The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (11 Viewers)

[Intensesaint]

A place for all the gaffs, slip-ups and overall outlandish things Democratic candidates will say or do in lead up to the 2020 Election.

 

[Heathen]

Because everyone on that stage has taken money from wealthy donors and PAC's. Even the "Gloriously Grassrooted" Bernie is over a million dollars from them in his career, and even over a million this election cycle from "corporate" interests.

'Gloriously grassrooted'? Haha. As a quick aside, what seems to bother you about Bernie's campaign?

Anyway... Anyone making money from (your example) book deals etc as long as there isn't a history of corporate ties there doesn't invalidate the argument of the way money should be raised in a campaign.

Period.

Notice, also, that I didn't defend Warren. Pete made a clever counterattack. But if there's a better choice available, why would i not err on that side?

It's a purity test being weaponized is a way to get the young kid out of the race because he can't yet compete on the same footing as they with their decades of public name recognition and fundraising can.

Anyone can call anything a 'purity test'. The real question is if citizens of this country care about a certain standard in the political process being set to keep corporate control out of the democratic process. Id hope you'd feel the same way, but i realize opinions always differ.

 

[crosswatt]

'Gloriously grassrooted'? Haha. As a quick aside, what seems to bother you about Bernie's campaign?

Anyway... Anyone making money from (your example) book deals etc as long as there isn't a history of corporate ties there doesn't invalidate the argument of the way money should be raised in a campaign.

Period.

Notice, also, that I didn't defend Warren. Pete made a clever counterattack. But if there's a better choice available, why would i not err on that side?



Anyone can call anything a 'purity test'. The real question is if citizens of this country care about a certain standard in the political process being set to keep corporate control out of the democratic process. Id hope you'd feel the same way, but i realize opinions always differ.

I'm not bothered by it, but am bothered that Buttigieg got attacked for something that every other candidate on the stage does or has done in the not so distant past.

Money is in politics. The only way to get it out or minimize it's effect on policy/society is to completely make it illegal and publicly fund all elections, or take off the limits to it and make every single donation and transaction public, and make them go directly to the candidate to whom they are intended. No more PACS or "friends of" or party funded back door campaign support. And I'm alright with either solution.

 

[JimEverett]

[

I'm not bothered by it, but am bothered that Buttigieg got attacked for something that every other candidate on the stage does or has done in the not so distant past.

Money is in politics. The only way to get it out or minimize it's effect on policy/society is to completely make it illegal and publicly fund all elections, or take off the limits to it and make every single donation and transaction public, and make them go directly to the candidate to whom they are intended. No more PACS or "friends of" or party funded back door campaign support. And I'm alright with either solution.

Both "solutions" seem very problematic to me. Taxpayers supporting candidates who not only disagree with them (the taxpayers) but, perhaps, want to outright take away their rights for example.
As far as campaign donations. The problem here is what constitutes a "campaign donation." Does an oped? A book? A movie?

 

[wardorican]

'Gloriously grassrooted'? Haha. As a quick aside, what seems to bother you about Bernie's campaign?

Anyway... Anyone making money from (your example) book deals etc as long as there isn't a history of corporate ties there doesn't invalidate the argument of the way money should be raised in a campaign.

Period.

Notice, also, that I didn't defend Warren. Pete made a clever counterattack. But if there's a better choice available, why would i not err on that side?



Anyone can call anything a 'purity test'. The real question is if citizens of this country care about a certain standard in the political process being set to keep corporate control out of the democratic process. Id hope you'd feel the same way, but i realize opinions always differ.

Rich individuals does not equal corporate control.

 

[crosswatt]

[

Both "solutions" seem very problematic to me. Taxpayers supporting candidates who not only disagree with them (the taxpayers) but, perhaps, want to outright take away their rights for example.
As far as campaign donations. The problem here is what constitutes a "campaign donation." Does an oped? A book? A movie?

In a publicly funded election, no outside money is allowed, and access to the candidates are through debates and interviews only, which would eliminate much of the distasteful and often wildly misleading campaign commercial barrage that we currently are showered with. As taxpayers, we would not be supporting candidates, but the process.

And the book sales thing is massively troubling and essentially a form of money laundering that should be fixed regardless. And the equal time statute is still around, although people who generate crazy amounts of press by being outrageous would need some type of caveat to help keep things on the same level.

 

[Intensesaint]

I am starting to think that Buttigieg is getting such scorn from the extreme left because conservatives are actually taking a look at him and seeing him as somebody who is quite reasonable in the field of candidates.

 

[Intensesaint]

I am starting to think that Buttigieg is getting such scorn from the extreme left because conservatives are actually taking a look at him and seeing him as somebody who is quite reasonable in the field of candidates.

Also, looked up his net worth and from what I can gather it's around it's around $250k...

 

[Intensesaint]

It's interesting when you think about candidates like Sanders and Warren who are lauding lots of small donations from people who aren't wealthy. The people who really can't afford to give up any of their money.. that's the money they want.

I always found that interesting last election cycle when Sanders used to brag how much in small donations he took. A lot of those people really can't afford those small donations in the first place. I wonder if the Sanders campaign gave any of that money back?

 

[Lapaz]

It's interesting when you think about candidates like Sanders and Warren who are lauding lots of small donations from people who aren't wealthy. The people who really can't afford to give up any of their money.. that's the money they want.

