2020 US General Election Thread IV: The Battle Begins

[Kowani]

Didn’t Trump renew the Patriot Act?

Obama did, through the FREEDOM Act. I do not believe Trump has.

With democrat support, but yes.

[Ifreann]

How can you be for something you want to ban?

Well, there is a difference between wanting to ban assault weapons, and wanting to ban guns entirely. All indications I've seen are that Bernie is the former, not the latter.

Telconi believes that wanting to ban any class or category of guns is equivalent to wanting to ban guns. There, I just saved you three hours of trying to pull the answer out of him.

[Gormwood]

Explain please

She's not there because she has a realistic chance of winning of a coherent set of ideas to put forth. She's there to disrupt the party. She spends more time attacking the party than she does talking policy.

When she does talk, you can tell by HOW she talks that it's all scripted and calculated. She tries to get the dove vote by delivering obviously-scripted lines about ending regime-change wars, but then she tries to get the hawk vote by bragging non-stop about her military experience. This isn't someone that is loyal to dovish or hawkish principles. This is someone that's trying to have it both ways.

She claims to be a "progressive," but she appeals to Trump supporters more than actual progressives.

She has near zero appeal to women because we know that the way she's talking is not some kind of feminine mystique -- it's just fakeness.

Gabbard is delivering scripted lines, and the script is all over the place. I don't know if she's a troll making it up herself, or if she's in someone else's pocket and reading the lines they feed her. But there isn't a clear set of underlying principles.

You mean the same people who bitched about Hillary Clinton being robotic and pandering love Gabbard for The Exact Same Thing?

[Telconi]

Well, there is a difference between wanting to ban assault weapons, and wanting to ban guns entirely. All indications I've seen are that Bernie is the former, not the latter.

Telconi believes that wanting to ban any class or category of guns is equivalent to wanting to ban guns. There, I just saved you three hours of trying to pull the answer out of him.

That's hardly a belief. And is instead obvious fact. Unless you're arguing that the particular class or category of guns somehow aren't guns. Which would seem contradictory.

[Rojava Free State]

Obama did, through the FREEDOM Act. I do not believe Trump has.

With democrat support, but yes.

Trump is 100% Republican. Hes the most republican president ever. He comes across like a total nazi with some of his rhetoric while at the same time selling america out and helping the people he allegedly stands against

[Valrifell]

Telconi believes that wanting to ban any class or category of guns is equivalent to wanting to ban guns. There, I just saved you three hours of trying to pull the answer out of him.

That's hardly a belief. And is instead obvious fact. Unless you're arguing that the particular class or category of guns somehow aren't guns. Which would seem contradictory.

Noone is this bad at reading comprehension I swear.

Iffrean very clearly meant "Telconi thinks banning one type of gun is banning all guns"

[Telconi]

That's hardly a belief. And is instead obvious fact. Unless you're arguing that the particular class or category of guns somehow aren't guns. Which would seem contradictory.

Noone is this bad at reading comprehension I swear.

Iffrean very clearly meant "Telconi thinks banning one type of gun is banning all guns"

Then he's just plain wrong.

[Ifreann]

That's hardly a belief. And is instead obvious fact. Unless you're arguing that the particular class or category of guns somehow aren't guns. Which would seem contradictory.

Noone is this bad at reading comprehension I swear.

Iffrean very clearly meant "Telconi thinks banning one type of gun is banning all guns"

No, I meant that if some politician wants to ban, say, assault weapons, then Telconi will say they want to ban guns. I couldn't tell you why he does this, but I'm not suggesting that he doesn't understand the difference.

[Gormwood]

Noone is this bad at reading comprehension I swear.

Iffrean very clearly meant "Telconi thinks banning one type of gun is banning all guns"

No, I meant that if some politician wants to ban, say, assault weapons, then Telconi will say they want to ban guns. I couldn't tell you why he does this, but I'm not suggesting that he doesn't understand the difference.

He's terrified the BATF will separate his darling guns from him like ICE separating migrant children from their parents.

[Telconi]

Noone is this bad at reading comprehension I swear.

Iffrean very clearly meant "Telconi thinks banning one type of gun is banning all guns"

No, I meant that if some politician wants to ban, say, assault weapons, then Telconi will say they want to ban guns. I couldn't tell you why he does this, but I'm not suggesting that he doesn't understand the difference.

Because it's correct.

[Cisairse]

So yeah, he's not anti-gun. Glad we established that.

Standard Dem policy is anti-gun.

Sanders isn't a Democrat and until recently was against increasing restrictions on gun ownership.

Obama did, through the FREEDOM Act. I do not believe Trump has.

With democrat support, but yes.

Oh shit yeah I forgot about this.

Goddammit. See, this is one of the reasons I supported Bernie in 2016. He was one of the very few members of the Democratic caucus to actually take a stand and vote against the FREEDOM Act.

[The Sherpa Empire]

She's not there because she has a realistic chance of winning of a coherent set of ideas to put forth. She's there to disrupt the party. She spends more time attacking the party than she does talking policy.

When she does talk, you can tell by HOW she talks that it's all scripted and calculated. She tries to get the dove vote by delivering obviously-scripted lines about ending regime-change wars, but then she tries to get the hawk vote by bragging non-stop about her military experience. This isn't someone that is loyal to dovish or hawkish principles. This is someone that's trying to have it both ways.

She claims to be a "progressive," but she appeals to Trump supporters more than actual progressives.

She has near zero appeal to women because we know that the way she's talking is not some kind of feminine mystique -- it's just fakeness.

Gabbard is delivering scripted lines, and the script is all over the place. I don't know if she's a troll making it up herself, or if she's in someone else's pocket and reading the lines they feed her. But there isn't a clear set of underlying principles.

You mean the same people who bitched about Hillary Clinton being robotic and pandering love Gabbard for The Exact Same Thing?

And the same people who complain about women supporting Clinton, Warren, Klobuchar, or Harris then turn around and tell us Gabbard's gender is a point in her favor.

[Arlenton]

Regardless of Sanders’ past of “not being as ant-gun rights as the average Democrat” or whatever, there’s no reason to think him being President would be good for gun rights given he no longer is pro-gun (apparently he was?) and he’d be leading the party dead set on limiting gun rights.

[Cisairse]

Regardless of Sanders’ past of “not being as ant-gun rights as the average Democrat” or whatever, there’s no reason to think him being President would be good for gun rights given he no longer is pro-gun (apparently he was?) and he’d be leading the party dead set on limiting gun rights.

While you're on the right track, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where President Sanders would have any more meaningful anti-gun policies in place than President Obama did after eight years.

[Telconi]

Regardless of Sanders’ past of “not being as ant-gun rights as the average Democrat” or whatever, there’s no reason to think him being President would be good for gun rights given he no longer is pro-gun (apparently he was?) and he’d be leading the party dead set on limiting gun rights.

While you're on the right track, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where President Sanders would have any more meaningful anti-gun policies in place than President Obama did after eight years.

It's not a matter of having meaningful anti-gun policies, it's a matter of not having meaningful pro-gun policies.

[Arlenton]

Regardless of Sanders’ past of “not being as ant-gun rights as the average Democrat” or whatever, there’s no reason to think him being President would be good for gun rights given he no longer is pro-gun (apparently he was?) and he’d be leading the party dead set on limiting gun rights.

While you're on the right track, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where President Sanders would have any more meaningful anti-gun policies in place than President Obama did after eight years.

That’s true. But I’d imagine most people who vote based on gun rights would prefer a candidate who appoints judges who are pro gun. Trump, though definitely not perfect on gun rights, does a very good job of packing the courts with pro-gun judges. If I remember correctly he’s already appointed nearly as many judges to the appellate courts in three years than Obama did in eight years (thank you Mitch McConnell). I’d imagine Bernie Sanders would be much more focused on appointing judges who would focus on limiting corporate power and supporting unions than striking down assault weapon bans.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

maga gets my vote.

[The Lone Alliance]

The people on the bubble really are Yang, Steyer, and Gabbard. Bloomberg put all his chips on Super Tuesday.

None of them have any real chance. At this point, Yang and Gabbard are running to make a name for themselves, set up future career prospects, and spread their ideas - Gabbard with her opposition to regime change wars and Yang with universal basic income.

I would love to see Sanders make Gabbard his running mate or better yet, make her Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, but I don't expect it. Relentless slander and libel against Gabbard has made her a problematic ally for Sanders. Even though Sanders is a principled man who sees through all the lies about Gabbard, he needs to make pragmatic choices. Warren is a more likely running mate.

Stelter and Bloomberg are going just because they can. Being billionaires, they have inflated egos. I think Steyer knows he's done. Bloomberg might be delusional enough to think he can win but after Super Tuesday he will have to face reality.

At this point I truly believe Tusli is only continuing her campaign to draw fire away from others, she's deliberately made herself a target by the Neocon and pro-war types in the Democratic party in order to draw fire away from the other candidates that would usually draw their ire (Like Bernie and Warren).

Which since she brags about being a soldier it makes perfect sense for her to do this.

That's why she doesn't stick to any single script, she's there to troll bait those types in to going off the deep end in order to discredit them to the larger Democratic party.

That’s true. But I’d imagine most people who vote based on gun rights would prefer a candidate who appoints judges who are pro gun. Trump, though definitely not perfect on gun rights, does a very good job of packing the courts with pro-gun judges. If I remember correctly he’s already appointed nearly as many judges to the appellate courts in three years than Obama did in eight years (thank you Mitch McConnell). I’d imagine Bernie Sanders would be much more focused on appointing judges who would focus on limiting corporate power and supporting unions than striking down assault weapon bans.

Really the sadest thing about the Democratic obsession with guns is by and large if they decided overnight to ignore guns completely it's not like their gun control crowd would be able to do anything about it.

What are they going to do, vote Republican with their evil scary guns, stay and home and help Republicans win and allow more evil scary guns?

If the Democratic party told the gun control crowd to go fuck themselves they'd likely secure a lot of votes in multiple avenues.... however they would lose all the money from people like Bloomberg, and that's the real holders of power here.

[Shofercia]

I think barring a miracle Sanders will get the nomination. Picking Klobuchar would be a wise choice but he’s probably going to pick someone as radical as him

And this is based on your in depth knowledge of Bernie Sanders?

States could implement wealth taxes.

Indeed, they already do.

They're called property taxes (a limited form of wealth tax), and they're used extensively to finance local government and schools.

Unfortunately everyone needs that kind of property (or else they're homeless) so it lacks the best feature of a true wealth tax: progressivity.

Well, no; those taxes are still progressive. Working-class homes have a lower property value than homes owned by the rich and very rich.

Or are you talking about progressivity in the technical sense, wherein we charge a higher rate as wealth levels increase? Because that kind of tax is extremely dangerous, from an economic POV.

Not necessarily, unless you're excluding rental properties. Most landlords in Cali just pass it on to the renters.

a few rouge staffers does not equal conspiracy.


And who is that?

You tell me.

Sanders continues to lead but Buttigieg is second. Sanders is benefiting from Warren's fall while Buttigieg is benefiting from Biden's fall. The breakdown:

Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 21%
Biden 11%
Warren 9%
Gabbard 6%
Klobuchar 5%
Steyer 3%
Yang 3%

Likely Sanders will win but his margin of victory might be smaller.

Iffy, you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, but that post was epic

[San Lumen]

None of them have any real chance. At this point, Yang and Gabbard are running to make a name for themselves, set up future career prospects, and spread their ideas - Gabbard with her opposition to regime change wars and Yang with universal basic income.

I would love to see Sanders make Gabbard his running mate or better yet, make her Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, but I don't expect it. Relentless slander and libel against Gabbard has made her a problematic ally for Sanders. Even though Sanders is a principled man who sees through all the lies about Gabbard, he needs to make pragmatic choices. Warren is a more likely running mate.

Stelter and Bloomberg are going just because they can. Being billionaires, they have inflated egos. I think Steyer knows he's done. Bloomberg might be delusional enough to think he can win but after Super Tuesday he will have to face reality.

At this point I truly believe Tusli is only continuing her campaign to draw fire away from others, she's deliberately made herself a target by the Neocon and pro-war types in the Democratic party in order to draw fire away from the other candidates that would usually draw their ire (Like Bernie and Warren).

Which since she brags about being a soldier it makes perfect sense for her to do this.

That's why she doesn't stick to any single script, she's there to troll bait those types in to going off the deep end in order to discredit them to the larger Democratic party.

