2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
For Biden to reach out to Anita Hill to make amends three weeks before announcing his run positively reeks of sincerity. :rolleyes: What a ******* asswipe, then and now.

Regrettably, this election cycle might be similar to 2016. Two abysmal candidates -- an establishment dem with a massive pile of baggage, and a rigid ideologue with diarrhea of the mouth hell bent on losing the general. Both ancient. Hopefully someone else emerges.
 
acbytesla said:
So? There are lots of people in both parties that want things that never are going to pass. I never concern myself with unrealistic wants.
Click to expand...

I do not expect that this wing of the Democrats will actually get their policy preferences enacted. But it's quite possible for them to get their candidate preferences nominated, or at least the candidates they most dislike knocked out. So I don't think it's wise to simply ignore them.
 
Ziggurat said:
I do not expect that this wing of the Democrats will actually get their policy preferences enacted. But it's quite possible for them to get their candidate preferences nominated, or at least the candidates they most dislike knocked out. So I don't think it's wise to simply ignore them.
Click to expand...

Its not a question of ignoring them. Its about dealing with people honestly. My experience in politics is there are 2 kinds of people. Ideologues and those that are pragmatic. There is no pleasing the ideologues.
 
varwoche said:
For Biden to reach out to Anita Hill to make amends three weeks before announcing his run positively reeks of sincerity. :rolleyes: What a ******* asswipe, then and now.

Regrettably, this election cycle might be similar to 2016. Two abysmal candidates -- an establishment dem with a massive pile of baggage, and a rigid ideologue with diarrhea of the mouth hell bent on losing the general. Both ancient. Hopefully someone else emerges.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your characterization of Biden but I do hope someone else emerges. I'm milquetoast about what I've seen. I don't want Sanders or Biden. I wish Warren was younger. I don't want a mid 70s candidate. I really wish Al Franken had run.
 
Ziggurat said:
Valid or not, a lot of Democrats have that viewpoint. Ignoring them won't make them go away.
Click to expand...

Seriously, very few democrats are SO anti-gun that owning a gun would be a point of controversy for a candidate.

Our internal debates about gun control are much more nuanced and data-driven.
 
Ziggurat, your idea of a rift in the party over guns is just wishfulness. The side you so desperately want to be so disruptive so you can take your place in opposition to them is practically non-existent. It's a conspiracist Republican myth.

* * *

It's weird to see people bringing up candidates' ages as if that were a strike against them. It's a strike against the people in control of the party, for having spent so many years working so hard to block out anybody who's not conservative enough for them, thus creating this age gap among actual lefties in the first place. Any time somebody brings it up in one of the oldtimers' presence, they should turn it around as a perfect example of why the Republican wing of the Democrat party needs to get knocked out of power: "You're the ones who made sure there wouldn't be anybody like me but younger in the party for all this time; now you're complaining about the problem you created yourself. The solution is to get rid of the source of the problem, not use the problem as an excuse to keep perpetuating the problem."
 
Delvo said:
Ziggurat, your idea of a rift in the party over guns is just wishfulness. The side you so desperately want to be so disruptive so you can take your place in opposition to them is practically non-existent. It's a conspiracist Republican myth.

* * *
Delvo said:
It's weird to see people bringing up candidates' ages as if that were a strike against them. It's a strike against the people in control of the party, for having spent so many years working so hard to block out anybody who's not conservative enough for them, thus creating this age gap among actual lefties in the first place. Any time somebody brings it up in one of the oldtimers' presence, they should turn it around as a perfect example of why the Republican wing of the Democrat party needs to get knocked out of power: "You're the ones who made sure there wouldn't be anybody like me but younger in the party for all this time; now you're complaining about the problem you created yourself. The solution is to get rid of the source of the problem, not use the problem as an excuse to keep perpetuating the problem."
Click to expand...
Absurd. There are young candidates running, but they have their issues as well. The party leaders are the party leaders.

