Candidates for 2020 elections.

[hollodero]

(06-04-2019, 08:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's easier to dismiss ideas as radical than to argue the merits of it, especially when your party is actively championing forcing 12 year olds to give birth to their uncle's child after being raped.  

Be that as it may, I'd still prefer if you wouldn't answer a question you weren't asked. I guess this is an open board and sure everyone can interject; but if that only happens to slam someone else, I'd rather not be quoted in such attempts.

By that I do not want to sound too strict. Also, I agree that these abortion laws are horrendous. I do not know if bfine approves of those though, and I'd rather you not foist his alleged approval on him.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: Be that as it may, I'd still prefer if you wouldn't answer a question you weren't asked. I guess this is an open board and sure everyone can interject; but if that only happens to slam someone else, I'd rather not be quoted in such attempts.

By that I do not want to sound too strict. Also, I agree that these abortion laws are horrendous. I do not know if bfine approves of those though, and I'd rather you not foist his alleged approval on him.

PM him if you don't want other people to respond to you. It also has nothing to do with his approval of his party's policy but rather the radicalism that his own party is heavily slipping into. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 09:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know we, as a country, have gone in the wrong direction when center-left policies are dismissed as "radical."

70% of the US supports a form of medicare for all. Especially when you look at how Buttigieg presents it, it's reasonable policy with great support, not a radical non-starter. 

[hollodero]

(06-04-2019, 09:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: PM him if you don't want other people to respond to you.

You didn't 'really' respond to me though. Rather you attacked someone else through my question.
But whatever... let's not make a big deal out of it. I don't really approve, because I feel like being used to start another round of bickering, but that's just my take and my take sure isn't important. Peace.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 10:27 AM)hollodero Wrote: You didn't 'really' respond to me though. Rather you attacked someone else through my question.
But whatever... let's not make a big deal out of it. I don't really approve, because I feel like being used to start another round of bickering, but that's just my take and my take sure isn't important. Peace.

I did respond to you. You didn't like my answer. It wasn't specifically tailored to one individual, rather a commentary on the phenomenon of conservatives calling any center-left policy "radical".

But if I am to be real and specific, you weren't going to get a real answer from that individual. Now you might actually get one since I said that you weren't. You're welcome for that.

[hollodero]

(06-04-2019, 11:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I did respond to you. You didn't like my answer. It wasn't specifically tailored to one individual, rather a commentary on the phenomenon of conservatives calling any center-left policy "radical".

But if I am to be real and specific, you weren't going to get a real answer from that individual. Now you might actually get one since I said that you weren't. You're welcome for that.

You're my hero.

But nah, you weren't answering me, you used my question to make a thinly veiled accusation of hypocrisy towards "that individual", solely based on the fact that he's a conservative. You could have told him that directly. Now I might have gotten an honest answer, or I might not have. But now, it's pretty certain that your allegation gets picked up instead, ending in you guys engaging in some more squabbling. Sure I cannot look in the future, so I just base that assumption on the fact that this is how these things go pretty much 100% of the time. And in this case it's not only "that individual" that is to blame for that.

My humble take is that this is not very constructive. But sure enough, my humble take is also that it's not important what my humble take is. So squabble along.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 12:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: You're my hero.

But nah, you weren't answering me, you used my question to make a thinly veiled accusation of hypocrisy towards "that individual", solely based on the fact that he's a conservative. You could have told him that directly. Now I might have gotten an honest answer, or I might not have. But now, it's pretty certain that your allegation gets picked up instead, ending in you guys engaging in some more squabbling. Sure I cannot look in the future, so I just base that assumption on the fact that this is how these things go pretty much 100% of the time. And in this case it's not only "that individual" that is to blame for that.

My humble take is that this is not very constructive. But sure enough, my humble take is also that it's not important what my humble take is. So squabble along.

You could have chosen to ignore me or just say "I disagree". Instead you have opted for this elaborate attempt to chastise me and ponder the future off topic commentary that will follow, a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. 

I disagree with your take and I wish you good fortune in the conversations to come. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 06:02 AM)hollodero Wrote: Why'd you use the term "radical"?

(06-04-2019, 08:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's easier to dismiss ideas as radical than to argue the merits of it, especially when your party is actively championing forcing 12 year olds to give birth to their uncle's child after being raped.  

(06-04-2019, 09:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know we, as a country, have gone in the wrong direction when center-left policies are dismissed as "radical."

All that condescension or:


rad·i·cal


advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change;
[/list]

Quote:"Some Democrats in Washington believe the only changes we can get are tweaks and nudges. If they dream at all, they dream small," Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in her speech at the Democratic convention.

Biden was being chided by the Cali Crew because his policies aren't advocating thorough or complete political and/or social change (aka radical)

[*bfine32*]

As to the Hollo/pat back and forth: it's known as a passive/aggressive attack.

EXAMPLE:

(Passive Aggressive Attack)
Passive aggressive attacks are frowned on by many in here unless they are the ones employing the tactic

(Direct Reply)

Quote:It's easier to dismiss ideas as radical than to argue the merits of it, especially when your party is actively championing forcing 12 year olds to give birth to their uncle's child after being raped.

