2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Sideroxylon]

Yeah, no. Warren didn't try to 'frame' anyone. That culture is non-negligible and I won't get into the semantics of if that means the same as 'pervasive'.

Is your argument that Bernie agrees with those **** attitudes? It isn't politicking and I've not tried to hold this at all against Bernie.

You're hurting your own argument.

We know very well from his “body of work” that Bernie doesn’t believe a woman couldn’t or shouldn’t be president. The release of that recollection of a discussion was an attempted smear that fell flat or even backfired.

That such a culture is significant/pervasive/widespread is just an assertion that distracts from an examination of policy discussion.

 

[Cabbage]

It's not limited to Sanders. It's just that that it's more of a concern when it comes to Sanders than the other main contenders and that they'll have firmer basis when it comes to him.

Here's the actual quote:

It should also be noted that this is currently the primary season. The type of attacks that a candidate will have to deal with now are different than what they will see in the general election. Some of us are concerned that there are a few too many skeletons in Sander's closet that the republicans could use (that they've been holding back).

I certainly took that to be a justification for not supporting Sanders, specifically. Therefore, it is, indeed, limited to Sanders.

And I believe you misread that quote. I know there's a lot of talk about the Socialist label sticking to Sanders better than other D candidates, but that was not the specific objection. I'll repeat it here:

Some of us are concerned that there are a few too many skeletons in Sander's closet that the republicans could use (that they've been holding back).

And now I'll ask again: Why would those closet skeletons be a concern for Sanders only?

 

[Aridas]

We know very well from his “body of work” that Bernie doesn’t believe a woman couldn’t or shouldn’t be president.

Sure. That wasn't even the issue in question, though. The issue in question was much, much more minor.

The release of that recollection of a discussion was an attempted smear that fell flat or even backfired.

That might be true if it were actually Warren behind it as a campaign move. Chances are very good that it wasn't, as detailed in the Intercept.

Going further, of course, the way that whole thing was actually handled by CNN makes it look a lot more like that whole thing was actually intended to hurt *Warren* (and generally stir up infighting between Warren and Sanders supporters that would hurt both) while increasing CNN profits.

And now I'll ask again: Why would those closet skeletons be a concern for Sanders only?

And to repeat, it's not that it's a concern for Sanders only. It's just that it's notably more poignant with Sanders. To poke at an example of this... Much of Hillary's oppo research on Sanders from 2016 was leaked onto the internet long ago, for example, and there's been pretty much not even a peep about that stuff or much else coming from the Republican attack propaganda side that I've heard of. Meanwhile, Biden's been the major focus of Republican (and Russian) attacks and has actually been weathering them them remarkably well, by the look of it. Most of the direct attacks on Warren just haven't been able to get any traction (with good reason), but it's not like they haven't been happening constantly, too.

 

[tyr_13]

We know very well from his “body of work” that Bernie doesn’t believe a woman couldn’t or shouldn’t be president.

Oh we do, do we? Why would you be so sure that he wouldn't make the same argument that many have that the sexism against women candidates would be too much currently? I don't think it's true, but undoubtedly they are treated much differently.

The release of that recollection of a discussion was an attempted smear that fell flat or even backfired.

Nope. You're asserting it was an attempted smear. The evidence you have of this? It must have been. Sure, one of the two could be lying. One could be mistaken. One could have miscommunication. One could have misinterpreted. You conclude it was a smear because you want it to be one, even though that makes no tactical sense. It is a no win argument from a female candidate and Warren's team knows that. Women are unfairly penalized in the US for complaining. The same actions taken by men are seen dramatically differently. Talking about it is seen as women 'trying to play a card' (exactly the argument you make) or 'whining'. It never gains support.

My bet is that neither is actually lying. My evidence of this is stronger than your assertion it had to be a smear.

That such a culture is significant/pervasive/widespread is just an assertion that distracts from an examination of policy discussion.

By all means, stop talking about it if you think policy is the only thing of import. I don't, and I'll continue to call out bad reasoning and behavior even if it comes from Bernie supporters. Having standards isn't inherently bad you know.

 

[SezMe]

It's sad that some Democrats appear to rather have Trump as president than a leftist.

What happened to party unity?

Huh? What are you referring to? How many is "some"?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Huh? What are you referring to? How many is "some"?