Barack knocked down the door when everyone assumed that Hillary would grab the nomination in 2008. This is the most wide open field since 2004.

There is a dozen viable Democrats between 40 and 65 running. That there is little buzz about any of them yet is simply the media's gravitation towards covering the election like a horse race and who they know. Give this a little time.
Click to expand...
 
acbytesla said:
I'm a Democrat and I own a few guns.I'm also for much stronger gun laws. ...

Just because i want sensible gun laws doesn't mean i want to take away all guns.
Click to expand...
Just because Democrats want sensible gun laws doesn't mean they are conflicted about gun ownership.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Just because Democrats want sensible gun laws doesn't mean they are conflicted about gun ownership.
Click to expand...

I'm conflicted about it. But the Democratic nominee is not going to be chosen based on the level of each candidate's support for strict new gun laws. (In my opinion)
 
acbytesla said:
I'm conflicted about it. But the Democratic nominee is not going to be chosen based on the level of each candidate's support for strict new gun laws. (In my opinion)
Click to expand...
Are you conflicted because other Democrats own guns?

Zig's post implies it is a universal POV of the majority in the party. That is absurd.

Just like the GOP tries to paint the whole party as wanting "open borders" when a couple legislators voiced that opinion, here the right wing is again (assuming Zig is echoing the right wing narratives) trying to paint the whole Democratic Party as anti-gun or conflicted or whatever.

Unless someone can quote the Party Platform as wanting all guns banned and wanting open borders, then claiming these things are the Democrats' positions is nothing more than trying to spread a false narrative about the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Seriously, very few democrats are SO anti-gun that owning a gun would be a point of controversy for a candidate.

Our internal debates about gun control are much more nuanced and data-driven.
Click to expand...

Then the ones that are for hand gun ownership are dishonest. The data is very clear that it is far more likely to turn out bad for you if you have a gun in the house (learned that from DU).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you conflicted because other Democrats own guns?

Zig's post implies it is a universal POV of the majority in the party. That is absurd.

Just like the GOP tries to paint the whole party as wanting "open borders" when a couple legislators voiced that opinion, here the right wing is again (assuming Zig is echoing the right wing narratives) trying to paint the whole Democratic Party as anti-gun or conflicted or whatever.

Unless someone can quote the Party Platform as wanting all guns banned and wanting open borders, then claiming these things are the Democrats' positions is nothing more than trying to spread a false narrative about the Democrats.
Click to expand...

The problem with the party platform on gun control is it is vacuous

In a country as great as ours, no child should be afraid to go to school or walk around their neighborhood. No spouse should be afraid to come home at night. No American should be afraid to go to work or their place of worship. And no human being should be afraid to go to a shopping mall or baseball field, nightclub or movie theater, concert or college campus.

But too many politicians act as if gun violence is just a fact of everyday life. They offer only thoughts and prayers as tragedies unfold, while accepting millions from the National Rifle Association to stand in the way of even the smallest reforms.

We must stop pretending that we are powerless to prevent gun violence. That’s why for decades the Democratic Party has put forth policies that would help prevent the carnage that has become all too common in schools and communities across the country.

Democrats believe that we can reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. We believe we should expand and strengthen background checks for those who want to purchase a firearm – because it shouldn’t be easier to get a gun than a driver’s license. We believe we should ensure that guns don’t fall into the hands of terrorists (whether they be domestic or foreign), domestic abusers, other violent criminals, or those who have shown signs of danger toward themselves or others. And we believe we should treat gun violence as the deadly public health crisis it is.

Democrats stand with the students, families, and organizers who are fighting to enact these commonsense policies to keep our communities safe, once and for all.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you conflicted because other Democrats own guns?
Click to expand...
I'm conflicted about it because while I have gone hunting and own guns, I've also seen the result of multiple homicides by a nutjob with a gun. This having missed being a possible victim myself by about 20 minutes. I know that nations with stricter gun laws have fewer homicides. I'd have no problem with them being banned outright. But excuse the expression, but I don't want to die on that hill.

