• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

birdman said:
I didn't accuse you of that. You said Pete was odious and running as a Republican, which I consider worse than the devil actually, but I didn't accuse you of calling him the devil. Odious is a heavily negative word; it means repulsive. Mitch MConell is repulsive, Trump is repulsive, Pete is a little too close with Wall Street and his policy proposals are too deferential to the corporate power and aren't progressive enough. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

You’re dwelling, man. There has been a ton of conversation since then. You’re acting like ChrisL and the 2016 election.
 
ChrisL68 said:
I tried telling you guys how dangerous bernie was early.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not the candidate that's the problem, its vilifying candidates within your own party because they have a different tactic for achieving the same objective that's the problem. Pubs can get away with it, but Dems can't. Bernie isn't dangerous and neither are his ideas, he just wants to fix things faster than Pete or Hillary do/did.
 
tiltdeac said:
I'm not going to word this well at all, but have you noticed multiple posters attitudes/reactions toward you (and townie) have changed recently? I like both of you a lot and I think we agree on the vast majority of stuff, but I've felt myself wanting to push back against you and defend Pete (which certainly feels weird). When I think about it, first I'm bummed because again, why do I feel like I want to argue with people I like and agree with. But I think it's because there is a perception that you are being unreasonable, or at least disproportionate, with some of these attacks. Maybe it's just the framing or whatever, but some of it feels more tribal than actual good faith or fact based, reasoned arguments. Like assuming a guy does is scummy or unethical without evidence because of a job he had out of school. Or calling a guy a republican when there is such a giant chasm between him and any GOP policy. Those are just bad, unconvincing arguments. I sort of expect it from MHB, he's shown he's not particularly interested in discussed policy or real solutions. But not you guys.

And it feels a bit asymmetric too (at least from the reasonable posters). Like I think Bernie is dead wrong about nuclear, and therefore don't love his climate plan. But I think he's a good dude trying to do his best to do what he think is right, I'm not fundamentally questioning his motives or what kind of person he is without good evidence. By all means call out Pete because you believe his arguments are wrong. But this this GOP operative, Mckinsey scum, purity test stuff all feels a little gross to me.
Click to expand...


So, how are we supposed to converse on here?

ITC has gone full troll. ChrisL is stuck in 2016. Ph is a Pete stan and seems to hates Sanders as much as itc and ChrisL.

Should Townie and I just shut up until 2020? Is that what y’all want? What are the rules of discourse on here?

All of this because I used an SAT word hyperbolically and suggested that Pete was running as a Republican. Not a 2019 republican, but a Reagan Republican. I should have clarified at the time, but here we are. I’m sorry for questioning the status quo and daring to question Pete’s nonexistent progressive credentials.

Unlike most on here, I’ll be knocking on doors and phone banking for whoever wins the nomination in a state that matters (CA doesn’t). Unlike birdman, I have never voted third party.

If y’all are so scared of attacks on candidates in primaries, then you should follow Pete’s people on Twitter. It’s a never ending barrage of attacks. He started the negative campaigning and it’s why I dislike him so much.

And Trump doesn’t give a shit about your feelings. Whoever gets the nomination better have thicker skin than OGB posters.
 
Neither has ever been particularly reasonable. It just becomes more apparent depending on whose ox is being gored.
 
Strickland33 said:
You’re dwelling, man. There has been a ton of conversation since then. You’re acting like ChrisL and the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure you haven't specifically used the word odious or the phrase "running as a republican" in a few weeks but the sentiment is still there. You're even starting to piss off Tilt. All I was asking was for people to tone down the personal negativity and you acted like I was out here suppressing your rights. I am wondering what happened to you.
 
Strickland33 said:
So, how are we supposed to converse on here?

ITC has gone full troll. ChrisL is stuck in 2016. Ph is a Pete stan and seems to hates Sanders as much as itc and ChrisL.

Should Townie and I just shut up until 2020? Is that what y’all want? What are the rules of discourse on here?

All of this because I used an SAT word hyperbolically and suggested that Pete was running as a Republican. Not a 2019 republican, but a Reagan Republican. I should have clarified at the time, but here we are. I’m sorry for questioning the status quo and daring to question Pete’s nonexistent progressive credentials.

Unlike most on here, I’ll be knocking on doors and phone banking for whoever wins the nomination in a state that matters (CA doesn’t). Unlike birdman, I have never voted third party.

