2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Brainster]

I don't really care. I'm saying making the assumption that because someone has spent part of his life translating the books of someone you say is a Marxist doesn't make that translator a Marxist. Or can't you see that is possible? Have you read the books? If you haven't what makes you think you know their content?.

You almost found the right note, and then you blew it with the ridiculous diversion that maybe Gramsci wasn't a Marxist. It's another hill you cannot defend. I understand, from the liberal left it doesn't matter whether Mayor Pete was a red diaper baby. But you've been concerned about his electability because he's gay. This couldn't be just another tiny problem on top of that?

 

[Aridas]

So now we're demonizing Mr. "Hope and Change" Obama for dropping some his idealism when faced with the actual realities of how both politics and the real world function?

Are people not allowed to disagree? Strangely enough, Democrats seem not to treat their respected figures as if they were Dear Leader. That's a GOOD thing, if you actually think about it.

It doesn't matter what Pete's parents did.

He could have been home schooled in a Marxist themed curriculum and learned how to assemble and left wing economics. But look how he is now. Not a hint of trying to one-up Bernie Sanders, which he easily could if he was a Marxist.

I actually think that what a President's parents did does tend to matter - given that that tends to significantly affect how they turn out. Trump's dad was a criminal and a successfully wealthy businessman. He surrounded himself and Donald with organized crime figures while Donald was young. That's clearly left a mark on his conduct. Buttigieg's parents being intellectuals who seek a better future for all seems to be quite reflected on him, as well.

 

[kellyb]

My apologies Kelly. I don't follow your thinking on this post.

You had said "How well they do in that department [doing the job of being president] has far more to do with how friendly Congress is than anything else."

I'm saying the office of POTUS has a different "job description" in the minds of the different candidates and their bases. Their success or failure will be judged by very different metrics.

They have different objectives.
Trump sees it as his job to terrorize immigrants and start trade wars. A professional wrestler could walk in and do his job.

Warren will see it as her job to fight as hard as possible to get her social policies passed. Achieving the passage of a single policy will require Washington-specific experience.

Another candidate could see it as their job to rubber stamp center-right bills written by corporations, and convince some voters the laws are "progressive," and other voters that the laws are "moderate, sensible, and pragmatic." A candidate walking in right off the street from an excellent marketing agency can do a good job at that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It doesn't matter what Pete's parents did.

I'm impressed his father has such incredible credentials.

 

[kellyb]

Figures, you've falsely accused an incredible intellectual as a Marxist.

It feels like this whole, ridiculous line of attack against Pete is just designed to deflect attention away from serious, necessary criticism of him. Us defending Pete from this nonsense is what the billionaire class wants us to be talking about, as opposed to the real problems with a potential President Pete.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You almost found the right note, and then you blew it with the ridiculous diversion that maybe Gramsci wasn't a Marxist. It's another hill you cannot defend. I understand, from the liberal left it doesn't matter whether Mayor Pete was a red diaper baby. But you've been concerned about his electability because he's gay. This couldn't be just another tiny problem on top of that?

You've not made your case that either of his parents were Marxists. You sound like Trump claiming Rubio's parents were involved in the Kennedy assassination.

 

[kellyb]

You've not made your case that either of his parents were Marxists. You sound like Trump claiming Rubio's parents were involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Proving the case is not the point, I don't think. They actually like Pete. They just don't want us talking about the real, serious issues with the guy.

"His parents were Marxists" = "Squirrel!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Proving the case is not the point, I don't think. They actually like Pete. They just don't want us talking about the real, serious issues with the guy.

"His parents were Marxists" = "Squirrel!"

In addition, there is zero, zilch in Brainster's link that says anything about them being Marxists. I doubt he read it.

 

[kellyb]

In addition, there is zero, zilch in Brainster's link that says anything about them being Marxists. I doubt he read it.

He read it. He likes Pete. He knows the Marxist thing BS. It's just useful BS.

 

[kellyb]

I know how you feel.

But everyone I like policy wisel I'm not that crazy about their political abilities.

Warren needs to slow down talking about a thousand different issues. IMV, she isn't necessarily helping herself going wide left on every issue. Sure, it might make her appealing to Bernies bros after he starts to fade. But by then, this thing might be over. Also, it might make it too hard to win in the General.

I really believe the whole "too left to win the general" thing is just a myth. Candidate Obama 2008 campaigned on a healthcare plan which was openly described as being a transition to single payer health care. The population loved it. Nobody could figure out where exactly he sat on the ideological spectrum, but when he talked about spreading the wealth around, people cheered.