That’s true. But I’d imagine most people who vote based on gun rights would prefer a candidate who appoints judges who are pro gun. Trump, though definitely not perfect on gun rights, does a very good job of packing the courts with pro-gun judges. If I remember correctly he’s already appointed nearly as many judges to the appellate courts in three years than Obama did in eight years (thank you Mitch McConnell). I’d imagine Bernie Sanders would be much more focused on appointing judges who would focus on limiting corporate power and supporting unions than striking down assault weapon bans.

Really the sadest thing about the Democratic obsession with guns is by and large if they decided overnight to ignore guns completely it's not like their gun control crowd would be able to do anything about it.

What are they going to do, vote Republican with their evil scary guns, stay and home and help Republicans win and allow more evil scary guns?

If the Democratic party told the gun control crowd to go fuck themselves they'd likely secure a lot of votes in multiple avenues.... however they would lose all the money from people like Bloomberg, and that's the real holders of power here.

Yeah let’s just accept gun violence and mass shootings are normal and repeal all gun laws while we are at it. Name another country that has mass shootings and gun violence on the scale of the US. I’ll wait

[New Rogernomics]

While you're on the right track, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where President Sanders would have any more meaningful anti-gun policies in place than President Obama did after eight years.

That’s true. But I’d imagine most people who vote based on gun rights would prefer a candidate who appoints judges who are pro gun. Trump, though definitely not perfect on gun rights, does a very good job of packing the courts with pro-gun judges. If I remember correctly he’s already appointed nearly as many judges to the appellate courts in three years than Obama did in eight years (thank you Mitch McConnell). I’d imagine Bernie Sanders would be much more focused on appointing judges who would focus on limiting corporate power and supporting unions than striking down assault weapon bans.

Sanders if he got elected would be a lame duck, and he would lack the super majority that Obama had when he came into office. There is no guarantee that the Democrats will hold the House either, and the Republicans have a good chance at flipping it or at least causing a sizable reduction to the Democratic majority, whether or not Trump is re-elected. He'd rule through executive order, as at least the Senate would block his ideas, and the House has enough internal divisions for the Democratic majority (if it remains) to not allow him to do much.

[San Lumen]

I think barring a miracle Sanders will get the nomination. Picking Klobuchar would be a wise choice but he’s probably going to pick someone as radical as him

And this is based on your in depth knowledge of Bernie Sanders?

Well, no; those taxes are still progressive. Working-class homes have a lower property value than homes owned by the rich and very rich.

Or are you talking about progressivity in the technical sense, wherein we charge a higher rate as wealth levels increase? Because that kind of tax is extremely dangerous, from an economic POV.

Not necessarily, unless you're excluding rental properties. Most landlords in Cali just pass it on to the renters.

You tell me.

Iffy, you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, but that post was epic

No it’s based on Democrats liking shooting themselves in the foot

[San Lumen]

That’s true. But I’d imagine most people who vote based on gun rights would prefer a candidate who appoints judges who are pro gun. Trump, though definitely not perfect on gun rights, does a very good job of packing the courts with pro-gun judges. If I remember correctly he’s already appointed nearly as many judges to the appellate courts in three years than Obama did in eight years (thank you Mitch McConnell). I’d imagine Bernie Sanders would be much more focused on appointing judges who would focus on limiting corporate power and supporting unions than striking down assault weapon bans.

Sanders if he got elected would be a lame duck, and he would lack the super majority that Obama had when he came into office. There is no guarantee that the Democrats will hold the House either, and the Republicans have a good chance at flipping it or at least causing a sizable reduction to the Democratic majority, whether or not Trump is re-elected. He'd rule through executive order, as at least the Senate would block his ideas, and the House has enough internal divisions for the Democratic majority (if it remains) to not allow him to do much.

If trump loses there is no way the house flips. Many of those judges were Obama’s to fill but Mitch refused to allow a vote

[Page]

No, Gabbard's refusal to support a cause that the vast majority of Democrats believe in has made her a problematic candidate.

Her vote didn't make a difference, why should anyone care?

[Valrifell]

No, Gabbard's refusal to support a cause that the vast majority of Democrats believe in has made her a problematic candidate.

Her vote didn't make a difference, why should anyone care?

Because that vote, in spite of it's ineffectiveness, meant something. If it didn't, why not vote with the lockstep?