American Politics

[xi0]

I wish Andrew Yang had an actual chance at winning, because he has some interesting ideas and isn't a part of the political establishment.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2019, Original Post Date: Apr 2, 2019 ---

One way or the other the US is ultimately a very right wing country across the board.

The country is too big for that statement to be true. There are regions that are very right wing, but I wouldn't say the country is that way overall.

 

[kkck]

I wish Andrew Yang had an actual chance at winning, because he has some interesting ideas and isn't a part of the political establishment.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2019, Original Post Date: Apr 2, 2019 ---

The country is too big for that statement to be true. There are regions that are very right wing, but I wouldn't say the country is that way overall.

It's an issue of perspective. If you go to europe you find that republican type ideology is basically a fringe movement and in turn their right wing parties take universal health care as a given. At least the center is at a different place than at the US (way to the left). Place a mainstream democrat in a EU context and he'd be a right winger.. place bernie there and with his current policies he'd be somewhere around the center.

 

[M3J]

I mean, they don't really. Especially if they bring up other countries banning guns as examples.

I usually see that as examples of action countries take, and how it has reduced gun violence.

My issue with a bunch of candidates on the democratic side is that they seem to pretty much trip themselves at every turn. Policy wise my favorite would be warren for instance but she has the whole native american thing as baggage. Sanders hurts himself and his policy at every turn by calling himself a socialist. Why not just call himself a social democrat and avoid that label? It fits his policy positions better and makes people think of norway rather than venezuela. Unless... he isn't a social democrat and he actually has national socialist in which case I'd honestly object to this. It's annoying that these terms get so confusing across borders =_=.

At the moment I'd say kamala harris and beto seem like the safer options in general tbh. At least I am not familiar with either having much baggage. Beto seems too cozy with the democrat establishment though. And as we know, the democratic establishment is the party that thought appealing to right wingers that dislike trump rather than their own base was a good idea.

Beto's not a safe option, a lot of left wingers don't like him for various reasons that I can't recall right now other than him being pro-Israel. He also has enough baggage that republicans can use, if I recall correctly? Or that could be another candidate, I forgot. Harris also has a bad history with anti-black, pro-cop stuff that'd discourage a lot of left wingers from supporting her as well.

Sanders would be a safer bet, though, I guess. Not too sure about Warren though. In any case, I personally would prefer AOC, but I'm sure not a lot of Democrats like her. I know republicans turn her into jokes or twist what she says to make her look wrong, like when she said the 22nd Amendment was to prevent FDR from running for a fifth term (which apparently they started talking about before he died, so she wasn't wrong).

It wouldn't be a stretch to say Trump is likely to win.

 

[kkck]

Beto's not a safe option, a lot of left wingers don't like him for various reasons that I can't recall right now other than him being pro-Israel. He also has enough baggage that republicans can use, if I recall correctly? Or that could be another candidate, I forgot. Harris also has a bad history with anti-black, pro-cop stuff that'd discourage a lot of left wingers from supporting her as well.

Sanders would be a safer bet, though, I guess. Not too sure about Warren though. In any case, I personally would prefer AOC, but I'm sure not a lot of Democrats like her. I know republicans turn her into jokes or twist what she says to make her look wrong, like when she said the 22nd Amendment was to prevent FDR from running for a fifth term (which apparently they started talking about before he died, so she wasn't wrong).

It wouldn't be a stretch to say Trump is likely to win.

It's hard to reply to your post when you don't remember or don't know most of what you write. I don't know what this baggage you are talking about it. And I wouldn't be too concerned about republicans anyways. By the looks of it the next election is going to be even more partisan than the previous one and it will be more of an issue of who shows up to vote. Beto isn't going to appeal to moderate republicans, that is just a fact. It was a horrible strategy in 2016 and it will be an even worst strategy coming 2020. The issue here would be whether there is stuff republicans can use to turn off potential democratic voters and independents. Beto and harris seem like democrats who could get support from conventional democrats and also be at least tolerable to other wings of the party and independents.

AOC wasn't wrong about that but her words missed some crucial context. That said, she has exactly zero relevance to this discussion, she isn't going to be a presidential candidate.

 

[M3J]

Then that's a cue for you to do some research or look them up on Twitter? If you can Google creepy Joe Biden, then you should be able to Google issues the left have with some candidates. Beto won't appeal to the left of liberals either, and he's not as likely to win if the republicans bring up his past. I can't be assed to remember these stuff, but I think Beto got arrested for speeding or something, I dunno. Harris might not be that tolerable either for those who aren't fans of how flawed and horrible the justice system is. Her past will likely haunt her unless she really proves she's different from when she was obsessed with putting black people in jails.

AOC is kind of relevant because she's a shining example of how republicans will twist anything and grab onto anything the other side says and works it so they look wrong or dumb.

 

[SharkBait]

warren and buttigieg seem best poised to win since biden is creepy and all and it would be hypocritical for the radical left to push him when theyve been trying for years to pin our president on the same findings.

AOC is kind of annoying, and again democrats wasting time going after Trumps tax returns like americans actually care about that more than putting food on their table and clothes on their back and gas in their cars.

