2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Distracted1]

How will you assess who has the best chances of victory over Trump? What's the metric?

A combination of polling,statements by "experts" and "Pundits" and, like you I suspect, my own judgment based upon my familiarity with the populations of the States in play.

 

[Segnosaur]

The question is... what do you DO about it. All fine for Sanders to rant about these big paydays but how do you step in to provide limits to just how much a person can get paid, without government overreach.

How about a federal maximum wage law? No one at company X gets more than 100x the pay of the lowest paid employee of company X.

Define 'pay'.

One of the problems is that compensation is often in the form of stock options or similar benefits.

And who is going to enforce the 100x maximim wage law? Are companies going to have their payrolls audited?

So a big multi-national company gets broken up into multiple sub-companies... The phizer executives end up being the 'Phizer drug consulting company" (average salary $10 million) and the manufacturing branch is the Phizer make-a-drug company (average salary: $15/hour).

The 100x limit sounds like it would work, it just seems like there are a lot of details that would cause the law to fail.

 

[theprestige]

*Cough* Trump * cough*

Sorry, I couldn't hear your argument over the frog in your throat. Take a lozenge and try again?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, yes. Anyone who's lived in the real world knows this.

But let's test this: would you break a principle if you knew that not doing so in this instance would cause someone you know to die? And, if so, does that mean you have abandoned your principle, or simply that there was another, more important principle?

The only way that a principle is absolute is when you only have one principle, or when all of them are equivalent. Again, in the real world, it doesn't work that way, no matter what internet warriors pretend.

The difference here is that I accept ownership of my sins. When I violate my principles I don't pretend I didn't, or add a subclause into the fine print of the principle to make it good in this one particular scenario. Nor do I invent "higher principles" as a blanket excuse for my actions. If you're going to do that you may as well just pretend there's a deity signing off in approval on whatever you do because it loves you so much you get carte blanche.

The lesser evil is still evil. Even if there are only evil options available that does not make the least evil option into good. Choose the lesser evil by all means but don't delude yourself it's good. Life isn't fair, you're going to get your hands dirty.

 

[Cabbage]

It's EXACTLY what we've been discussing. If you didn't notice the posts where this was brought up, it's not my problem. If it doesn't interest you, then you could simply have not responded.

If that is, in fact, what you are discussing, it's a waste of time (I don't feel like going back and searching to see if that's accurate. I don't recall that being the specific topic of conversation. Could you point me to a specific post (other than your initial question) where that's the topic?).

Anyway, it is in no way applicable to the real world. If you could tell who winners and losers were up front, life would be easy. It's complete oversimplistic nonsense.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sorry, I couldn't hear your argument over the frog in your throat. Take a lozenge and try again?

The way US elections are won is by pandering to the party extreme until you are nominated, and then make a hard turn to the center - at least traditionally.
Candidates who start out in the center don't get nominated.

 

[Belz...]

The difference here is that I accept ownership of my sins. When I violate my principles I don't pretend I didn't, or add a subclause into the fine print of the principle to make it good in this one particular scenario. Nor do I invent "higher principles" as a blanket excuse for my actions.

Incredible. So you will criticise people who violate a principle to serve a higher one, which you now even deny exists, but you admit to violating a principle for essentially no reason as if you have the moral high ground. That takes a lot of gall, I'll give you that.

Incidently you ignored my question AGAIN, and I don't need to tell you how I interpret that.

Even if there are only evil options available that does not make the least evil option into good. Choose the lesser evil by all means but don't delude yourself it's good.

No one here has claimed that the lesser evil was good. You keep arguing against what you pretend that everybody else is thinking. How about you stick to what they write, rather than make a poor imitation of ponderingturtle?

 

[Venom]

I swear on my account I will refrain from posting for a year if Sanders is nominated and loses to Trump.

Joe Biden has never won a primary contest in his three runs for president. Primary voters aren't energized and excited for Biden. Sanders in his very first try, with media already crowning Clinton the nominee and giving millions in free coverage to Trump, won more than 13.17 million in the popular vote to Clinton's 16.85 million.

Sanders is the safer choice. **** an avatar bet, I'll bet my account on it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Incredible. So you will criticise people who violate a principle to serve a higher one, which you now even deny exists, but you admit to violating a principle for essentially no reason as if you have the moral high ground. That takes a lot of gall, I'll give you that.

I never said I violated any of my principles "for no reason". Where did you pull that from?

Incidently you ignored my question AGAIN, and I don't need to tell you how I interpret that.

The question was boringly otiose. But if you insist then the answer is "it depends". What principle is at risk? Who is the person? Why are they in danger of death?

And I really don't care how you interpret anything. You seem to misinterpret every remark anybody makes when you get crabby, and come up with bales of straw. I can't possibly assume responsibility for whatever you're going to derive.

No one here has claimed that the lesser evil was good. You keep arguing against what you pretend that everybody else is thinking. How about you stick to what they write, rather than make a poor imitation of ponderingturtle?

It's bad enough to insult people you're talking to, you don't need to drag other people in who aren't even reading thus thread!

 

[Aridas]

Still no weighing of policy. No one gives a **** anymore. Maybe the party should pick really fit looking people. Being really hot has to make you electable, right?

