• 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

AsesinoDeTortugas said:
The funniest part about all this is that it was a takedown based on a "I'm running for President so now I have to write a book" book. Those are the most unimportant pieces of "literature" known to man.
Click to expand...

Dreams of My Father was great.

I think most people who run for President are typically pretty vapid and come from professional writing traditions...
 
 
 
Yeah. I don't think it would move the needle for anybody. Republicans don't care about anything but maintaining power anymore.
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. I don't think it would move the needle for anybody. Republicans don't care about anything but maintaining power anymore.
Click to expand...

It’s not about moving the needle. It’s about preserving some ethical standards so you don’t let your morally bankrupt opponent rob you of your own morals.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
It’s not about moving the needle. It’s about preserving some ethical standards so you don’t let your morally bankrupt opponent rob you of your own morals.
Click to expand...

Sure. But Democrats already have those ethical standards. A candidate who refused to release tax returns would get nowhere.

It would help if media covered the tax returns. I don't remember seeing any real coverage of Gilibrand and Klob releasing theirs.
 
I’m just intrigued by what Bernie is allegedly hiding. Does he actually have great wealth that he’s not disclosing because it destroys his quasi socialist credibility? Just show us what you got and let the chips fall as they may. The cover up is always bigger than whatever it is you’re hiding.
 
Obama: I worry progressives may undercut Democratic allies


"One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States —maybe it’s true here as well — is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, 'Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,' and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a 'circular firing squad,' where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens," he said.
Click to expand...

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...progressives-may-form-a-circular-firing-squad
 
That’s a fair criticism of the fringiest of the fringe but they’ll keep moving the goalposts to feel special. The whole party is on board for universal health care but anybody who doesn’t want their specific plan is a centrist.

I don’t think that applies to most people who call themselves progressive. I think their willing to work with Democrats but not under the false assumption that Republicans will work with them.
 
What exactly do you mean by progressive, Ph? I think you and Obama have a very different idea of what constitutes progressive. I think the more accurate position is that Democratic Socialists are currently being lumped in with progressives and are probably the population that you and Obama have issues with. I'll say this until my face turns blue, but progressivism is an ideology, just like liberalism is an ideology. Centrism isn't an ideology. It's an insult or hedge, short-hand for folks who consider themselves to be fiscally conservative - or are ideologically fiscally conservative in some area - as the needle has moved left on social issues.

And the whole party isn't on board for universal health care, Ph. Come on, man. That's just disingenuous. Before you ask for somebody to do the work for you, just look up each politician's statements regarding M4A and their understanding of what universal healthcare means. The ACA, for example, merely expanded access to healthcare and not even particularly affordable healthcare (though an undoubtedly better system than the one that existed before). It definitely didn't do much to ensure universal healthcare or even expand access to affordable healthcare... There is a big and meaningful difference between incrementalist takes on expanding access to health care (at whatever price point) and a move towards a single-payer system, medicare for all, or vastly expanding access to medicaid-like health benefits.

I know that we're all enamored with charisma and empty campaign rhetoric right now, but if we're going to have a real discussion on what all of this means, it helps to specify what it is we're talking about, who - in terms of ideology - our comments refer to, and make meaningful comparisons...
 
PhDeac said:
That’s a fair criticism of the fringiest of the fringe but they’ll keep moving the goalposts to feel special. The whole party is on board for universal health care but anybody who doesn’t want their specific plan is a centrist.
Click to expand...

This is just false.
 
Ph, I know that you're not interested in dialoguing with MHB and mdmh, but maybe you'll give my post some consideration instead of writing me off as a Bernie Bro or whatever the pejorative du jour on here is these days.
 
I’m for constructive dialogue about candidates. I’m not for just spouting shit about other candidate to prop up my candidate. The M boys are just shitclouding threads.

The latest post are just examples of my point. There’s no ONE TRUE universal health care plan. But they think there is. I’m willing to listen to different plans and see what works best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top