Right now, I want a candidate with integrity first. Someone who isn't full of crap. Someone who doesn't think everything is about him/her. I'm so sick of cringing at the last moronic or cruel thing Trump has to say about anything.

I also am looking for a candidate who will put the 90 percent first not last. In the last 60 years as a nation, we have grown 10 times wealthier per capita and yet the average American hasn't really shared in that production. We need someone who will support finding ways to make income distribution more fair.

We need someone who will actually make health care affordable instead of looking out for private insurers, big pharma and the hospitals.

I'm also looking for a candidate who will support making safe nuclear power cheap and ubiquitous through the development of factory manufactured modular molten salt liquid fuel reactors. (This last requirement makes Bernie a big no for me.)

The gun issue while important certainly is not high on my priorities.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Zig's post implies it is a universal POV of the majority in the party. That is absurd.

Just like the GOP tries to paint the whole party as wanting "open borders" when a couple legislators voiced that opinion, here the right wing is again (assuming Zig is echoing the right wing narratives) trying to paint the whole Democratic Party as anti-gun or conflicted or whatever.

Unless someone can quote the Party Platform as wanting all guns banned and wanting open borders, then claiming these things are the Democrats' positions is nothing more than trying to spread a false narrative about the Democrats.
Click to expand...
I agree 100 percent.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm conflicted about it because while I have gone hunting and own guns, I've also seen the result of multiple homicides by a nutjob with a gun. This having missed being a possible victim myself by about 20 minutes. I know that nations with stricter gun laws have fewer homicides. I'd have no problem with them being banned outright. But excuse the expression, but I don't want to die on that hill.

Right now, I want a candidate with integrity first. Someone who isn't full of crap. Someone who doesn't think everything is about him/her. I'm so sick of cringing at the last moronic or cruel thing Trump has to say about anything.

I also am looking for a candidate who will put the 90 percent first not last. In the last 60 years as a nation, we have grown 10 times wealthier per capita and yet the average American hasn't really shared in that production. We need someone who will support finding ways to make income distribution more fair.

We need someone who will actually make health care affordable instead of looking out for private insurers, big pharma and the hospitals.

I'm also looking for a candidate who will support making safe nuclear power cheap and ubiquitous through the development of factory manufactured modular molten salt liquid fuel reactors. (This last requirement makes Bernie a big no for me.)

The gun issue while important certainly is not high on my priorities.

I agree 100 percent.
Click to expand...

How do you know what is more fair?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you conflicted because other Democrats own guns?

Zig's post implies it is a universal POV of the majority in the party. That is absurd.

Just like the GOP tries to paint the whole party as wanting "open borders" when a couple legislators voiced that opinion, here the right wing is again (assuming Zig is echoing the right wing narratives) trying to paint the whole Democratic Party as anti-gun or conflicted or whatever.

Unless someone can quote the Party Platform as wanting all guns banned and wanting open borders, then claiming these things are the Democrats' positions is nothing more than trying to spread a false narrative about the Democrats.
Click to expand...

It is a playbook that has been working pretty well:
If you are against spending billions upon billions of dollars for a wall in the middle of nowhere, then you are for completely open borders.
If you are for sensible gun legislation: you wish to ban guns
If you are for social spending on public health care and education, then you are a socialist
and so on.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Zig's post implies it is a universal POV of the majority in the party. That is absurd.
Click to expand...

You have it exactly backwards. If it was a universal POV, then there would be no intraparty conflict. Therefore my posts explicitly contradict your attempted portrayal of them.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Then the ones that are for hand gun ownership are dishonest. The data is very clear that it is far more likely to turn out bad for you if you have a gun in the house (learned that from DU).
Click to expand...

Those studies are crap. There are a lot of very easily identifiable risk factors which they don't bother taking into account, but anyone considering a handgun easily can. For example, are you a drug dealer? Is anyone in your household a drug dealer? If not, then the odds of you or someone in your household getting shot are considerably lower than the study indicates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom