidestepped my point about the death penalty. Why?

 

[Belz...]

They don't. It's one thing to allow someone with a painful terminal illness to die with dignity and what rich prick Republicans seem to think about the poor. That "if we can only get rid of them"? One of the threads the other day had an ongoing dialogue that suggested that is what should be done about over-population. Just knock off half of humanity. As long is they're in the half that remains.

Was that me? I suggested, as a hypothetical, that the solution to global warming might be to reduce the population by something like 90%. I'm not advocating for that solution, of course.

 

[acbytesla]

Was that me? I suggested, as a hypothetical, that the solution to global warming might be to reduce the population by something like 90%. I'm not advocating for that solution, of course.

Maybe. It went on for a couple of pages. I didn't think it was serious. But I do believe you're not the only one who has thought about it. It annoys the hell out of me that the fastest population growth rates is in the poorest countries. And then you have the dumbass Catholics saying to their African parishioners that the use of condoms is a sin and the idiotic Mormons saying that children are a blessing. These are the same people telling Trump to shut the door on immigration. They want it both ways.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe. It went on for a couple of pages. I didn't think it was serious. But I do believe you're not the only one who has thought about it. It annoys the hell out of me that the fastest population growth rates is in the poorest countries. And then you have the dumbass Catholics saying to their African parishioners that the use of condoms is a sin and the idiotic Mormons saying that children are a blessing. These are the same people telling Trump to shut the door on immigration. They want it both ways.

Sounds calculated to me: they want more Christians, but they want to keep the ones off-colour outside of their communities.

 

[varwoche]

+1 for using the word "anodyne."

My mom used to put that on my owies.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Mayor Pete has to do the apology routine for saying the politically incorrect (and logically coherent) thing:



+1 for using the word "anodyne."

Sadly, because he knows the political minefield, the apology needs to be made, but more in lieu of an explanation. Some things need to be taken back from the ideologues who have co-opted them.

I have no problem with the idea that we need to return to a better, more forward-looking America with progressive and liberal (in the founders' sense of the word) ideals. In short, anyone who wants to get America back on track and turn away from the egocentric hedonistic miasma the conservative movement it has fallen for. You know, there's a nice phrase for that sentiment.... let's make America great again.

But that expression has been co-opted by people who want no such thing. They want to return America to Ward and June and Wally and Beaver times - times that didn't exist.

Mayor Pete didn't realize that the phrase was being used to say, "Hey, you're not special, sparky! All lives matter; get over yourselves!" Just as the little Mooslim Congresswoman didn't realize that the words she was using had been co-opted by numerous Anti-Semites couching themselves in Anti-Zionist jargon. Nothing wrong with being anti-zionist... why some of my (((best friends))) are. But when you use words that have been taken on as a mantra by reprehensible dogmatists, you pay the price.

 

[BobTheCoward]

My mom used to put that on my owies.

To relieve pain?

 

[acbytesla]

Sounds calculated to me: they want more Christians, but they want to keep the ones off-colour outside of their communities.

Something like that. All issues with racism or simply pure selfishness aside, it's putting cultural teachings over scientific teachings. They are trying to reconcile their scripture and a millennia of teaching with the modern world and simple logic.

 

[Ziggurat]

I see you've sidestepped my point about the death penalty. Why?

Because it's not relevant to my claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe. It went on for a couple of pages. I didn't think it was serious. But I do believe you're not the only one who has thought about it. It annoys the hell out of me that the fastest population growth rates is in the poorest countries. And then you have the dumbass Catholics saying to their African parishioners that the use of condoms is a sin and the idiotic Mormons saying that children are a blessing. These are the same people telling Trump to shut the door on immigration. They want it both ways.

Wrong again. The Catholic Church is very much in favor of liberal immigration policy.

 

[acbytesla]

Wrong again. The Catholic Church is very much in favor of liberal immigration policy.

The church might be, but that says nothing about their parishioners. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church preaches against the use of condoms. Which really is one of the most dumbass destructive teachings that causes suffering.

 

[Ziggurat]

The church might be, but that says nothing about their parishioners. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church preaches against the use of condoms.

Same goes for condom use: their parishioners may feel differently.

Which really is one of the most dumbass destructive teachings that causes suffering.

Given the demographic collapse of post-religious societies, I'm not so sure that in the long run it's going to be the worst choice.

 

[The_Animus]

I was listening to interviews of people about who they preferred for the 2020 dem nominee and why.

Most people said electability and ability to compromise. Republicans have shown they don't care about compromise and basically only use it against Democrats that do. So to me a candidate running on compromise is a negative because either they don't understand the political reality or they do actually know better and are just lying because they think it will get them votes.

Only like one person interviewed gave policy positions or integrity of a candidate as their reason for their preference.

 

[Belz...]

Because it's not relevant to my claim.

It's absolutely relevant. All three (abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty) deal with the legal ability to kill. It's absolutely unsurprising that the two that are by choice are championed by the same people. It's also unsurprising that these same people do not champion the one in which the states decides who dies, not the people involved. However, if the argument against abortion is that all life is sacred, how does one square it with a support for the death penalty?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sooo... who's your candidate? Can each one of you say? If it were me, I'd put my money on Yang.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's absolutely relevant. All three (abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty) deal with the legal ability to kill. It's absolutely unsurprising that the two that are by choice are championed by the same people. It's also unsurprising that these same people do not champion the one in which the states decides who dies, not the people involved. However, if the argument against abortion is that all life is sacred, how does one square it with a support for the death penalty?

No, Belz, it's not relevant, because I'm not making an argument about abortion. I'm making an argument about a prediction made by acbytesla. Whether you favor or oppose abortion (or euthanasia, or the death penalty) is independent of whether you agree with or disagree with that prediction. The prediction is wrong not because of what *I* believe about those subjects, but because of what other people believe. And the validity of their beliefs and the consistency or inconsistency between them is irrelevant to the observation that they hold them. That observation suffices to invalidate acbytesla's prediction.