Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

[Aridas]

Which I get is super frustrating for all the progressives who wish America would just lance the boil already, and worry about cleaning up the mess later.

Hmm? I suppose that I should just take this as trolling, given that the ones actually pushing to just lance the boil have consistently been on the right, by my observation. Progressives and the sane people on the right have been much more in favor of deterrence.

 

[a_unique_person]

Biden can never win. He's too old, too stupid and not fat enough

 

[theprestige]

Re: Trump vs. Biden and military action...

So he's not interested in engaging in war, except when he's interested in engaging in war.

It's about degree of engagement. He seems a lot less interested than Obama, so far.

(Oh, and don't forget... Trump's attack against a Syrian airport over its use of chemical weapons... When Obama was in the same situation, he declined to act without approval from Congress.)

(... After getting the US involved in the Syrian conflict to begin with. Now you're complaining that Trump is prosecuting a war he inherited from his predecessor, and calling Trump the warmonger.

Oh, that's right, I forgot about when Obama started a war against North Korea.

Wait a second... that didn't actually happen.

The fact is, no president (neither democrat nor republican) has decided to launch a major military offensive against North Korea since the end of the Korean war. So its not like Trump should get any brownie points for not bombing North Korea.

And while Trump has engaged in high-level talks with Kim Jong-un, he also insulted him on Twitter. (And North Korea has continued to work on its missile programs, so all of Trump's diplomacy has resulted in nothing.)

It didn't happen, and you don't want it to happen. The conventional wisdom is that making nice on the Korean Peninsula is preferable to the alternative. In spite of his alleged warmongering interests, Trump has continued this policy. Why is this a problem for you?

(And North Korea had continued to work on its missile programs during the Obama administration, too. You're trying to show that Trump is worse than Obama, but... He's about the same. Maybe slightly better.)

I think its accurate to say that Trump's dialog with North Korea has less to do with a desire for peace on Trump's part, and more to do with how easily he is manipulated.

In other words, he's not particularly interested in warmongering. Which we can infer simply by observing his actions, without having to speculate about his inner life.

 

[theprestige]

Hmm? I suppose that I should just take this as trolling, given that the ones actually pushing to just lance the boil have consistently been on the right, by my observation. Progressives and the sane people on the right have been much more in favor of deterrence.

Not trolling, sarcasm. Trump makes nice on the Korean peninsula, and somehow this pisses off the same progressives who value a policy of making nice on the Korean peninsula.

 

[wareyin]

It's about degree of engagement. He seems a lot less interested than Obama, so far.

But-but-but-Obama? Yeah all those wars under Obama were really something huh? Gadzooks a grand total of zero wars he got us involved in, that felt pretty good didn't it?

(... After getting the US involved in the Syrian conflict to begin with. Now you're complaining that Trump is prosecuting a war he inherited from his predecessor, and calling Trump the warmonger.

Oh, jeez. You're actually calling it a war? And pawning Trump's actions off on his predecessor? Let me guess, you saw Trump's claims that Obama didn't give him tests for Covid-19 gaining traction with the knuckledragging slackwits on the right and thought you'd see if blaming Trumps actions in Syria on Obama played out as well here?

It didn't happen, and you don't want it to happen. The conventional wisdom is that making nice on the Korean Peninsula is preferable to the alternative. In spite of his alleged warmongering interests, Trump has continued this policy. Why is this a problem for you?

Conventional wisdom, eh? That must be why all those other Presidents went to NK to give photo ops to Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un?

(And North Korea had continued to work on its missile programs during the Obama administration, too. You're trying to show that Trump is worse than Obama, but... He's about the same. Maybe slightly better.)

Yeah, that's not what the international team of expert inspectors on the ground were saying. What evidence do you have that NK was working on it's missile programs under Obama?

In other words, he's not particularly interested in warmongering. Which we can infer simply by observing his actions, without having to speculate about his inner life.

Right? Why would anyone think these show an interest in warmongering: Trump assassinating an Iranian General, bombing Iraq, continuing the drone strikes just not allowing the press to report on them anymore, and much, much more!

oh, wait, you were serious about that claim?

 

[Aridas]

Not trolling, sarcasm. Trump makes nice on the Korean peninsula, and somehow this pisses off the same progressives who value a policy of making nice on the Korean peninsula.

Mmm. Not that I saw. But then, the progressive position there was and is notably different than what you tried to peg it as, by my observation. Personally, again, the only people who I saw pushing the "lance the boil and screw the consequences" strategy were right-wingers. Progressives opposed Trump's actions for very, very different reasons - reasons that were shown to be largely correct, looking back, and have a lot to do with how much they believed that Trump would actually accomplish anything positive, let alone ending things with a net positive result, beyond tamping down some of the fires that he provoked in the first place.

With that said, I admit that seeing the incredible hypocrisy and double standards of the right-wing propagandists when it came to efforts to negotiate with NK was plenty worthy of criticism and ridicule.

 

[Aridas]

Right? Why would anyone think these show an interest in warmongering: Trump assassinating an Iranian General, bombing Iraq, continuing the drone strikes just not allowing the press to report on them anymore, and much, much more!

oh, wait, you were serious about that claim?

I think I'll poke at... Venezuala? Anyone remembering Trump being dissuaded over and over regarding war there?

 

[wareyin]

I think I'll poke at... Venezuala? Anyone remembering Trump being dissuaded over and over regarding war there?

Never happened! And it was Obama's fault that it happened. [/conservative]

 

[Ziggurat]

But-but-but-Obama? Yeah all those wars under Obama were really something huh? Gadzooks a grand total of zero wars he got us involved in

I'm confused. Do you think Libya wasn't a war, or do you think we weren't involved?