 

[Franckie]

Democrats have two big issues: (1) messaging and (2) they're too right-wing for the general public. On messaging, you can't get Democrats to do anything like support items like local newspapers and they only hold a single press conference on an issue before moving onto something else. They have issues attracting and retaining competent help because they're cheapskates who pay jack squat to their interns. Policy-wise, Democratic elites are too right-wing for the general public. For example, universal healthcare is a noteworthy goal, but how they'd go about it leaves much to be desired because Democrats are too timid to tackle the cancer-like price gouging that is rampant in the industry. They're almost as dependent on the business community as Republicans are, and their half-assed support for labor over the past 40+ years has backfired on them considerably.

 

[SharkBait]

Democrats please stop asking for Trumps Tax Returns, he's never going to give them to you because they are always under audit. And even if he does, no on in the world cares. Getting his returns wont put food on my table, ensure my job is protected, keep gas prices from skyrocketing, and regulate markets that need regulation.

 

[xi0]

Every single presidential nominee in the last 40 years submitted their personal tax returns. It's completely normal ethical practice. Congress acquiring his tax returns is also completely legal, as oversight is one of it's main duties. Preventing any future nominees from skirting free of this should be welcome by any sensible person, and many States are making it so nominees can't be on their ballots unless they do so. Acting like it doesn't matter or that it is a waste of time doesn't understand the point of our legislative institutions.

 

[kkck]

Quite frankly, its amazing that politicians in the US can run for any sort of public office without their finances and taxes being made public. It's just... common sense. Its what is done in most sensible places to begin with. Allowing politicians to run for office without making their finances and financial interests public is pretty much the same as saying its ok to be comically corrupt (regardless of whether a specific politician is or isn't corrupt).

 

[SharkBait]

Really? I dont think people really care what a politician makes or their finances.

 

[xi0]

Really? I dont think people really care what a politician makes or their finances.

You don't care. Millions of others do. If you don't think it's important to know a potential leader of the country's finances and how they acquired their wealth... Then I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[SharkBait]

You don't care. Millions of others do. If you don't think it's important to know a potential leader of the country's finances and how they acquired their wealth... Then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Why, most politicians are business folks, vetrans, or career politicians with businesses that we get all details of when they run their campaigns and the other party tries to dig up dirt on them (say if their products were truly made in america or not, or if they fired people just to save money on healthcare -> indiana folks this past cycle).

 

[xi0]

Why, most politicians are business folks, vetrans, or career politicians with businesses that we get all details of when they run their campaigns and the other party tries to dig up dirt on them (say if their products were truly made in america or not, or if they fired people just to save money on healthcare -> indiana folks this past cycle).

Because money is almost always a motivating factor. A personal tax return laid bare is just cold, hard facts, removed from any political spin. If a candidate has extreme debt, why should we elect them to handle the national budget? That's just one example.

 

[Franckie]

Quite frankly, its amazing that politicians in the US can run for any sort of public office without their finances and taxes being made public. It's just... common sense. Its what is done in most sensible places to begin with. Allowing politicians to run for office without making their finances and financial interests public is pretty much the same as saying its ok to be comically corrupt (regardless of whether a specific politician is or isn't corrupt).

Worse, they aren't forced to publicly divest themselves of their assets. It's one of the reasons Eric Cantor, former Majority Leader for the GOP in the House of Represenatives, got sacked after he sabotaged the STOCK Act, an attempt by Congress to crack down on insider trading.

 

[SharkBait]

Looks like Democrats are killing themselves from the inside

 

[xi0]

Lack of support? I've seen Democrats do nothing but condemn the NY Post and Trump.

 

[SharkBait]

it happened

 

[M3J]

Democrats have two big issues: (1) messaging and (2) they're too right-wing for the general public. On messaging, you can't get Democrats to do anything like support items like local newspapers and they only hold a single press conference on an issue before moving onto something else. They have issues attracting and retaining competent help because they're cheapskates who pay jack squat to their interns. Policy-wise, Democratic elites are too right-wing for the general public. For example, universal healthcare is a noteworthy goal, but how they'd go about it leaves much to be desired because Democrats are too timid to tackle the cancer-like price gouging that is rampant in the industry. They're almost as dependent on the business community as Republicans are, and their half-assed support for labor over the past 40+ years has backfired on them considerably.

Democrats are as scummy as Republicans, they just hide it better because they know fake social concerns will get them votes.

Really? I dont think people really care what a politician makes or their finances.

This shows how little you know.

Lack of support? I've seen Democrats do nothing but condemn the NY Post and Trump.

But they don't support Omar much, if at all, and many have condemned her or even passed a bill banning criticism of Israel, I think? I think Bernie and AOC are the only ones who defended Omar, weeks after the attacks.

 

[xi0]

But they don't support Omar much, if at all, and many have condemned her or even passed a bill banning criticism of Israel, I think? I think Bernie and AOC are the only ones who defended Omar, weeks after the attacks.

No, it wasn't a ban. It was a resolution condemning antisemitism... which has no actual legal consequences.

"They don't support Omar much, if at all" - yet Pelosi herself has condemned what Trump tweeted and Capitol Police have ratcheted up security for her and her family as a result. Congressman Nadler from NY has also come out in support of her. I think you're probably mixing this latest thing up with her comments about AIPAC and Israel, which a lot of Democrats didn't support her on.

Personally, I think claims of antisemitism are used far too readily in response to criticism of Israel. It's a touchy subject for a lot of people, so the response isn't surprising.