• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
After thinking about who will win the nomination I think Warren is off the ticket.

She's like a prize fighter. She'd hit Trump with a Bam! He'd skeeter off the stage
for a minute, then like inflatable clown punching bag, he'd slowly rise back up.

Yeah, I know, but we've seen this fight before.

With Biden on the debate stage with Trump, it would be like two wavy inflatable
arm-flailing tub-men on stage. Now that's something we haven't seen before.
 
Aridas said:
Warren Plan time!

My Plan to End Washington Corruption

I like this plan.
Click to expand...

I despise most of it.

Her lobbying policy makes her sound like the shotgun lady from Harrison bergeron. I'm sorry that there are people good at petitioning their government. She hates them for being good at it.

She wants to expand the definition of lobbyist and then ban them from donating to a candidate. That is a fundamental act of speech.

But I'm not a democrat.
 
As the old song says, "little things mean a lot". We're half-way through the primary season(s) and I expected to see Warren fade. She's handled herself very well, IMHO. She's the only candidate consistently issuing policy statements/proposals and has combined her media presence with local handshaking and baby-kissing.

If the scuttlebutt is accurate, she's also got some political acumen going for her. She argued her handlers into letting her implement a Selfie Hour after speeches and her public are eating it up. As I said to someone in a PM today, she's got the political chops of Bernie but is combining it with Oprah-style brand recognition.

The fact that Trump will unload on her, particularly about the long-dragged-out NA ancestry, is probably a bonus. I know of zero progressives or liberals who've said they're not willing to support her over the issue and I think Trump directly attacking (he can't help himself, poor baby) yet another female is going to lock in a lot of moderate women's votes.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Stopping corrupt people from holding office is one thing.

But the other side of the coin is to attract the best and brightest by giving them more money for doing a good job in government than they would in the private sector.

Maybe Warren has some ideas about that?
Click to expand...

Three points.

1) There are some things in a somewhat similar line to that included in that plan. Things like taxing lobbying after $500,000 and using the money from that to help pay for more objective assessments.

2) The nature of the point that you're citing reminds me most of the GOP's harping on the budget and the deficit (albeit only when Democrats are in power). There's a fair point to be made there, but because of the forces that have been pushing it into the public consciousness and how they've done it, it probably is of great benefit to us all to seriously take a closer look at what's going on there. In this case, for example, there are underlying issues about the nature of the competitiveness between government and business. It's fairly certainly much more complex than simply invoking the pay, and also fairly certain that by only invoking pay, you're supporting exactly the kind of skewed worldview that certain extremely rich and questionably ethical "conservatives" want spread to strengthen their hand.

3) The plan involves a lot more than just "stopping corrupt people from holding office" and invoking "how do we attract the best and the brightest" honestly feels like it's more of a dodge than anything else, especially when it would be fair to say that the plan has a fair focus on helping to prevent the best and brightest that we already have (albeit greatly winnowed by the Trump Administration in practice) from becoming corrupt problems themselves. Of course, you could be poking around the edges of an opinion that potential avenues for corrupt action is an essential part of attracting enough competent people to staff government positions well?

3a) This is Warren. She's got a plan for that. :D

BobTheCoward said:
I despise most of it.
Click to expand...

Given the axioms that you've chosen to endorse, that's probably a very good indicator that they're on the right track.

BobTheCoward said:
Her lobbying policy makes her sound like the shotgun lady from Harrison bergeron. I'm sorry that there are people good at petitioning their government. She hates them for being good at it.
Click to expand...

If that's your takeaway? You're missing the point completely.

BobTheCoward said:
She wants to expand the definition of lobbyist and then ban them from donating to a candidate. That is a fundamental act of speech.
Click to expand...

As stated in the plan... you're correct. That's one of the points of disagreement that I have with the stated plan as well, actually, when it comes to personal, already distinctly limited contributions. Still, I doubt that even a Congress with Democratic supermajorities in both House and Senate would agree to legislate such (though I was quite disappointed with the Anti-BDS push) and if they did, even a distinctly liberally leaning court would allow it to stand.

Beelzebuddy said:
Sold.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
angrysoba said:
As he says, he is the opposite of Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

That might be true, but he has one problem:After Trump, a lot of Dems are going to be very reluctant to vote for a candidate who has had almost no experience in Government.
Sure Yang's opponents will hit him with this in the primaries.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
That might be true, but he has one problem:After Trump, a lot of Dems are going to be very reluctant to vote for a candidate who has had almost no experience in Government.
Sure Yang's opponents will hit him with this in the primaries.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Do you think that most Democrats were of the opinion that Trump’s main drawback is his lack of experience?
 
angrysoba said:
Are you serious? Do you think that most Democrats were of the opinion that Trump’s main drawback is his lack of experience?
Click to expand...

Seriously.

The list of problems with Trump goes:
1) Aspiring dictator
2) SUPER Bigoted buttwad
3) Nuttier than a squirrel turd
4) Depraved con artist extraordinaire
5) Traitor
6) Sexual Assaulter

...and about 382 more things till you get to "383) Previously inexperienced at politics", if that even makes the list at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom