The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (8 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.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Shocked that he couldn’t/wouldn’t answer the question

 

[insidejob]

Someone already announced they were running to unseat her. I believe 13 total are running.

I know. I'd just be shocked if she would lose in the primary.

 

[Heathen]

Hah, I think she's been great at making the Democratic party look bad. Having said that, I think ideally she would be shown the door in 2020 as she will have been usefull for alienating voters and causing problems for the Democratic party and perhaps her failure to get reelected will send a signal that voters have seen enough of politicians like her.

But, if she's reelected we can look forward to a couple of more years of AOC memes.

Again, why do you specifically want her gone?

What of her policy positions, if that's what you disagree with?

 

[Beach Friends]

Again, why do you specifically want her gone?

What of her policy positions, if that's what you disagree with?

"Her" Green New Deal (which we all know that she is just a conduit for) is something that you may very well like, but I think if you assume someone is opposed to socialism you can see where that person would not be in favor of it at all.

To me, she represents a political mindset that I not only dislike, but I think is dangerous - specifically, cultural Marxism, identity politics, intersectionality, whatever you want to call it.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[samiam5211]

Maybe Andrew Yang should jump back in.

It seems like his idea may save us all.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

"Her" Green New Deal (which we all know that she is just a conduit for) is something that you may very well like, but I think if you assume someone is opposed to socialism you can see where that person would not be in favor of it at all.

To me, she represents a political mindset that I not only dislike, but I think is dangerous - specifically, cultural Marxism, identity politics, intersectionality, whatever you want to call it.

As a HS teacher I am kinda expert in recognizing answers that don’t really answer anything
To wit...

 

[Heathen]

"Her" Green New Deal (which we all know that she is just a conduit for) is something that you may very well like, but I think if you assume someone is opposed to socialism you can see where that person would not be in favor of it at all.

What aspects of socialism are you adamantly against? You do realize that the Trump administration, if you support it, is implementing policies that could be called 'socialistic' as we speak? What is wrong with America being a mixed economy of which a large part is socialist?

I think people many times use the word as a smear and not from the standpoint of reality. The reality is that many people the right calls 'socialists' are simply people who want to take a strong stance against crony Capitalism and establish a stronger social safety net, none of which is 'radical'. In fact, it's radical to me what we are about to see in our own nation because of a lack of these measures -- hospitals being overwhelmed and people scared to go to the ER to be in lifetimes of debt, food stores being depleted, price gouging, corporations being the #1 prerogative, not families, not the elderly, not children. If you can defend a few of these measures, i'd garner it's an individual mindset issue. Maybe you don't think that way, I'll give the benefit of the doubt of course.

To me, she represents a political mindset that I not only dislike, but I think is dangerous - specifically, cultural Marxism, identity politics, intersectionality, whatever you want to call it.

I think that the annoyance of ideological purity or whatever you want to call it wrongfully overshadows many ideas that Americans agree with very strongly. Namely, an economy based around alternative energy instead of traditional energy sources, money out of politics, national healthcare system, increasing worker's rights and increasing middle class representation in government. These are considering 'leftist' ideals in terms of the American political landscape, even 'socialistic' by a few..I'd wager it's just a bad case of smearing for political gain many times, which I don't see as genuine.

 

[Beach Friends]

What aspects of socialism are you adamantly against? You do realize that the Trump administration, if you support it, is implementing policies that could be called 'socialistic' as we speak? What is wrong with America being a mixed economy of which a large part is socialist?

I think people many times use the word as a smear and not from the standpoint of reality. The reality is that many people the right calls 'socialists' are simply people who want to take a strong stance against crony Capitalism and establish a stronger social safety net, none of which is 'radical'. In fact, it's radical to me what we are about to see in our own nation because of a lack of these measures -- hospitals being overwhelmed and people scared to go to the ER to be in lifetimes of debt, food stores being depleted, price gouging, corporations being the #1 prerogative, not families, not the elderly, not children. If you can defend a few of these measures, i'd garner it's an individual mindset issue. Maybe you don't think that way, I'll give the benefit of the doubt of course.



I think that the annoyance of ideological purity or whatever you want to call it wrongfully overshadows many ideas that Americans agree with very strongly. Namely, an economy based around alternative energy instead of traditional energy sources, money out of politics, national healthcare system, increasing worker's rights and increasing middle class representation in government. These are considering 'leftist' ideals in terms of the American political landscape, even 'socialistic' by a few..I'd wager it's just a bad case of smearing for political gain many times, which I don't see as genuine.

I tried to give you a very straight forward answer without a lot of hyperbole or disparaging of what I perceived your position might be. I was willing to do that based on the fact that I have noticed recently that you seem to be more willing to engage in meaningful conversation than some of the other posters, but if you are willing to write off my position as being less then genuine then I don't see the point.

 

[Heathen]

I tried to give you a very straight forward answer without a lot of hyperbole or disparaging of what I perceived your position might be. I was willing to do that based on the fact that I have noticed recently that you seem to be more willing to engage in meaningful conversation than some of the other posters, but if you are willing to write off my position as being less then genuine then I don't see the point.

I didn't infer or intend to infer that it was you smearing, only that many use this verbiage with the intent only on a smear.

 

[Beach Friends]

I didn't infer or intend to infer that it was you smearing, only that many use this verbiage with the intent only on a smear.

Okay, well one problem I have is that "the left" seems to be completely unwilling to take on the conceptual difficulty of determining when and how it's possible to go too far to the left. It's as though the left believes you can go left, left left without ever reaching the gulag. And we know from the lessons of the 20th Century that's not the case.

In fact, I know that one who even dares to raise that issue will be met with mockery. As if the very idea that it could happen again is nonsense. That seems irresponsible.

And no, cultural Marxism is not meant as a smear but rather a description. Think about it - the call for Marxist revolution was based on the idea that people were either oppressed or oppressors. Well, when the horror of where Marxism leads was still fresh on our minds traditional Marxism (economic oppression) became a hard sell. Which is why it was repackaged, but it still is very much based on the idea that one is either oppressed or an oppressor. But, now you have to look at an intersectionality chart to see where you fall on the victim hierarchy.

There is an implicit goal of dividing us in ways that are not going to be good for anyone, and at the center of it all is the fueling of resentment.

Listen to what AOC says with that in mind. You can hear it.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Okay, well one problem I have is that "the left" seems to be completely unwilling to take on the conceptual difficulty of determining when and how it's possible to go too far to the left. It's as though the left believes you can go left, left left without ever reaching the gulag. And we know from the lessons of the 20th Century that's not the case.

In fact, I know that one who even dares to raise that issue will be met with mockery. As if the very idea that it could happen again is nonsense. That seems irresponsible.

And no, cultural Marxism is not meant as a smear but rather a description. Think about it - the call for Marxist revolution was based on the idea that people were either oppressed or oppressors. Well, when the horror of where Marxism leads was still fresh on our minds traditional Marxism (economic oppression) became a hard sell. Which is why it was repackaged, but it still is very much based on the idea that one is either oppressed or an oppressor. But, now you have to look at an intersectionality chart to see where you fall on the victim hierarchy.

There is an implicit goal of dividing us in ways that are not going to be good for anyone, and at the center of it all is the fueling of resentment.

Listen to what AOC says with that in mind. You can hear it.

There is zero here
No example of who/what is taking US too far left (which is obviously hard to do bc the US left is rather centrist)
No example of where Green New Deal sits on the neoliberalism / Gulag continuum

No explanation of Cultural Marxism - no explanation of how economic Marxism naturally becomes cultural Marxism (aside from just trying to state it)

You really haven’t addressed the question at hand
In fact you seldom do - you do a pretty good job of snarkily implying what you don’t like
But you never support/defend that position and you never ever say what you prefer in place of the things you don’t like

 

[Beach Friends]

There is zero here
No example of who/what is taking US too far left (which is obviously hard to do bc the US left is rather centrist)
No example of where Green New Deal sits on the neoliberalism / Gulag continuum

No explanation of Cultural Marxism - no explanation of how economic Marxism naturally becomes cultural Marxism (aside from just trying to state it)

You really haven’t addressed the question at hand
In fact you seldom do - you do a pretty good job of snarkily implying what you don’t like
But you never support/defend that position and you never ever say what you prefer in place of the things you don’t like

Like I said to Heathen earlier. I am willing to engage with him because he has shown a tendency to be willing to engage meaningfully.

At this point, it seems you are just trying to derail the discussion which is why I didn't address your earlier post. Not really interested at the moment in your trials and tribulations in the classroom.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Like I said to Heathen earlier. I am willing to engage with him because he has shown a tendency to be willing to engage meaningfully.

At this point, it seems you are just trying to derail the discussion which is why I didn't address your earlier post. Not really interested at the moment in your trials and tribulations in the classroom.

translation: i can't

 

[Heathen]

Okay, well one problem I have is that "the left" seems to be completely unwilling to take on the conceptual difficulty of determining when and how it's possible to go too far to the left. It's as though the left believes you can go left, left left without ever reaching the gulag. And we know from the lessons of the 20th Century that's not the case.

We need to drill down into the specifics. What are some specific ideals that this group holds that are 'too far left'? I can assure you that will differ from person to person. One individual might see Medicare for all as the obvious, overdue and logical choice while another might see it as overbearing, socialistic, and dangerous. We need these discussions.

In fact, I know that one who even dares to raise that issue will be met with mockery. As if the very idea that it could happen again is nonsense. That seems irresponsible.

Well, comparing ideals with the gulag probably will be met with mockery, just as any political idea that isn't close to something so terrible should be. Hopefully that isn't something that is being done. There are outliers everywhere. Let's make sure those outliers don't paint everyone as someone who hates America or wants communism, like a lot of left-leaning people are painted as.

A lot of that is silly.

And no, cultural Marxism is not meant as a smear but rather a description. Think about it - the call for Marxist revolution was based on the idea that people were either oppressed or oppressors. Well, when the horror of where Marxism leads was still fresh on our minds traditional Marxism (economic oppression) became a hard sell. Which is why it was repackaged, but it still is very much based on the idea that one is either oppressed or an oppressor. But, now you have to look at an intersectionality chart to see where you fall on the victim hierarchy.

We can have discussions on Marx, but I think the last sentence says a lot. Sure, there are people like this who act like victims on the left. There are people who act hostile and dangerous, like victims pushing a dangerous narrative, etc. etc. all over the political spectrum. I don't think boiling it down to a particular group is realistic or healthy.

There is an implicit goal of dividing us in ways that are not going to be good for anyone, and at the center of it all is the fueling of resentment.

Listen to what AOC says with that in mind. You can hear it.

I don't see what AOC says in the same way you do. One can have resentment and energy toward institutions that are actively harming the American people, which IMHO are now baked into the very fiber of this country in terms of oligarchic rule. I think that's healthy. One big issue that I see with the American people is how lax we are now. How politically disengaged.

It's healthy to have resentment, to speak loudly on what you believe, to show those you see as part of the problem that you won't back down. We've become accustomed to think being a political revolutionary/activist is some sort of 'freak' label. We've also become accustomed to think lifetimes of crippling debt is 'deserved', among many other things. It's a dangerous game when we've been conditioned to such. What happened to the American who demanded more? Maybe they were shouted down as a 'Communist'.

What one may see as a mouthy young person another may see as someone very patriotic, someone who isn't afraid to not only fight for their constituents, but for those who hate them as well. I think AOC is a favorite of mine because she fights for what she believes in, which happens to be the rights and well-being of middle class and poor Americans.

 

[Beach Friends]

We need to drill down into the specifics. What are some specific ideals that this group holds that are 'too far left'? I can assure you that will differ from person to person. One individual might see Medicare for all as the obvious, overdue and logical choice while another might see it as overbearing, socialistic, and dangerous. We need these discussions.



Well, comparing ideals with the gulag probably will be met with mockery, just as any political idea that isn't close to something so terrible should be. Hopefully that isn't something that is being done. There are outliers everywhere. Let's make sure those outliers don't paint everyone as someone who hates America or wants communism, like a lot of left-leaning people are painted as.

A lot of that is silly.



We can have discussions on Marx, but I think the last sentence says a lot. Sure, there are people like this who act like victims on the left. There are people who act hostile and dangerous, like victims pushing a dangerous narrative, etc. etc. all over the political spectrum. I don't think boiling it down to a particular group is realistic or healthy.



I don't see what AOC says in the same way you do. One can have resentment and energy toward institutions that are actively harming the American people, which IMHO are now baked into the very fiber of this country in terms of oligarchic rule. I think that's healthy. One big issue that I see with the American people is how lax we are now. How politically disengaged.

It's healthy to have resentment, to speak loudly on what you believe, to show those you see as part of the problem that you won't back down. We've become accustomed to think being a political revolutionary/activist is some sort of 'freak' label. We've also become accustomed to think lifetimes of crippling debt is 'deserved', among many other things. It's a dangerous game when we've been conditioned to such. What happened to the American who demanded more? Maybe they were shouted down as a 'Communist'.

What one may see as a mouthy young person another may see as someone very patriotic, someone who isn't afraid to not only fight for their constituents, but for those who hate them as well. I think AOC is a favorite of mine because she fights for what she believes in, which happens to be the rights and well-being of middle class and poor Americans.

I feel like you are making my point. Marxism has been responsible for the loss of how many lives? Let's just take a really conservative estimate and go with 100 million. And yet, those who are the most willing to run the experiment once again are the least likely to take that seriously.

I think those who want to go down that path once again have the burden of explaining what went wrong all of the times before and why it will not happen again the next go around. And yet, they will not even recognize the possibility that it can happen.

In any event - just watching the returns from today's primaries and it looks like Sanders caps out at about 25 - 30% of the vote. That's among Democrats and against an opponent with dementia, who is just as likely to challenge potential voters to a fistfight as he is to inappropriately touch their daughters. So, maybe America has already awakened to the danger of electing a socialist.

 

[MT15]

Bernie should go ahead and get out now, IMO. I cannot see any sort of way he wins the nomination, and the longer he stays in the worse it is for the eventual nominee. We need to concentrate on beating Trump now, the people have chosen who they want to be the nominee.

 

[Heathen]

I feel like you are making my point. Marxism has been responsible for the loss of how many lives? Let's just take a really conservative estimate and go with 100 million. And yet, those who are the most willing to run the experiment once again are the least likely to take that seriously.

You're equating people who speak a certain way to full-blown Marxism?

I'm still awaiting your answer on what 'far left' policies you oppose and why. Please elaborate.

I think those who want to go down that path once again have the burden of explaining what went wrong all of the times before and why it will not happen again the next go around. And yet, they will not even recognize the possibility that it can happen.

In any event - just watching the returns from today's primaries and it looks like Sanders caps out at about 25 - 30% of the vote. That's among Democrats and against an opponent with dementia, who is just as likely to challenge potential voters to a fistfight as he is to inappropriately touch their daughters. So, maybe America has already awakened to the danger of electing a socialist.

Yeah, not really. Part of it is that Sanders base still is overwhelmingly young voters and young voters like every generation seem to be not able to be counted on to vote en masse. It is what it is. The Democrats seem to want to get someone who will simply 'beat Trump'. I'm wary about an administration more or less void of any real, transformational policy, but that's what we're going with. But I digress, let's look more at how the ideals of a democratic socialist are viewed at this point in time:

Despite attacks, Sanders' Medicare for All boosts early-state triumphs

Strong support across the country for Green New Deal

The ideals of Sanders, Warren etc. ARE popular with the American people. What is divisive are red scare terms, which many people know work to divide. I say leave the terminology slinging out of it and let the people decide.

Also, and we don't have to get into it here because it's quite the rabbit hole -- but democratic socialism isn't USSR or modern state Venezualan socialism. America is a mixed economy -- period, of capitalistic and socialistic aspects.

I would've been proud to elect a democratic socialist in Bernie Sanders, as would millions of others. We didn't achieve that this go round, and that's okay. The fact that he and others pushed for ideals in our party that are now mainstream seems to counter what you're saying about America being wary of electing people like him.

I find the later life of Dr. King very fascinating. He pushed for democratic socialism because he saw the undemocratic forces at play and now at rule in American society. Here's an interesting quote from one of our great civil rights leaders:

In 1966 King confided to his staff:

“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism. There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”