Pat, Your dismissal of my post as being dismissive is not constructive to the conversation or the topic at hand. Many of those (candidates/audience) gathered in Cali were critical of Biden because he's considered a "compromise" candidate (aka not radical).  So take your dismissal, shine that som' bytch up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your candy a$$.

Oh and share it with Matt


Hope that was helpful

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All that condescension or:


rad·i·cal


advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change;
[/list]

Biden was being chided by the Cali Crew because his policies aren't advocating thorough or complete political and/or social change (aka radical)

You've actually just reinforced what I said. Our country has gone in the wrong direction if center left policies are considered "radical." If it takes extreme or complete political or social change to get to the center left, then we have gone way too far to the right.

So go ahead and shove that right up your own candy ass.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 01:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You've actually just reinforced what I said. Our country has gone in the wrong direction if center left policies are considered "radical." If it takes extreme or complete political or social change to get to the center left, then we have gone way too far to the right.

So go ahead and shove that right up your own candy ass.

Of course that's your POV. Many feel that radical change is not required. So it's simply your opinion that we've gone too far. 

But yeah, You can let Pat have it all to himself.

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course that's your POV. Many feel that radical change is not required. So it's simply your opinion that we've gone too far. 

Agreed, it is my POV that we've gone too far. Of course, to go from a centrist, or even a center right, position to center left would not be a radical shift. So if you favor centrist or center right policies then you, as well, should see it as having gone too far to the right for center left policies to be considered radical.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2019, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Many feel that radical change is not required. 

I don't know what you are even trying to say now.

Do you consider universal health care "radical" or not?  I don't see how something like that would require a "complete political or social change".  We already have huge government provided health insurance programs in place for veterans, the elderly, and poor. What "complete political change" would be required to expand it to cover all citizens just like every other industrial democracy in the world?

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed, it is my POV that we've gone too far. Of course, to go from a centrist, or even a center right, position to center left would not be a radical shift. So if you favor centrist or center right policies then you, as well, should see it as having gone too far to the right for center left policies to be considered radical.

Considering current policies:

I don't consider Biden advocating radical change

I consider Warren, Sanders, and others as advocating for radical change

So one can look for change without throwing the baby out with the bathwater or they are doing nothing more but supporting what they currently hate.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know what you are even trying to say now.

Do you consider universal health care "radical" or not?  I don't see how something like that would require a "complete political or social change".  We already have huge government provided health insurance programs in place for veterans, the elderly, and poor. What "complete political change" would be required to expand it to everyone like every other industrial democracy in the world?

Pinpointing one subject aside:

I suppose it depends on how it is funded.

Add a couple cents to a gallon of gas: not radical

Have 1% of the population pay 90% of the cost: radical

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 01:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Considering current policies:

I don't consider Biden advocating radical change

I consider Warren, Sanders, and others as advocating for radical change

So one can look for change without throwing the baby out with the bathwater or they are doing nothing more but supporting what they currently hate.

I'm not sure I'm following you, here. One, this isn't really a response to my post, rather a non sequitur to discussing the candidates themselves. Two, how are they supporting what they currently hate?

Democratic turnout was dismally low in 2016 because people weren't excited about Clinton. Biden, policy wise, is probably closest to Clinton out of the entire field. He isn't what the majority of the party wants right now. He isn't going to turn out new voters, he isn't going to excite previous voters. He isn't going to speak to the Obama-Trump voters that abandoned the Democratic party over their failure to pay attention to them. If anything, Biden has one of the highest chances of a repeat of 2016.

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pinpointing one subject aside:

I suppose it depends on how it is funded.

Add a couple cents to a gallon of gas: not radical

Have 1% of the population pay 90% of the cost: radical

Should we make it the top 20% pay 85%? The percentage may be higher, now, but that was how much of the nation's wealth the top 20% held in 2007. Maybe we break it down like that, instead? Top 1% pays 35%, 2-5% pays 27%, etc.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not sure I'm following you, here. One, this isn't really a response to my post, rather a non sequitur to discussing the candidates themselves. Two, how are they supporting what they currently hate?

Democratic turnout was dismally low in 2016 because people weren't excited about Clinton. Biden, policy wise, is probably closest to Clinton out of the entire field. He isn't what the majority of the party wants right now. He isn't going to turn out new voters, he isn't going to excite previous voters. He isn't going to speak to the Obama-Trump voters that abandoned the Democratic party over their failure to pay attention to them. If anything, Biden has one of the highest chances of a repeat of 2016.

The whole point of the thread is to discuss the candidates themselves.

As I mentioned in my initial response about Cali: Biden was/is being insulted because his policies are not considered radical enough by many on the left. hell even a couple more centralists that attended got booed for not going far enough left.

I suppose we'll have to wait for the Democratic primaries to see what the majority of the party wants right now.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Should we make it the top 20% pay 85%? The percentage may be higher, now, but that was how much of the nation's wealth the top 20% held in 2007. Maybe we break it down like that, instead? Top 1% pays 35%, 2-5% pays 27%, etc.

No, I don't think we should "punish" folks for being successful. It's why I support a flat tax among other things.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All that condescension or:


rad·i·cal


advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change;
[/list]



Biden was being chided by the Cali Crew because his policies aren't advocating thorough or complete political and/or social change (aka radical)

What is being advocated for isn't a THOROUGH or COMPLETE political or social change.