Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

BarrileteCosmico wrote:That's not true. Corbyn was not liked by the party establishment, but he was definitely liked by the constituents (what we in the US would call the progressive wing of the party) evidenced by the fact that he won the leadership challenge. Corbyn, like Sanders, has made overtures to shady international organizations that a wide portion of the general populace does not share (praise for hamas and hezbollah vs praise for Castro) and they both are in favour of socialist policies like nationalization of several industries. I see them as very analogous. Do US democrats really want a repeat of the McGovern election?

I'll concede that Corbyn had a following with constituents and not with the party establishment. To answer your question, Democrats (namely the DNC) want Trump out of office full stop. Sanders may have socialist designs, but even if elected, he'd never get even half of what he's running on passed by even a Democrat-controlled Congress. I believe the more moderate Democrats in both the House and Senate would be a check on his more far-left proposals. What remains to be seen is if they would fall into the same trap Republicans have with Trump in fearing primaries from their left and general challenges from their right if they fail to fall-in line with a Sanders Admin agenda. I don't think that would happen.

Lex wrote:

McLewis wrote:I don't think comparing the results in the UK to what could happen in 2020 is plausible. From what I gather, Corbyn was not liked on either side of the ideological spectrum in the UK for a myriad of reasons. That's a rather remarkable feat to accomplish

Negative, sir. A large swathe of gullible meat suits genuinely believed he was a living saviour who would lead them to the promised land of free wifi, nuggets and episodes of The Mandalorian

See my response to BC above.

I'll note that "gullible meat suits" live on both sides of the political spectrum. The ones who voted the Conservatives will understand this soon enough when the NHS gets dismantled and the American-style private health insurance companies begin making real in-roads.

McLewis wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:That's not true. Corbyn was not liked by the party establishment, but he was definitely liked by the constituents (what we in the US would call the progressive wing of the party) evidenced by the fact that he won the leadership challenge. Corbyn, like Sanders, has made overtures to shady international organizations that a wide portion of the general populace does not share (praise for hamas and hezbollah vs praise for Castro) and they both are in favour of socialist policies like nationalization of several industries. I see them as very analogous. Do US democrats really want a repeat of the McGovern election?

I'll concede that Corbyn had a following with constituents and not with the party establishment. To answer your question, Democrats (namely the DNC) want Trump out of office full stop. Sanders may have socialist designs, but even if elected, he'd never get even half of what he's running on passed by even a Democrat-controlled Congress. I believe the more moderate Democrats in both the House and Senate would be a check on his more far-left proposals. What remains to be seen is if they would fall into the same trap Republicans have with Trump in fearing primaries from their left and general challenges from their right if they fail to fall-in line with a Sanders Admin agenda. I don't think that would happen.

Lex wrote:

McLewis wrote:I don't think comparing the results in the UK to what could happen in 2020 is plausible. From what I gather, Corbyn was not liked on either side of the ideological spectrum in the UK for a myriad of reasons. That's a rather remarkable feat to accomplish

Negative, sir. A large swathe of gullible meat suits genuinely believed he was a living saviour who would lead them to the promised land of free wifi, nuggets and episodes of The Mandalorian

See my response to BC above.

I'll note that "gullible meat suits" live on both sides of the political spectrum. The ones who voted the Conservatives will understand this soon enough when the NHS gets dismantled and the American-style private health insurance companies begin making real in-roads.

trust me it wont happen. and even if it did the next leader of the labour party will use it to win the next election and reverse it anyway. tbh even corbyn knew it wouldent really happen he just kept saying it in the hope he would get votes.

Freeza wrote:

Unique wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:

Nobody of any sort of political, or common, decency would allign with Cenk.

He's a boisterous clown that runs a "News" outlet that craps on everybody not Bernie. He's also a holocaust denying carpetbagger who is going to get embarrassed IRL the same way that fat sack of garbage Sargon did in the UK.

This is a progressive who said:

"Every American is John Wayne to a Japanese girl who needs a new purse, a grammar lesson in English and a decent sized penis for a change."

So yeah, fuck him.

double ouch

Tbh sounds like something Betty would say

Do you doubt Cenk said this?

Also should be noted that Boris did not run on anti socialism campighn. End austerity, bolster the NHS, huge spending on infrastructure are not the current US position from GPO and Dems.

One could make the argument the establishment Dems are even more Conservative than the conservative party in the UK.

Blue wrote:Also should be noted that Boris did not run on anti socialism campighn. End austerity, bolster the NHS, huge spending on infrastructure are not the current US position from GPO and Dems.

One could make the argument the establishment Dems are even more Conservative than the conservative party in the UK.

Democrats in the US would be the most right wing party in Scandinavia lol

Blue wrote:Also should be noted that Boris did not run on anti socialism campighn. End austerity,  bolster the NHS, huge spending on infrastructure are not the current US position from GPO and Dems.

One could make the argument the establishment Dems are even more Conservative than the conservative party in the UK.

 

Trump absolutely did run on big infrastructure projects, and the US never really had austerity except for 1 year under Obama when the republicans forced him to take care of the deficit

But in any case, you are absolutely correct that the Tories ran a very centrist campaign that allowed them to steal part of the labour heartland, let's not draw the wrong conclusion from it

Pretty sure Conservatives will be classed as centre-left in the USA.

UKIP is more in the line of republican party

I don't see Boris' proposed Australia style points based immigration system going down too well in lefty town. To them, he'd be some sort of Goebbels/Terminator hybrid

Whaddya mean you're not just letting any old bugger in without so much as a background check?! What are ya, some sort of Nazi?!

Bernie gave his support to a guy who wanted to flatten Jerusalem.

Until now I haven’t engaged directly w/ @cenkuygur - but this is further disqualifying. On behalf of people of faith everywhere, stop calling yourself a progressive. Being a sexist, homophobic, genocide denying racist is the opposite of a progressive. #CA25 people deserve better https://t.co/xaHnBzboBM

— Christy Smith (@ChristyforCA25) December 15, 2019

Cenk's ego will take down Bernie with him. What progressive values on display.

Christy Smith must prevail now.

Removing buildings in Jerusalem wouldn't be terrible tbh.

He also advocates for a two-side solution in the video.

It's also tiresome how you're arguing in incredibly bad faith. You were fingering yourself just weeks ago imagining how it would be for Japan to be more like China's dictatorship.

Not surprising coming from GL's resident loon.

Freeza wrote:Removing buildings in Jerusalem wouldn't be terrible tbh.

He also advocates for a two-side solution in the video.

It's also tiresome how you're arguing in incredibly bad faith. You were fingering yourself just weeks ago imagining how it would be for Japan to be more like China's dictatorship.

Not surprising coming from GL's resident loon.

Is it any more bad faith than this:

Freeza wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:You're getting stuck on the names. Any of Biden, Pete, Klobuchar, Steyer, or Yang could do. The important thing is to avoid a McGovern moment. To win an election you need swing voters. Extremists repel them. As we have now seen again.

And I think you’re too caught up in watching left/centrist/right as if it’s the only way to swing voters.

Bernie can clearly swing voters in the swing states Hillary lost. I don’t see why not. Farmers in Penn as an example. Trump has failed them a lot, and I feel Bernie will be able to swing them more than a centrist, who’s basically just someone sucking off Wall Street’s teet

You are speaking on Areas you most definitely have never been to about people who you have never met. That is the definition of bad faith.

And then you strike out at me for bringing it to your face when your heroes, the men you stay up into the early morning hours to watch, bend the knee to the Chinese Communist Party. To the people in Europe who your brothers laugh at and call dogs....thats who they bow down to. I know it hurts, but taking it out on me wont change that fact.

Europeans talk absolute bollocks on here about American politics. Including the guy who came in here, and with a straight face, said because the majority of Americans cant find Armenia on a map that Bernie Sander's slow ass endorsing a guy who denied the Armenian genocide in a city with a huge politically connected Armenian diaspora wont have any effect. This is madness.

But heaven forbid any American has an opinion about the politics of a European country. Then we are acting like the world police, and ignorant American stereotypes who could never understand the intricacies of the dying welfare state and a failed immigration system.

Bernie, by even entertaining an endorsement of Cenk for a second, proved himself to be too poor a judge of character to be the nominee for the Democrat party. He's done, and Cenk is too.

Hillary married a dude who not only committed perjury, he also created mass incarceration as it’s seen today in the US.

And you supported her
I don’t know who’s the worse judge of character.

It’s probably you tbh

Freeza wrote:Hillary married a dude who not only committed perjury, he also created mass incarceration as it’s seen today in the US.

And you supported her
I don’t know who’s the worse judge of character.

It’s probably you tbh

Hillary married a guy who oversaw good times and an economic boom that helped shaped the very internet we speak to each other on right now.

In fact if we want to talk about political nous she accomplished much more in her political life than bernie has.

Bernie is the poster-child of White privilege and mediocrity. This is a guy who has been in Washington for 30 YEARS and has never written or cowritten a bill that has passed but we expect him to do ANYTHING if he has the presidency? Knowing that representing minorities, who actually need things to get better in this country, meant actually having to do something for people he ran from one of the most diverse states to one of the whitest where he could sit around and smell his farts the past few decades.

