I think we should only discuss policy, and skip fake news and old crap from decades ago blown out of proportion.
We should not spread carp from the kremlin or the GOP. Attack pieces are crap too.
Issues- and the candidates recent stances on those issues.
It is interesting the old crap now being dug up about Biden now that he is tops in the polls. Never was mentioned before, but now that he’s #1, it’s showing up. Why is that do you think?
I disagree.
You don’t have to support AOC’s Green New Deal, but you’d better have one of your own. I may not live long enough to see the planet turn into a hellscape, but if it does, my son will likely see it. I’d like to go to my grave with reason to believe it won’t.
The filibuster must die. We’ve already seen this movie enough times already - unless the filibuster is killed, the Dems won’t be able to do jack shit.
When looking at what a candidate did in office how far are we allowed to look back at their record in your view?
I’m not sure I follow given the thing you quoted from me that this is a response to.
Let’s look at the past ten years and what they currently say.
Very sorry Sherrod Brown isn’t running. He’s my home-state senator and a good guy: Sherrod Brown will not run for president in 2020 - POLITICO
Gotta figure out who to back now…
So, if Joe Biden spent, literally, his entire career kowtowing to banking interests, and it can be shown by looking at his extensive record which never wavered on his point, that we should ignore it? Only take him at his word that now he really has the little guy in mind? :rolleyes:
I agree that if someone said one dumb thing forty years ago it (probably) should not count for much. A consistent legislative record over forty years, on the other hand, is absolutely fair game.
In Biden"s case you have to go back at least 10 years since he hasn’t been a legislator since then.
No, huge mistake. Even Bernie is against this. It takes more time and work to build progressive programs and institutions and fine-tune them than it does to tear them down. We need the filibuster more than they do, for rear guard actions to preserve our gains.
All true, but we got really lucky in 2008. The political climate was so bad for the GOP that anyone the Democrats nominated was a virtual lock in the general. If it had been an only slightly Democratic year, we might have blown it by nominating a black guy with little experience, a non-“all-American” background, and a name that Jon Stewart memorably described as akin to nominating someone in the 1940s named “Gaydolf Titler”.
It’s especially difficult to build programs if you need 60 seats to do anything at all. The Republicans want government to be dysfunctional, and so they benefit from the filibuster. If the Democrats want government to accomplish anything, then we don’t benefit from it.
Yeah, I know because banks are so evil you know , like the KKK even. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
The GOP kowtows to racist, right wing theocrats and banks. But anyone who caters to a bank, which happens to be part of their constituency- they fail the “purity test”.
This is exactly what Trump, the GOP and the Kremlin wants you to think. Good job!
We need banks. They are important to the economy and business.
In this case though we can see exactly what Biden supported and moved forward and decide if it made sense and was in the best interests of the country and its citizens.
It wasn’t. It was in the best interests of the banks. That’s it.
The root of our problems in this country are special interests that can buy special treatment. Biden is wholly at the center of that problem and has based his entire career on it. Color me dubious that now he will change his stripes.
He’s basically Hillary Clinton in this election cycle.
Hickenlooper … Inslee … perhaps Klobuchar. The Democrats have at least three very fine moderatish, youngish, smartish and charismaticish candidates to choose from. Any of these three should beat Trump easily, and be infinitely better as a President.
Dopers! Pick one of these three and start campaigning now! Don’t let the aging and/or overly-liberal frontrunners suck up all the oxygen.
There is not a democratic candidate yet who wouldn’t be infinitely better than Trump as a president.
It’s obviously an absurd, apples and orangutans, comparison. But certainly in the last couple decades, the number of Americans directly and seriously harmed by corrupt banking practices is far, far larger than the number harmed by the KKK.
Tulsi Gabbard might only be better by some very, very large finite quantity.
Sad, though not surprised, to see that Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley has bowed out. His only plausible winning strategy, I thought, was “Hope Bernie decides not to run and endorses me”.
Possible VP candidate for Booker?
I just learned the other day that the Dems have* never* had a candidate on the ticket from the Mountain or Pacific time zones. (Hey, isn’t El Paso on Mountain time?)
That is an interesting tidbit about time zones. South Dakota is partly in the Mountain time zone and McGovern is from SD but it looks like his hometown is in the central time zone of the state .
For the GOP in MT or PT zones you have Reagan and Cheney and maybe some others.
And there have been candidates from Hawaii and Alaska time zones - Obama and Palin
That had been the consensus until recently. A more recent and comprehensive study concluded that the number of Sanders voters who didn’t vote for Clinton was actually also about 24%. Most of those, however, were moderate and conservative voters. About three-fifths of them voted for Trump or Johnson, less than a fifth for Stein.
Presumably these were people whose dislike of Clinton was strong enough to overcome their ideological preference. Also, Bernie’s conservative support in open primaries grew once Trump had clinched the nomination, so some of these people were just Republicans who were either voting strategically or just wanted to vote against Clinton twice.
In any case, it seems silly to blame Bernie or progressives in general for the failure of moderates and conservatives to support Clinton.
(Link is to 538 story – link to actual data can be found therein, but it is not in easy-to-read format, to say the least)
Obama would be considered as “from” Illinois in this context, though.