Maybe because Warren is so far above the rest in terms of policy quality that there's no contest?

Okay cards on the table, and everyone be honest.

Is there any of the Democratic Candidates that we can honestly say are on the table* that you, YOU not a hypothetical other voter of any kind, will cause you to either consider voting for another candidate or not voting if they get the nomination?

(*Let's say Biden, Warren, Sanders, Bloomberg, Buttigeign, Yang, Bennet, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Patrick, Steyer which are the 11 that Wikipedia lists as "Actively Campaigning")

Marianne Williamson was the closest I ever got before she dropped out. It would have been real hard to vote for her, chick was straight up full on nutjob.

But no one in the current crop even approaches that level for me.

Consider? Gabbard. I would probably end up voting for her against Trump, but... ugh.

The time she ripped that patch off his shirt and exposed his pierced nipple at the Super Bowl! That was as problematic as it was erotic, and it was plenty erotic!

And then expertly twisted him around, laid him across her knees and spanked him loudly enough for the mics to catch that sound and the sound of his moans? That was amazing!

 

[Belz...]

I never said I violated any of my principles "for no reason". Where did you pull that from?

From your post. If you didn't violate them for another principle, then I assume you violated them for convenience's sake, which presumably would be worse, morally speaking, unless your previous display of righteous anger at the very thought of violating principles was just for show.

The question was boringly otiose. But if you insist then the answer is "it depends". What principle is at risk? Who is the person? Why are they in danger of death?

I don't know what your principles are, which is why I left it vague. It's a simple enough question: if doing X is part of your principles, and doing it resulted in a death of a friend whereas not doing it was relatively painless, which option would you choose? You know yourself. Pick a principle that is not something more important than "the life of people I care" at your leisure.

It's bad enough to insult people you're talking to

Gosh, the irony. You're the one who made it personal because you didn't like the idea that I brought up that maybe sometimes one principle has to be sacrificed for another. And now you play the wounded one?

 

[theprestige]

The way US elections are won is by pandering to the party extreme until you are nominated, and then make a hard turn to the center - at least traditionally.
Candidates who start out in the center don't get nominated.

Yep. I agree with that.

The candidate that wins the general is usually going to be a candidate that went extreme in the primary and then pivoted to the center after their nomination.

However, it doesn't follow that everyone who attracts the extreme in the primary is therefore going to attract the center in the in general. Some candidates are good at doing both. Being good at one doesn't mean being good at the other.

 

[Distracted1]

The way US elections are won is by pandering to the party extreme until you are nominated, and then make a hard turn to the center - at least traditionally.
Candidates who start out in the center don't get nominated.

Clinton, Obama, McCain, Kerry, Romney.
These candidates were extremists in the primaries??

 

[d4m10n]

Last-minute attack from Joe Biden. "He's not a Democrat"

Serious question: Has Sanders ever once won any public office as a Democrat?

 

[Venom]

Serious question: Has Sanders ever once won any public office as a Democrat?

Not sure why that matters.

 

[Segnosaur]

Serious question: Has Sanders ever once won any public office as a Democrat?

Not sure why that matters.

He's running AS a democrat, in a race where many of the other candidates are long-time democrats who have spent years (if not decades) building up the party.

Some people may just want to know just how dedicated he is to the party he may represent in future elections.

 

[The Shrike]

Okay cards on the table, and everyone be honest. . . Marianne Williamson was the closest I ever got before she dropped out.

Same. She's a total nut. But she at least doesn't seem to be a criminal nut, so I would've pulled the lever for even her.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Not sure there's an easy solution unless we're talking about massive taxation ofhigher-bracket earners.

Acknowledging that there is a problem is a necessary first step.if your campaign depends on the bankrolling of billionaires it is a step you won’t be taking.

Taxation is the most obvious governments tool to use and one that can fund his projects to improve the lot of ordinary Americans.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The problem is that every time I try to pin you down on something that's clear and unambiguous, you answer the above. It sounds like you're trying to avoid having to give an answer that's uncomfortable, rather than anything that's related to me.

The question is simple: would you rather support a tolerable candidate that will win, or one that will align more with your beliefs but lose?

You have your own interpretations of what I say and think that are often twisted, absolutist or plain wrong, and we can see one above. I would rather just say what I want to say, how I want to say it than go through some torturous dance. Ask clarifying questions but don’t make demands. Offer a charitable interpretation of what you think I believe but don’t tell me what I think.

The flaw in the question has been pointed out, we don’t know the outcome of an election beforehand. We go into an election taking hopes and dreams to the ballot and not instead the contents of your bank account to your favourite betting agent.

 

[The_Animus]

I swear on my account I will refrain from posting for a year if Sanders is nominated and loses to Trump.

Joe Biden has never won a primary contest in his three runs for president. Primary voters aren't energized and excited for Biden. Sanders in his very first try, with media already crowning Clinton the nominee and giving millions in free coverage to Trump, won more than 13.17 million in the popular vote to Clinton's 16.85 million.

Sanders is the safer choice. **** an avatar bet, I'll bet my account on it.

I've tried several times, to no avail, to have an avatar bet with a certain poster who frequently says Sanders is a guaranteed loss to Trump and only a centrist can win. Considering how frequently and fervently they repeat that mantra you'd think they'd jump at the chance.