Is he more popular than the most vilified woman in US history in certain states? Perhaps, but would he be more popular with them than Mr.Racist himself? meh.

I have done a couple of reading on Cenk, and i have to say i am disappointed that Bernie cave in to centrist media.

The Cenk views i find most issue are from 15-20+ years ago, and he has apologized and he has stated he no longer holds. I am a believer in the power of change and personal growth. I think in society we should encourage it, and praise it when displayed. Instead i often see it in the political landscape to condemn our political opponent, never really interested in redemption and personal growth. You will not make the world a better place and fight social injustice by thinking you can isolate and shame them. This will only pigeonhole others into their belief, and stop others from changing their views.

So Cenk doesn't really have any accuser, in fact quite the opposite many of the women who have associated with him have come in defense of him. Praising and noting his positive influence. But apparently he is a sexiest because he tweeted about Miami women's being hot and having big tits and ass. Also making some crude jokes, where no one was offended. The things he has said in recent years, is things generally most men say and anyone on this forum would probably joke about. This does not mean most men and people on this forum are sexiest pigs and do not respect women. How you treat women in your daily life is truly how you should be judged.

Blue wrote:I have done a couple of reading on Cenk, and i have to say i am disappointed that Bernie cave in to centrist media.

The Cenk views i find most issue are from 15-20+ years ago, and he has apologized and he has stated he no longer holds. I am a believer in the power of change and personal growth. I think in society we should encourage it, and praise it when displayed. Instead i often see it in the political landscape to condemn our political opponent, never really interested in redemption and personal growth. You will not make the world a better place and fight social injustice by thinking you can isolate and shame them. This will only pigeonhole others into their belief, and stop others from changing their views.

So Cenk doesn't really have any accuser, in fact quite the opposite many of the women who have associated with him have come in defense of him. Praising and noting his positive influence. But apparently he is a sexiest because he tweeted about Miami women's being hot and having big tits and ass. Also making some crude jokes, where no one was offended. The things he has said in recent years, is things generally most men say and anyone on this forum would probably joke about. This does not mean most men and people on this forum are sexiest pigs and do not respect women. How you treat women in your daily life is truly how you should be judged.

Most men arent fit to lead, and neither is Cenk for those views.

Also he was saying this shit into his 40's. If people want to hold trump to the fire for what he said to billy bush on the bus, then Cenk doesnt get off that easy.

A guy saying stupid stuff as a teenager/early 20's is much different than a guy saying it at 40. What 40 year old says this:

"Every American is John Wayne to a Japanese girl who needs a new purse, a grammar lesson in English and a decent sized penis for a change"

Thats horrific. If he stated this about African American women nobody would be brushing it aside.

I'll never forget this Armenian hating piece of trash going on his MSNBC show, daily, when I was in college to shit on our president. I had to deal with dude bros at school calling Obama racist words just for trying to get healthcare for people in my family and make our country a better place, just to have my refuge on a network which was supposed to be on our side broadcast the ramblings of a madmen. He isnt fit to lead.

Honestly keeping it 100, as the kids would say, Cenk is being unfairly attacked by many aspects of the media now.

But you know what:

"Every American is John Wayne to a Japanese girl who needs a new purse, a grammar lesson in English and a decent sized penis for a change"

Freeza wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Bernie instead of Corbyn and Labour would have won by a landslide in the UK.

Also this idea that choosing a centrist works in the US. is an absolutely disproved idea.

Al Gore, John Kerry, Obama and Clinton were all centrist, and the only one who won was Obama because he posed and conned the people with a progressive message that he didn't give a shit about really.

Every time the democrats choose someone who comes across as a centrist and has no real personality or identifiable policy it always end bad.

The vast majority of Democrats who have won the presidency have all been centrist.

You can pretty much say the same thing about Republican presidents.

Agreed. I'd say the Roosevelts were probably the most progressive presidents we've had and even they were quite centrist. People tend to lump Kennedy in that group, but he was very centrist. The run of pre-Lincoln presidents, starting with Jackson, were all pretty conservative. There's also Nixon, Ford and Reagan as well that leaning further away from the center to the right.

I'd say we've never had a truly far-left president. If there was ever a time that may happen, it would be this election, but I don't see it.

McLewis wrote:Agreed. I'd say the Roosevelts were probably the most progressive presidents we've had and even they were quite centrist. People tend to lump Kennedy in that group, but he was very centrist. The run of pre-Lincoln presidents, starting with Jackson, were all pretty conservative. There's also Nixon, Ford and Reagan as well that leaning further away from the center to the right.

I'd say we've never had a truly far-left president. If there was ever a time that may happen, it would be this election, but I don't see it.