Probably the same "some" used when referring to how many Bernie Bros there are in this discussion.

Goose/gander/sauce/et al.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Sideroxylon]

Oh we do, do we? Why would you be so sure that he wouldn't make the same argument that many have that the sexism against women candidates would be too much currently? I don't think it's true, but undoubtedly they are treated much differently.



Nope. You're asserting it was an attempted smear. The evidence you have of this? It must have been. Sure, one of the two could be lying. One could be mistaken. One could have miscommunication. One could have misinterpreted. You conclude it was a smear because you want it to be one, even though that makes no tactical sense. It is a no win argument from a female candidate and Warren's team knows that. Women are unfairly penalized in the US for complaining. The same actions taken by men are seen dramatically differently. Talking about it is seen as women 'trying to play a card' (exactly the argument you make) or 'whining'. It never gains support.

My bet is that neither is actually lying. My evidence of this is stronger than your assertion it had to be a smear.



By all means, stop talking about it if you think policy is the only thing of import. I don't, and I'll continue to call out bad reasoning and behavior even if it comes from Bernie supporters. Having standards isn't inherently bad you know.

Because Sander’s message is clear and unambiguous on equality.

The bringing up this one recollection incongruous with his message at a debate looks suspiciously deliberate.

Inclusion and empowerment of women and oppressed minorities is a theme of Bernie’s message. If you see any that are sexist and that suggest he may be hindering the feminist project then raise them for discussion.

Anything else is just more tired campaign innuendo and smear that is a distraction from substantial discussion of policies.

 

[Cabbage]

And to repeat, it's not that it's a concern for Sanders only.

OK, I can repeat as well: When it's used as an argument for not voting for Sanders then it certainly is presented as a concern for Sanders only.

It's just that it's notably more poignant with Sanders. To poke at an example of this... Much of Hillary's oppo research on Sanders from 2016 was leaked onto the internet long ago, for example, and there's been pretty much not even a peep about that stuff or much else coming from the Republican attack propaganda side that I've heard of. Meanwhile, Biden's been the major focus of Republican (and Russian) attacks and has actually been weathering them them remarkably well, by the look of it. Most of the attacks on Warren just haven't been able to get any traction (with good reason), but it's not like they haven't been happening constantly.

And now we're back to the hand waving, saying that Sanders won't be able to weather future attacks. Oh, he's OK now, just you wait until they really attack him.

Pure speculation.

Look, neither you nor I can predict the future. That is all the justification I (and many others) need to support the candidate of our choice.

A similar argument against Bernie could have been made in 2016; we all know how that turned out. Please forgive me if, in the aftermath, I'm somewhat skeptical of people reassuring me we simply can't go with the too far left candidate again this time around.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Biden or Warren or any of the Dems. What is the purpose in so many Dems going against Bernie and Bernie supporters like this? Yes, I'm aware that many of you think that will simply turn the election over to Trump. Guess what: I have the same concern in running yet another lukewarm establishment candidate instead of Bernie.

But I don't go around telling people they shouldn't support the candidate of their choice because of it.

 

[tyr_13]

Because Sander’s message is clear and unambiguous on equality.

The bringing up this one recollection incongruous with his message at a debate looks suspiciously deliberate.

Inclusion and empowerment of women and oppressed minorities is a theme of Bernie’s message. If you see any that are sexist and that suggest he may be hindering the feminist project then raise them for discussion.

Anything else is just more tired campaign innuendo and smear that is a distraction from substantial discussion of policies.

This is a red herring. Completely.

One does not have to be sexist or against equality to believe that enough other people fail to overcome sexism enough that a woman is prevented from being elected. Again, I don't think that is actually true, but someone believing it is not endorsing sexism. Acknowledging effects of sexism isn't being against equality, even if one happens to be wrong about those effects. Of course I could be wrong and maybe women candidates suffer enough of a penalty due to sexism that they'd lose.

You're working backwards from the conclusion that it's all an attempted smear on Bernie, and you're making some assumptions because of it. If Bernie did say that a woman couldn't be elected president right now because of sexism, I would not conclude that he was sexist for saying it, nor that he's against equality. These things are simply not mutually exclusive.

Even less exclusive if one allows for misunderstanding/misstatement.

 

[Sideroxylon]

OK, I can repeat as well: When it's used as an argument for not voting for Sanders then it certainly is presented as a concern for Sanders only.




And now we're back to the hand waving, saying that Sanders won't be able to weather future attacks. Oh, he's OK now, just you wait until they really attack him.

Pure speculation.

Look, neither you nor I can predict the future. That is all the justification I (and many others) need to support the candidate of our choice.

A similar argument against Bernie could have been made in 2016; we all know how that turned out. Please forgive me if, in the aftermath, I'm somewhat skeptical of people reassuring me we simply can't go with the too far left candidate again this time around.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Biden or Warren or any of the Dems. What is the purpose in so many Dems going against Bernie and Bernie supporters like this? Yes, I'm aware that many of you think that will simply turn the election over to Trump. Guess what: I have the same concern in running yet another lukewarm establishment candidate instead of Bernie.

But I don't go around telling people they shouldn't support the candidate of their choice because of it.

Yes Hillary V2.0 or someone with real vision and drive to improve the lives of ordinary Americans and rein in the blowout of billionaire wealth and influence. Draining the swamp was a Trump lie but one that struck at this chord.

 

[Venom]

I'm willing to bet it was exactly that; misinterpretation and bad memory that came out as a huge strawman about what Sanders and Warren talked about in an obscure meeting a year ago.

And Warren isn't responsible for everything her campaign staff do, same for Sanders, and they acknowledge this problem of screening the applicants.

Can we put that to rest now.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is a red herring. Completely.

One does not have to be sexist or against equality to believe that enough other people fail to overcome sexism enough that a woman is prevented from being elected. Again, I don't think that is actually true, but someone believing it is not endorsing sexism. Acknowledging effects of sexism isn't being against equality, even if one happens to be wrong about those effects. Of course I could be wrong and maybe women candidates suffer enough of a penalty due to sexism that they'd lose.

You're working backwards from the conclusion that it's all an attempted smear on Bernie, and you're making some assumptions because of it. If Bernie did say that a woman couldn't be elected president right now because of sexism, I would not conclude that he was sexist for saying it, nor that he's against equality. These things are simply not mutually exclusive.

Even less exclusive if one allows for misunderstanding/misstatement.

He doesn’t believe it. As he pointed out, Hillary won the popular vote by three million. It blew up and opponents like Colbert and many on Twitter tried to put the boot in.

For him to make such a statement would be the same x cant win assumption presented as fact argument we have seen in this thread against Sanders. Its bull.

 

[Aridas]

OK, I can repeat as well: When it's used as an argument for not voting for Sanders then it certainly is presented as a concern for Sanders only.

Hmm. I think it's worth being clear about something here. I'm not using it as an argument not to vote for Sanders. I'm pointing out a notable concern in play here. There's a difference.

And now we're back to the hand waving, saying that Sanders won't be able to weather future attacks. Oh, he's OK now, just you wait until they really attack him.

Again, that's not really what's actually being said. Whether he'll be able to weather them or not is actually difficult to foretell, in my opinion. That doesn't change that the GOP sure looks and sounds like they *want* the Democratic candidate to be Sanders and that they sure look like they're intentionally going easy on him now in hopes of making that happen.

But I don't go around telling people they shouldn't support the candidate of their choice because of it.

I'm pretty sure that I've repeatedly made it clear that I'm in the "Support the candidate that you think would be best" camp myself. I'm not going to tell you not to support the candidate of your choice. There are concerns worth serious consideration when it comes to pretty much all the candidates, though.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Difference without distinction.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Fauxcahontas, the New York Times endorsed candidate for POTUS, wants to criminalize providing disinformation online to sway elections. I think this will lock up the fascist vote for her, although it may be too little too late to save her collapsing campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rmation-plan-criminalizing-free-speech-online

 

[Aridas]

I'm willing to bet it was exactly that; misinterpretation

This, I'll agree with.

and bad memory that came out as a huge strawman about what Sanders and Warren talked about in an obscure meeting a year ago.

Maybe. Warren apparently met with reporters informally not long after the meeting and notably before any actual campaigning as part of something and the topic of her thinking that Sanders had said that came up. That was likely a year and a half ago.

And Warren isn't responsible for everything her campaign staff do, same for Sanders, and they acknowledge this problem of screening the applicants.

Can we put that to rest now.