If y’all are so scared of attacks on candidates in primaries, then you should follow Pete’s people on Twitter. It’s a never ending barrage of attacks. He started the negative campaigning and it’s why I dislike him so much.

And Trump doesn’t give a shit about your feelings. Whoever gets the nomination better have thicker skin than OGB posters.
Click to expand...

I don't hate sanders at all. I'd vote for him. I don't enjoy this primary silly season. Doesn't seem like much movement is going to happen until the real primaries begin. So far it's mostly bernie bros yelling at Pete/PH and others asking why the Bernie Bros are so angry all the time.
 
Strickland33 said:
So, how are we supposed to converse on here?

ITC has gone full troll. ChrisL is stuck in 2016. Ph is a Pete stan and seems to hates Sanders as much as itc and ChrisL.

Should Townie and I just shut up until 2020? Is that what y’all want? What are the rules of discourse on here?

All of this because I used an SAT word hyperbolically and suggested that Pete was running as a Republican. Not a 2019 republican, but a Reagan Republican. I should have clarified at the time, but here we are. I’m sorry for questioning the status quo and daring to question Pete’s nonexistent progressive credentials.

Unlike most on here, I’ll be knocking on doors and phone banking for whoever wins the nomination in a state that matters (CA doesn’t). Unlike birdman, I have never voted third party.

If y’all are so scared of attacks on candidates in primaries, then you should follow Pete’s people on Twitter. It’s a never ending barrage of attacks. He started the negative campaigning and it’s why I dislike him so much.

And Trump doesn’t give a shit about your feelings. Whoever gets the nomination better have thicker skin than OGB posters.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about OGB posters skin thickness, I am worried about the democratic party's enthusiasm for their candidate in November. If the ChrisL faction spends the next 6 months shitting all over Bernie and Warren and digging up stupid stories about irrelevant shit that they once did 20 years ago, and the Stricks and Towneies spend the next 6 month showing how Biden and Pete and basically Goldman Sachs in a suit running for President, one half or the other of the party won't bother voting in November because its raining or some shit. Dems needs to be wildly enthusiastic and come out in droves in November and all this infighting now will just depress voter turn out.
 
HoosierDeac said:
At what cost, though? You obviously have animus towards Mayor Pete. If it bears out that he is the candidate most likely to defeat Trump, I don't care if he slaughters puppies in his basement and eats them for breakfast, you go vote for him. There's no room for ideological purity, or policy or anything else other than 'is this the mostly likely candidate to beat Trump'. Period, control-c, control-v eleventy billion times plus infinity. Period. Period. Period. Don't bother arguing the issues because it's irrelevant. I know that sucks, but we're past that point now. It's a singular motive now. Sorry.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with politics in America.
 
Here, this seems like a good criticism of Petes campaign strategy, and its potential to suppress or even anger an important group of Democratic voters. Have discussion like this:

Strickland33 said:
Also, you don’t know what you’re taking about re: NY Communities for Change. Their base votes early and often, responsible for big electoral victories at the state level and - again - major players in Obama’s 2008 run. You need groups like NYCC in your corner. You don’t alienate them. Those are the Democrats that you can’t afford to lose.
Click to expand...

This comment on the other hand, is not really a productive way to criticize a candidate. Try not to have discussions like this:

Strickland33 said:
When you sell your soul for campaign money, you lose respect from progressive activists. It’s not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...
 
Strickland33 said:
So, how are we supposed to converse on here?

ITC has gone full troll. ChrisL is stuck in 2016. Ph is a Pete stan and seems to hates Sanders as much as itc and ChrisL.

Should Townie and I just shut up until 2020? Is that what y’all want? What are the rules of discourse on here?

All of this because I used an SAT word hyperbolically and suggested that Pete was running as a Republican. Not a 2019 republican, but a Reagan Republican. I should have clarified at the time, but here we are. I’m sorry for questioning the status quo and daring to question Pete’s nonexistent progressive credentials.

Unlike most on here, I’ll be knocking on doors and phone banking for whoever wins the nomination in a state that matters (CA doesn’t). Unlike birdman, I have never voted third party.

If y’all are so scared of attacks on candidates in primaries, then you should follow Pete’s people on Twitter. It’s a never ending barrage of attacks. He started the negative campaigning and it’s why I dislike him so much.