Why would it be this election?

I'd imagine if there was ever a time to vote for somebody to radically change things up it would be in a time of economic hardship. The economy has not been better. We are, figuratively speaking, eating caviar and drinking wine out here. I havent been able to contribute a single penny to my 401k since I maxed it out in January and the gains I have made this year are already 102% of what I invested in January(19,000). This is feeling like Obama years again after the terrible end last year.

Young Kaz wrote:

McLewis wrote:Agreed. I'd say the Roosevelts were probably the most progressive presidents we've had and even they were quite centrist. People tend to lump Kennedy in that group, but he was very centrist. The run of pre-Lincoln presidents, starting with Jackson, were all pretty conservative. There's also Nixon, Ford and Reagan as well that leaning further away from the center to the right.

I'd say we've never had a truly far-left president. If there was ever a time that may happen, it would be this election, but I don't see it.

Why would it be this election?

I'd imagine if there was ever a time to vote for somebody to radically change things up it would be in a time of economic hardship. The economy has not been better. We are, figuratively speaking, eating caviar and drinking wine out here. I havent been able to contribute a single penny to my 401k since I maxed it out in January and the gains I have made this year are already 102% of what I invested in January(19,000). This is feeling like Obama years again after the terrible end last year.

we do not care how much money you make

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:

McLewis wrote:Agreed. I'd say the Roosevelts were probably the most progressive presidents we've had and even they were quite centrist. People tend to lump Kennedy in that group, but he was very centrist. The run of pre-Lincoln presidents, starting with Jackson, were all pretty conservative. There's also Nixon, Ford and Reagan as well that leaning further away from the center to the right.

I'd say we've never had a truly far-left president. If there was ever a time that may happen, it would be this election, but I don't see it.

Why would it be this election?

I'd imagine if there was ever a time to vote for somebody to radically change things up it would be in a time of economic hardship. The economy has not been better. We are, figuratively speaking, eating caviar and drinking wine out here. I havent been able to contribute a single penny to my 401k since I maxed it out in January and the gains I have made this year are already 102% of what I invested in January(19,000). This is feeling like Obama years again after the terrible end last year.

we do not care how much money you make

But we were supposed to care in 2008 when people took out 2 million dollar mortgages on 50k household incomes and we were all supposed to pay for their stupidity?

Betty either writes about how much money he makes or tiny penisses.

Great gimmick.

Freeza wrote:Betty either writes about how much money he makes or tiny penisses.

Great gimmick.

If that were, which it isnt, it also proves a point of white privilege.

Trump spent 2 years talking about how much money he had and his small hands and was elected leader of the free world.

I am accused of this and the free world attacks me.

Young Kaz wrote:

McLewis wrote:Agreed. I'd say the Roosevelts were probably the most progressive presidents we've had and even they were quite centrist. People tend to lump Kennedy in that group, but he was very centrist. The run of pre-Lincoln presidents, starting with Jackson, were all pretty conservative. There's also Nixon, Ford and Reagan as well that leaning further away from the center to the right.

I'd say we've never had a truly far-left president. If there was ever a time that may happen, it would be this election, but I don't see it.

Why would it be this election?

I'd imagine if there was ever a time to vote for somebody to radically change things up it would be in a time of economic hardship. The economy has not been better. We are, figuratively speaking, eating caviar and drinking wine out here. I havent been able to contribute a single penny to my 401k since I maxed it out in January and the gains I have made this year are already 102% of what I invested in January(19,000). This is feeling like Obama years again after the terrible end last year.

I think you've described why a far-left candidate is getting further than they ideologically should. These days, Americans focus a lot on what's going right for them individually. We are not focused on what's going right for others in our communities. The focus is so insular, so individualistic. There's a whole lot of "fuck you, I got mine" thinking going around and it's made people oblivious to ever growing wage inequality in this country. People working 2-3 jobs while still struggling are not seeing this better economy that the right keep saying exist. They point to numbers to dispel the emotion, but numbers are not the whole story here and people's circumstances are radically different from each other. This is what drives the populism of a Sanders or a Warren.

If our economy was truly in such great shape and that prosperity was touching even the lower financial classes, Bernie and Warren wouldn't have the foothold they have now. People have to let go of this myth that just because we're doing well from a macroeconomic (Wall Street) perspective means we're doing well from a microeconomic (Main street) perspective.

How is Corey Booker doing, rat race wise? Polling, fundraising, media coverage?
Because I must say he has grown on me with the gentlemanly way he's run this campaign so far.

Freeza wrote:Betty either writes about how much money he makes or tiny penisses.

Great gimmick.

i dont like you but i have to up vote that