Oh, jeez. You're actually calling it a war?

Syria looks like a war. Feels like a war. Smells like a war. Tastes like a war. Good thing we didn't step in it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, that's not what the international team of expert inspectors on the ground were saying. What evidence do you have that NK was working on it's missile programs under Obama?

Bwahahahahaha!

North Korea was working on both its nuclear weapons program and its ballistic missile program under Obama. How do we know? Well, for one thing, they tested both, repeatedly, during his presidency. For example:

September 2016 North Korean nuclear test
January 2016 North Korean nuclear test
2013 North Korean nuclear test
2009 North Korean nuclear test

And for ballistic missiles, there's a bunch of examples here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_tests#Timeline

If the inspectors truly didn't think North Korea was doing any of what the entire world and the press knew it was doing, and North Korea SAID it was doing, and you still believe them, well....

 

[SezMe]

This includes a Trump campaign video and includes Yang discussing where it's false. It's an early example of the crap that the GOP will produce to discredit Biden.

 

[Aridas]

This includes a Trump campaign video and includes Yang discussing where it's false. It's an early example of the crap that the GOP will produce to discredit Biden.

Mmm. A couple of the problems are poked at, yes. Not even close to all. Deceptive editing, for example, and how utterly hypocritical it is for Trump to try to attack Biden on those specifics given the ways that he's praised China and Xi and has rather blatantly been outright bribed by China are a couple of the others, of course.

 

[Mumbles]

This includes a Trump campaign video and includes Yang discussing where it's false. It's an early example of the crap that the GOP will produce to discredit Biden.

Frankly, the only message I got out of Dolt 45's ad was "Biden talks to those nasty Chinks that good Americans all hate." It confirms that his repeated use of "Chinese Flu" was his usual white supremacism put to use in order to deflect blame for his incredibly poor performance in the face of a manageable crisis.

Now, granted, it's what the MAGAts love, but he's just yelling to his base again.

 

[SezMe]

Justin Amash announces exploratory committee for president.

It is unclear if Amash, who left the Republican Party last year over his outspoken opposition to Trump, would do more damage to Biden or Trump. Before leaving the party, he was the lone Republican who supported impeaching the president.

In my view it is abundantly clear that Amash would do more damage to Trump than Biden. After all, he's been a lifelong Republican so why would anyone who even leans a bit left vote for him. Certainly his one vote to impeach is not going to be enough to swing any votes.

 

[Suddenly]

Justin Amash announces exploratory committee for president.



In my view it is abundantly clear that Amash would do more damage to Trump than Biden. After all, he's been a lifelong Republican so why would anyone who even leans a bit left vote for him. Certainly his one vote to impeach is not going to be enough to swing any votes.

Those on the Democratic right are mostly just moderate Republicans capable of feeling shame.

He'd also be likely to draw away those leaning strongly left who would see little, and mostly positive, difference between he and Biden. The so called BernieBros that would vote for Trump probably go for him, as well as others who would like to see Biden lose but think that Trump is just too immediately dangerous. Amash, were he to get towards a critical mass, would draw off a ton of those votes.

He can check the "not so incompetent to be an immediate existential threat" and "will cause seismic political change" boxes. Also the "not a senile rapist" box.

 

[Trebuchet]

Justin Amash announces exploratory committee for president.



In my view it is abundantly clear that Amash would do more damage to Trump than Biden. After all, he's been a lifelong Republican so why would anyone who even leans a bit left vote for him. Certainly his one vote to impeach is not going to be enough to swing any votes.

But he might draw some moderate Republicans who would otherwise hold their noses and vote for Joe.

 

[SezMe]

Amash, were he to get towards a critical mass, would draw off a ton of those votes.

I don't think so. There aren't a ton of them to begin with.

 

[Aridas]

Hmm. Warren as VP pick is increasingly looking like the best and most likely option.

Biden and Warren have put out a joint op-ed... probably in multiple papers, given that I think I saw links to the Kansas Star and the Miami Herald, among others. That's a point more in favor of likely, though not best.

In best... looks like Warren is still leading in polls (main contenders being Harris, Abrams, and Klobuchar) when it comes to who should be considered and picked, significantly. Even among black voters, though the margin there is much smaller than for the general electorate.

 

[SezMe]

Warren's still my gal but removing her from the Senate and possibly lose control of the Senate? Nope, too great a risk. Imagine her power in the Senate if the Dems take control.

 

[Segnosaur]

Hmm. Warren as VP pick is increasingly looking like the best and most likely option.

To me, that would be an extremely dumb thing to do.

In some ways, it makes sense... she's a capable politician, and her left-wing credentials may help bring some of the more progressive Democrats on board. She would make a good VP (or even a good president).

But, there are problems. In addition to the chance the Democrats could lose a senate seat (A bad-enough prospect with Moscow Mitch still lurking and the chances of the Democrats taking the Senate to be slim), there is also her age.

The Democrats really need to string together multiple terms in the white house. There is a good chance that, being in his 70s, Biden may only be a 1 term president. Usually the vice president has the inside track at being the next presidential nominee (Bush after Reagan, Gore after Clinton), and if they pick the right candidate the Democrats may even be able to string together more than 2 terms. (Biden for one, his successor for 2 terms.) But at Warren's age, she herself may not be able to assume the nomination following a Biden presidency. The result may be another messy set of primaries that divide the party again.

Then there is the issue of demographics.... Biden is already doing well with the senior citizen's demographic. They need to appeal a little more to younger voters.

I think the Democrats would be much better going for a younger woman (a little further to the left than Biden), who is either a gov., a member of the house, or a senator from a Democratic-friendly state (so that they won't lose a potential senate seat.)