Warren is not untouchable in the general. I'm not trying to make it out like she is. Nobody is. But if she gets sunk, it won't actually be from being too far left in the eyes of the voters. It's really only the billionaire class freaked out by the idea of her wealth tax, etc. They just want everyone to believe everybody ELSE is opposed to that stuff.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I really believe the whole "too left to win the general" thing is just a myth. Candidate Obama 2008 campaigned on a healthcare plan which was openly described as being a transition to single payer health care. The population loved it. Nobody could figure out where exactly he sat on the ideological spectrum, but when he talked about spreading the wealth around, people cheered.

Warren is not untouchable in the general. I'm not trying to make it out like she is. Nobody is. But if she gets sunk, it won't actually be from being too far left in the eyes of the voters. It's really only the billionaire class freaked out by the idea of her wealth tax, etc. They just want everyone to believe everybody ELSE is opposed to that stuff.

Agreed. Those billionaires would be better served to spend this time hiding their wealth overseas rather than propagandizing against Warren. Don't they see that as "bad" as she is for them if she doesn't win the next crop of candidates will be even "worse"? Better Warren now than a more drastic candidate next time. There may come a time when a mere 6% wealth tax is considered light and desirable.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I would also note that Mayor Pete has certainly not lit the left ablaze with Marxist ideas. In fact, if anything, he is being attacked for being too conservative.

Yes, the left does not look to McKinsey consultants for political leadership.

His father could be Marx himself, it really wouldn't matter. Pete is running as a center-right democrat, as a foil to more leftist candidates like Bernie and Warren.

The smear of him being some crypto-communist is absurd on its face.

 

[acbytesla]

You almost found the right note, and then you blew it with the ridiculous diversion that maybe Gramsci wasn't a Marxist. It's another hill you cannot defend. I understand, from the liberal left it doesn't matter whether Mayor Pete was a red diaper baby. But you've been concerned about his electability because he's gay. This couldn't be just another tiny problem on top of that?

Again, how disgusting. "Red diaper baby"? There are no sewers too full of turds for Republicans not to slither in.

I DON'T know Gramsci. I have no idea about his politics. The point is you're engaged in pathetically typical guilt by association. The thread is about Democratic candidates and the discussion is about Mayor Pete which I guess you seem to infer is a Marxist because his father translated some books of someone who may have had some Marxist ideas.

This reminds me so much of previous typical Republican protestations like Obama was a Muslim or the Jeremiah Wright nonsense or how about Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky?

 

[kellyb]

Agreed. Those billionaires would be better served to spend this time hiding their wealth overseas rather than propagandizing against Warren. Don't they see that as "bad" as she is for them if she doesn't win the next crop of candidates will be even "worse"? Better Warren now than a more drastic candidate next time. There may come a time when a mere 6% wealth tax is considered light and desirable.

What they're going to do if she's elected is renounce their citizenship and "immigrate", we're pretty sure. But there's a plan for that, as well.

eta: people think we should be scared of losing their wealth (???), but we know how to just mint trillion dollar coins and create $1T out of thin air that way if we ever need to. We ain't scared.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Again, how disgusting. "Red diaper baby"? There are no sewers too full of turds for Republicans not to slither in.

I DON'T know Gramsci. I have no idea about his politics. The point is you're engaged in pathetically typical guilt by association. The thread is about Democratic candidates and the discussion is about Mayor Pete which I guess you seem to infer is a Marxist because his father translated some books of someone who may have had some Marxist ideas.

This reminds me so much of previous typical Republican protestations like Obama was a Muslim or the Jeremiah Wright nonsense or how about Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky?

It's a bit odd given you have Bernie running, who is an open Dem-soc. There's no need to play 6 degrees of Lenin when you have an open lefty type running.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a bit odd given you have Bernie running, who is an open Dem-soc. There's no need to play 6 degrees of Lenin when you have an open lefty type running.

There's a real problem with language and how it is abused Bernie is a Democratic Socialist which is very different than being a Socialist but the right has taken all these words and muddied the meanings to their benefit. The same is true about calling someone a Marxist. That in itself doesn't say really all that much. Karl Marx was one of the greatest economists in history. So was Adam Smith. To say otherwise would make you an idiot or dishonest.

Can't I agree with some of Karl Marx's or Adam Smith's ideas without embracing them all?

 

[Belz...]

It might depend on what you mean by "among top tier".
It also might depend on if you think it's the label/stigma of being of "too far left" which will primarily do her in.

I don't know. You could just be a leftist operating from a better fact base than I am, or a progressive in the making. Or a centrist.

I think it makes him a varwoche.

 

[Belz...]

Like it or not, he doesn't have the experience a POTUS needs.

What President had?

 

[TragicMonkey]

What President had?

Grover Cleveland, the second time.

 

[Belz...]

It doesn't matter what Pete's parents did.

Then you haven't been following the trends. Nowadays if there's someone who follows you on Twitter who happens to have a cousin who has read Marx in a public library by accident once, it's safe to ignore everything you have to say.