While it's true that Warren's not responsible for everything her campaign staff does... there's no evidence that actually points at her campaign staff having done this. There's potential motive - tit for tat and approaching primaries, but both are pointedly weak motive and significant downsides are easily foreseeable on rational observation. There's much more solid motive to be found by CNN as they sought to increase profits.

 

[Aridas]

Fauxcahontas, the New York Times endorsed candidate for POTUS, wants to criminalize providing disinformation online to sway elections. I think this will lock up the fascist vote for her, although it may be too little too late to save her collapsing campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rmation-plan-criminalizing-free-speech-online

Gotta love how purveyors of disinformation are enraged by efforts to reduce the effects of disinformation.

As for the Fascist vote, they've long since been locked up for Trump. Openly and unashamedly.

Either way, the Warren plan has stuff like...

Push to create civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in U.S. elections: Voter suppression efforts of any kind offend basic American values. In both the 2016 and 2018 elections, online disinformation sought to depress voter turnout by telling people they could vote via text, giving people the wrong date for election day, and more. I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.

Reinstate the position of cybersecurity coordinator at the National Security Council: The Trump Administration eliminated this critical position, weakening our defenses against cybersecurity threats and disinformation. As president, I will reinstate the position and empower the coordinator so that our country is safe.

The HORROR!

 

[TragicMonkey]

Wouldn't the out of pocket max limit that? I think it's around $8,100 this year. When I had my bike accident, the bill was over $150K, but I "only" had to pay the $6,350 max. I'm not saying that is chump change, but the hospital readily setup a long term payment plan with no issues.

Insurance used to have lifetime payout limits. That temporarily went away with Obamacare, but it'll be back soon enough once the Republicans get a teensy bit more power. Shareholders are much more important than the public at large.

Eta: also, what your insurance is going to charge you is not the same as what the providers are charging you and the insurance. Somebody's going to pay the difference or eat that cost.

 

[Cabbage]

Hmm. I think it's worth being clear about something here. I'm not using it as an argument not to vote for Sanders. I'm pointing out a notable concern in play here. There's a difference.

Fair enough on that. I certainly was getting the impression that some people here were proselytizing specifically against Sanders because they thought that would hand the election to Trump. But at the same time, I would like to point out a notable concern as well: I'm concerned that running another routine establishment candidate like we did in 2016 will produce a similar result. No candidate is perfect; every candidate has notable concerns.

Again, that's not really what's actually being said. Whether he'll be able to weather them or not is actually difficult to foretell, in my opinion. That doesn't change that the GOP sure looks and sounds like they *want* the Democratic candidate to be Sanders and that they sure look like they're intentionally going easy on him now in hopes of making that happen.

I believe that in itself is certainly debatable. Just a few days ago this came out:

'The Only One I Didn't Want Her to Pick': In Secret Recording, Trump Admits Fear of Clinton Picking Sanders as VP in 2016


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...t-recording-trump-admits-fear-clinton-picking



Given game theory and bluffing, I think it's an absolute mistake to ever base your vote in the primary on who you think the opposition does or does not prefer (or to put much stock in that at all); I really don't think anything at all reliable can come from that perception.

I'm pretty sure that I've repeatedly made it clear that I'm in the "Support the candidate that you think would be best" camp myself. I'm not going to tell you not to support the candidate of your choice. There are concerns worth serious consideration when it comes to pretty much all the candidates, though.

I absolutely agree with that!

 

[BobTheCoward]

Fauxcahontas, the New York Times endorsed candidate for POTUS, wants to criminalize providing disinformation online to sway elections. I think this will lock up the fascist vote for her, although it may be too little too late to save her collapsing campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rmation-plan-criminalizing-free-speech-online

Did you read the article?

That's fine, but here’s where things really get wild. In a portion of the plan labeled “Governor actions to address disinformation,” Warren promises to “create civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in U.S. elections.”

In other words, Warren wants to criminalize the spread of information the government deems to be false. This unconstitutional proposal not only flies in the face of the First Amendment and core constitutional principles of free expression, but it’s also ripe for abuse.

That is a weird leap. This isn't some subjective piece of information the government deems false. Telling someone the election is on Wednesday is not a false statement up for debate. Saying you can vote online is not up for debate.


I have no idea how this would be ripe for abuse. I'm having trouble even coming up with semi-outlandish hypotheticals on how this can be abused?

Do you even have a hypothetical for that?