And Trump doesn’t give a shit about your feelings. Whoever gets the nomination better have thicker skin than OGB posters.
Click to expand...

Converse however you want, there are no rules, and I'm certainly not going to tell you what to do. I definitely don't think you should shut up. And I don't we should avoid discussing the weakness of various candidates, obviously the primary should be about figuring out who is the best person for the office. But if you're asking for my opinion, I think you've been a little caught up in some of this *VERY ONLINE* centrist versus leftist catfight, and I want you to make the better, reasoned arguments you are capable of. You're a smart dude I and I appreciate your insights. I'm selfish and I want more of them.

End
 
Apart from ChrisL I feel like I'm able to have pretty calm and measured conversations with people on here. I'd welcome anybody who wanted to post anti-Warren or anti-Bernie stuff on here and talk about it. That I mostly post anti-Pete and anti-Biden fodder on here is just a product of my own political persuasions, but I recognize we're supposed to be the bigger tent. Hiring Lis Smith was the last straw for me with supporting Pete in this primary, but I wish each conversation would start with the basic framework that we're all planning to support the eventual nominee.

And for those here who think beating Trump is the only important thing, you need only look at Michelle Obama talking about her friendship with George W Bush to see how quickly we'll be normalizing Trump and his entire administration once he's out of office. And lest we all forget, Bush was way worse than Trump! It has only been movements on the ground who have made a difference since 2000, whether that's Occupy or otherwise. We can't count on Congress or the Executive branch to fix inequality or injustice--Obama's admin proved that by not prosecuting banks or war criminals. It will only be through continued organizing that we make real social change. That's why I don't think it's such a big deal to be hypercritical of the candidates for president.
 
I will again say that tiltdeac is in my opinion the best poster on the board, and he is probably just as progressive as Townie and Strickland.
 
birdman said:
I didn't accuse you of that. You said Pete was odious and running as a Republican, which I consider worse than the devil actually, but I didn't accuse you of calling him the devil. Odious is a heavily negative word; it means repulsive. Mitch MConell is repulsive, Trump is repulsive, Pete is a little too close with Wall Street and his policy proposals are too deferential to the corporate power and aren't progressive enough. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

tiltdeac said:
I'm not going to word this well at all, but have you noticed multiple posters attitudes/reactions toward you (and townie) have changed recently? I like both of you a lot and I think we agree on the vast majority of stuff, but I've felt myself wanting to push back against you and defend Pete (which certainly feels weird). When I think about it, first I'm bummed because again, why do I feel like I want to argue with people I like and agree with. But I think it's because there is a perception that you are being unreasonable, or at least disproportionate, with some of these attacks. Maybe it's just the framing or whatever, but some of it feels more tribal than actual good faith or fact based, reasoned arguments. Like assuming a guy does is scummy or unethical without evidence because of a job he had out of school. Or calling a guy a republican when there is such a giant chasm between him and any GOP policy. Those are just bad, unconvincing arguments. I sort of expect it from MHB, he's shown he's not particularly interested in discussed policy or real solutions. But not you guys.

And it feels a bit asymmetric too (at least from the reasonable posters). Like I think Bernie is dead wrong about nuclear, and therefore don't love his climate plan. But I think he's a good dude trying to do his best to do what he think is right, I'm not fundamentally questioning his motives or what kind of person he is without good evidence. By all means call out Pete because you believe his arguments are wrong. But this this GOP operative, Mckinsey scum, purity test stuff all feels a little gross to me.
Click to expand...

birdman said:
Nope, it's not the candidate that's the problem, its vilifying candidates within your own party because they have a different tactic for achieving the same objective that's the problem. Pubs can get away with it, but Dems can't. Bernie isn't dangerous and neither are his ideas, he just wants to fix things faster than Pete or Hillary do/did.
Click to expand...

birdman said:
I'm not worried about OGB posters skin thickness, I am worried about the democratic party's enthusiasm for their candidate in November. If the ChrisL faction spends the next 6 months shitting all over Bernie and Warren and digging up stupid stories about irrelevant shit that they once did 20 years ago, and the Stricks and Towneies spend the next 6 month showing how Biden and Pete and basically Goldman Sachs in a suit running for President, one half or the other of the party won't bother voting in November because its raining or some shit. Dems needs to be wildly enthusiastic and come out in droves in November and all this infighting now will just depress voter turn out.
Click to expand...

These are good posts.

