Bernin' down the house...

Post Reply New Topic

What are your political stances?

Nice reference to Talking Heads, there.

I'm torn on the Bernie thing. I like him, and I like a lot of his ideologies. Most, maybe. If I read through more thoroughly. But I find myself desiring new blood in this political climate, I am tired of, (pardon my wording), old people running our country. I think it's time for a newer generation to start taking charge.

I think many of us are still stuck in this mindset of older generations being the most "wise", or "enlightened". But I honestly don't buy it. I think we need fresh insight. Not people who are half stuck in their own outdated ideologies, and half bake it with "new" politics. Of course trying to branch out is great, but when the intent of said branching out, is simply to get more people to vote for you? I don't like what that says about us. If we are willing to listen to someone just because they say they will do all of these things for us, those who are supposed to grow into the main support of our society, but in reality they have no passion for it? How can we really trust these people? I want someone who is in tune with what is happening RIGHT NOW. Not still stuck on how things were 20, 30, or even 40 years ago. And frankly, a bit out of touch.

There's exceptions to the rules of course, not all of the older generations are out of tune. But I think the majority are. There's other reasons why fresh blood would be good, but I feel like I've already wrote too much. (And I suck at putting my thoughts into words this time of night)

Sanders is a corporate war mongering shill regardless of age. He's another Obama in waiting, as people can get swayed by the rhetoric while ignoring his actions and voting record.

Tulsi Gabbard Is the best candidate for the Democrats that I know of.

I've heard a lot of good things about Tulsi, and what she's voted on backs up what she says as far as I can see, which is a big plus.

Yang and Gabbard are probably the most interesting. I just hope that if someone else wins the nomination that they're willing to actually run with their ideas rather than just steal them as campaign promises.

She's a veteran and seems pretty genuine. I was disappointed with the way she backed down over Assad. If she's already showing weakness this early that's a worry.

I've heard about Yang too, he's one person to talking about the threat of technology taking jobs. The media is trying to smear Tulsi so that must mean she's got something good about her. I'm worried Michelle Obama will be the nomination.

Based on what? Mrs. Obama has a thriving career in law, and has never expressed interest in politics.

Shell will be promoted as 'buy 1 get the Messiah free', and you will crow for it. She is black, she's a woman and her husband is the second coming of Jesus Christ. That's perfection for the modern Democrat party, nothing to do with policies.

That's a thing you people on the right have convinced yourselves of: that liberals worship Obama as a messiah, and that we were only interested in his skin color. In fact, a large number of right wing Americans imagined Obama was the Antichrist, and definitely held his skin color against him. Just as Trump is the God Emperor of the United States of America to the right, and because, to quote Jerry Falwell Jr: "He looks like us."

I'm not right or left wing, they are fake constructs. I've been acused of being a 'Corbynista' on this same site and Jeremy Corbyn is a trillion miles left of Sanders. It's just what certain people do when they run out of ideas, they grasp for a label to throw at someone. Obama was identical to the Bush creature yet you act as if Obama was some higher being. The left are obsessed with identity and ignore policy.

Sanders and AOC are both spewing the propaganda that will lead to regime change in Venezuela, while not actually committing to military action. See how this s**t works? They can continue to claim they are against regime change. But anyone who still possesses critical thinking skills knows better.

Oh, there is a definite right and left. It's just that when one gets too far to the right or left, they eventually circle around and promote the most extreme examples of the rival political philosophy.

There's a left and right like there is religion. Belief in something that doesn't exist.

I don't think there's a single person who has been elected as a Democratic official since 2000 and is still eligible to be President who would be a worse president than Donald Trump. But obviously I don't know them exhaustively, so happy to be proven wrong.

While I personally support liberalism, and would therefore prefer someone like Obama or Clinton from the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party, America presently does not place enough emphasis on government support or worker's rights, so I think a more socialist candidate could be beneficial for four years.

Of the candidates who have formally thrown their hats in the rings:

Sanders - worst option. Still better than Trump, but is too nationalistic, isolationist, socialist, and generally early 20th century. Out of touch with modern issues. While he's a "lesser evil" and I would be willing to endorse him over Trump, I do still think he's evil and would prefer some moderate Republicans to him.

Gabbard - terrible, another evil individual. Consistently supports tyranny, is opposed to free trade, wants to reimpose Glass–Steagall, supports financial transaction taxes, supports the death penalty, refuses to condemn religious discrimination, wants to increase barriers to immigration, supports labelling of GMOs, and supports stupid gun control measures rather than constructive ones. If she hadn't recently moved in a socially liberal direction on issues like LGBT rights and abortion then I would struggle to see the benefit of her over Trump.

Warren - pretty bad. I don't think she's evil like Bernie, and she is prepared to build a broad based coalition and work with liberals, but she remains a populist and a nationalist at heart and ideally shouldn't be leading a major world power.

Klobuchar - just why? She is illiberal on most issues, including crime and the internet and climate change. She is clearly stronger than Trump, but that's a low bar. I can see the appeal of left-wing populism, but Klobuchar neither embraces it nor offers an alternative. I'd rather have Manchin.

Buttigieg - literally have no idea what he stands for that distinguishes him from the others.

Delaney - in complete opposition to Buttigieg, seems to have a policy position for everything. A liberal on most issues, but weird on others - supports national service?! I do like his commitment to bipartisanship though.

Harris - I'm a really big fan of her liberal stances on justice and immigration reform. I am concerned by her promise of further tax cuts - while I support low taxes for the working classes, America already has very low federal income taxes (a single person pays no more than 12% on the first $38,700 of income), and it's difficult to see how cutting taxes would be compatible with Harris' plan to introduce single-payer healthcare.

Alan Yang - I hope he can shift the conversation. I really like his stance on UBI and his economic stances, as well as his opposition to zoning laws. He seems to generally be a liberal. However, he has something of a preoccupation with "border security". While he's better on this front than Donald Trump, it would be better if he adopted a more realistic position rather than giving credibility to Trump's concerns. Additionally, I would strongly prefer someone with political experience.

John Hickenlooper - maybe a good vice president or something, but seems too amateurish to be a good president. Generally seems like he's making everything up as he goes along.

Jay Inslee - seems pretty great, although not sure where he stands on issues other than climate and immigration.

Cory Booker - great, a true liberal. Main bugbear is his opposition to intervention in Syria, despite both ISIS and Assad slaughtering innocent civilians with impunity.

Julian Castro - great, a true liberal. Main bugbear is his support for Affirmative Action. While I support the principle of Affirmative Action, I believe in practice it appears to lead to worse outcomes for its intended beneficiaries.

Kirsten Gillibrand - seems like the best candidate of all, even better than Hillary Clinton. Don't think I'd have liked her much in 2008, but now she takes consistently liberal positions, including genuinely brave ones like calling for sexually predatory Democrats to resign and calling for the abolition of ICE before it was cool.

While I'd support any of these over Trump, if I lived in a safe state then I would vote third party ahead of Sanders, Gabbard, or Warren.

^ Not a word about foreign policy, apart from criticising those who are ANTI WAR.

Showing support for mass murderers Clinton and Obama who supported Al Qaeda in Syria and Libya. And who have no made sure that black people are being sold as slaves again in Libya. Yay 'liberalism'. Then there's Syria where they supported Al Qaeda again to try to get Assad to give up parts of Syria. Where the ' moderate rebels' Obama and Clinton supported were burning people in cages and holding Sharia courts on the streets.

The world and US citizens have had enough of the US destroying the world in the name of 'liberalism' and charging the US taxpayers trillions of dollars. Gabbard or Trump 2020