I always found that interesting last election cycle when Sanders used to brag how much in small donations he took. A lot of those people really can't afford those small donations in the first place. I wonder if the Sanders campaign gave any of that money back?

I doubt that many people that can't afford to give it are giving. Most people can afford $25 here and there.

Yes, I've known this for awhile. What does that have to do with the statement you quoted?

If you're (candidate) someone who wants to set a new standard where money doesn't dominate our political system and the voice of the individual is as powerful as possible as the constitution intended, why would you freely and openly accept lobbyist money? Then feel guilty and return it?

I think the answer to that is 'he didn't care about it in the first place'.

Until there is a law outlawing it, and provides another means to fund campaigns, I don't fault anyone for using the existing system. Republicans are doing that and much more, because the rich have an incentive to support them, so it is already unfair to Democrats, therefore it is foolish to turn down money from legal sources. It is great that Sanders and Warren have largely been able to fund their presidential campaigns without corporate money, but it isn't realistic for Democrats to be idealistic nor wrong for Democrats to use the existing system. I'm all for public financing campaigns, but we aren't there yet.

 

[Heathen]

I always found that interesting last election cycle when Sanders used to brag how much in small donations he took. A lot of those people really can't afford those small donations in the first place. I wonder if the Sanders campaign gave any of that money back?

A lot of people can afford a couple of bucks a month. No clue where you're going with this.

Also, a guy running for ideas like M4A, free at Point of sale college tuition etc IS in fact running to put money back in the pockets of his constituents, not just etch the scale back to the center. Thats kind of the point of what MSM are calling his 'radical' campaign.

 

[Dadsdream]

Saw this in the news feed and wondered what to make of it. Is this an endorsement . . . a conditional endorsement . . . a half-arsed endorsement . . . not an endorsement? The article says Obama has refused to publicly endorse anybody, but in private, he's pushing Warren? I'm confused.

Former President Barack Obama has been encouraging Democratic bundlers to pledge their full support to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., should she win the party's nomination for president, The Hill reported Monday.

Obama tells big-money Dem donors to back Warren if she wins nomination: report

Former President Barack Obama has been speaking to Democratic donors in recent weeks who may be reluctant to support Sen. Elizabeth Warren's White House bid because of her strong criticism of the wealthy and Wall Street, according to media reports.

www.foxnews.com

 

[reubenray]

I did not vote for Hillary nor Trump as neither of them deserved my vote in 2016. But you can bet I will be voting for Trump in 2020 with the field of Democrats running and the stunts that the Democratic party has been pulling.

 

[Heathen]

Until there is a law outlawing it, and provides another means to fund campaigns, I don't fault anyone for using the existing system. Republicans are doing that and much more, because the rich have an incentive to support them, so it is already unfair to Democrats, therefore it is foolish to turn down money from legal sources. It is great that Sanders and Warren have largely been able to fund their presidential campaigns without corporate money, but it isn't realistic for Democrats to be idealistic nor wrong for Democrats to use the existing system. I'm all for public financing campaigns, but we aren't there yet.

I do. Just because something is widespread now, doesn't mean it is in line with what should (in my humble opinion) be the crux of voting in a democratic system.

I don't care if something is unfair. I want the party to set the standard, not 'win at any cost', and toss away ideas like breaking off from big oil and gas donations or holding dinners with fat cat lobbyists. THAT is what both sides are sick of.

We can win AND win in a way that sets a good standard going forward. That can happen right now and is happening right now.

It isn't ideological purity or some mythological litmus test. It's calling your shots and letting things fall where they may with the voters. And the voters seem to like these ideas. Just my .02

 

[Heathen]

I did not vote for Hillary nor Trump as neither of them deserved my vote in 2016. But you can bet I will be voting for Trump in 2020 with the field of Democrats running and the stunts that the Democratic party has been pulling.

What would it take for you to vote against someone who let the bulk of his administration's tax cuts go to the wealthy?

Do you care about that? I'm not saying I love the crop of Dems out there, but I think there are a few better than the rest by a good margin.

The Republicans should have put at least a few up against Trump. Sad to see.

 

[reubenray]

What would it take for you to vote against someone who let the bulk of his administration's tax cuts go to the wealthy?

Do you care about that? I'm not saying I love the crop of Dems out there, but I think there are a few better than the rest by a good margin.

The Republicans should have put at least a few up against Trump. Sad to see.

I care about my money and my family's well being and they are both doing great under Trump.

 

[Heathen]

I care about my money and my family's well being and they are both doing great under Trump.

What about long-term? Namely, your tax cuts that will expire while those of the rich never expire. Here and now can be great if you can't see what will inevitably transpire later.

Regulations being cut that keep our air and water clean, to start. Is that not troubling to you?
As someone who will likely have a family of my own one day, things like that matter to me also.

 

[Lapaz]

I care about my money and my family's well being and they are both doing great under Trump.

And everyone's money was doing better under Obama, and even though Hillary would've continued those policies, I assume you didn't vote for Hillary.

 

[reubenray]

What about long-term? Namely, your tax cuts that will expire while those of the rich never expire. Here and now can be great if you can't see what will inevitably transpire later.

Regulations being cut that keep our air and water clean, to start. Is that not troubling to you?
As someone who will likely have a family of my own one day, things like that matter to me also.

I am retired and don't have tax cuts. The air and water for our lifetime is all I am concerned about. Plus I do not believe all of that climate bull.