Strick, I like Bernie. I voted for him in 2016 and I’d vote for him in the general this year. I think he’s done a lot to move the party to the left. If he had run in 2004, I think the party would have moved much sooner.

I would prefer a much younger candidate and I think his health concerns could be problematic. If he had mentored a promising young progressive and campaigned for her. I think that candidate would win.

I don’t like the ugly elements of his base. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that some men for Bernie (not on this board) are particularly ugly toward the first woman general election nominee and the first openly gay candidate.
 
I'd add that the tenor of posts from people like Strick and MHB and myself (though I'll only speak for myself here) comes from a sense of frustration. In 2016 and in 2020, the media and establishment Democratic party have aligned themselves against Bernie Sanders. It's not some conspiracy, it's out in the open. Every single day across every single major media outlet, we see stuff like this:

ELmM7Q5XkAAKpIL


It's in every headline of every poll, it's a way of denying the legitimacy of Bernie's campaign. Without getting into the why, there's also a general dismissiveness from serious politics people online and in real life that there could be no serious Bernie campaign and there could be no Bernie presidency. With their half billion dollars between them, Hillary and Howard Stern called his campaign promises "chocolate milk for everybody." That forces me into a defensive stance at nearly all times talking about politics in America, being forced to defend the legitimacy of anything other than the ridiculously broken status quo. I sincerely believe that a president Clinton right now wouldn't be saying the quiet parts loud, and wouldn't have white supremacists in her administration, but she'd have kept the concentration camps Obama's administration set up at the border, she'd be deporting people just as efficiently, she'd be fighting the same illegal war in Yemen. I think the trajectory of the party has to radically change away from the Clinton/Obama wing, and I think there are ideas that should be taken seriously that get us moving in that direction.

I respect the fact that people like tilt are able to contain their emotions and just pore through the data and make rational decisions all the time. We should recognize that our ability to do any of this rational discourse comes from a place of privilege, that we can take time out of our professional and personal lives to debate the merits of policy, that every waking second isn't spent scraping for food and shelter and clothes like tens of millions of people who live in our country. I think there's a place, advocating for those people, that does take emotion and passion into account.
 
TownieDeac said:
Apart from ChrisL I feel like I'm able to have pretty calm and measured conversations with people on here. I'd welcome anybody who wanted to post anti-Warren or anti-Bernie stuff on here and talk about it. That I mostly post anti-Pete and anti-Biden fodder on here is just a product of my own political persuasions, but I recognize we're supposed to be the bigger tent. Hiring Lis Smith was the last straw for me with supporting Pete in this primary, but I wish each conversation would start with the basic framework that we're all planning to support the eventual nominee.

And for those here who think beating Trump is the only important thing, you need only look at Michelle Obama talking about her friendship with George W Bush to see how quickly we'll be normalizing Trump and his entire administration once he's out of office. And lest we all forget, Bush was way worse than Trump! It has only been movements on the ground who have made a difference since 2000, whether that's Occupy or otherwise. We can't count on Congress or the Executive branch to fix inequality or injustice--Obama's admin proved that by not prosecuting banks or war criminals. It will only be through continued organizing that we make real social change. That's why I don't think it's such a big deal to be hypercritical of the candidates for president.
Click to expand...

That's a total load of crap. You don't take anyone seriously or treat anyone who disagrees with any respect even when they post with respect if they don't genuflect about your candidates or policies.

Can't wait for your response to blame me or Chris or everyone else for making you mad and thus, no accountable. In over a decade, it's never your fault about anything.
 
Last edited:
Robert M. Pirsig said:
Can you say a bit more about this? I don't know Lis Smith and Google just gives me a bunch of boilerplate bio stuff.
Click to expand...

In 2008, the Democratic party took over the NY State Senate for the first time in over 40 years. Lis was spokeswoman for the leader of the Independent Democratic Caucus, a group of four democratic state senators who defected from the majority and refused to support the new majority leader. This led to Republicans taking back the state house in 2010, and since then the IDC has pushed an agenda that favors working with the Republican party over the progressives that have taken control of the Democratic party in the state. Everyone who was in the IDC in 2018 was primaried by a progressive as part of the Blue Wave, and 7 of 8 IDC members lost their seats.

She has been an outspoken opponent of the progressive movement within the party for a couple decades now, a craven careerist and attack dog on center-right and center-left campaigns. You need only look at her twitter feed since joining Pete's team to see more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top