[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

Other than insisting on calling it tax increase for public healthcare, without factoring in the cost reductions, the questions seemed fine. It is CNNs job to focus on the disagreements between candidates in a debate. CNN didn't invent those disagreements, as harmful as they might be to some of the candidates, and helpful to the republicans. Yeah, they focused a lot on Sanders and Warren. But they are two of the front runners, and I bet the minor candidates would love to get the attention - and talk time - those two got.

Seemed like a much more substantive debate than the first two at least. Genuinely surprised. Way too many candidates though, but I guess the next round will fix that.

bekkilyn wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

It's almost like CNN('s financial backers) feels deeply threatened by Sanders and Warren and would much prefer a republican-lite centrist on the democratic ticket.

I believe it was CNN who, during the 2016 primaries, put up a poll, and when it turned out that Bernie won the poll instead of Hillary, they took it down and pretended it never existed.

Not that I'd put it past them, but you could cite this? I'm not seeing any such thing in a quick google search.

Edit: in fact, this looks like it was (yet another) reddit conspiracy theory:
https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...

Nope, it's been forever-ago, but I remember actually seeing a poll on their page between Bernie and Hillary and maybe a couple of the others, and then later it was gone after Bernie was showing to be ahead, and there was some discussion on it over on another forum, but that's all I remember about it, but it stuck in my mind.

I don't have any idea if it was the poll talked about in the link you posted or if it was for something else, so it's always possible people were getting confused and claiming it was that one, but it was for a different question. I just don't know, but I do know what I saw and there *was* something that they took down. In any case, my point isn't so that people would believe me, but one part of my own reason for why I could *very* easily believe that they would prefer another republican-lite centrist on the ticket because it's behavior I've seen out of them before...at least until Bernie was helping their ratings go up.

I'm just hoping voters apply a bit more effort to debunking disinformation in 2020 than they did in 2016. I feel like this did a great job of puncturing my hopes, though.

How soon can Biden drop out? His arguments are tired.

garion333 wrote:

Hilarious!

Spoiler warning, yo. Some of us like Fast and Furious movies.

Been thinking a lot about the way CNN handled these debates and about moderates, fascists, and the current state of things. I've got a story to share. (I wrote some of this out on Twitter, so heads up - it is a lot of bite-sized chunks adding up to a long thing.)

***
On November 7th, 1837, my ancestor, abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy, was murdered in Alton, Illinois by a mob of racists.

His anti-slavery editorials for the St. Louis Observer infuriated certain readers. At a meeting in 1835, he was told to cease and desist. Instead, he dug in. He grew angrier, more strident, and more judgmental and suspicious of people who clung on to and defended a status quo that was clearly unjust. After he published a particularly brutal story about a lynching -- and the subsequent trial that allowed every single participant in the crime walk free -- he began receiving death threats. He relocated his family to Alton.

His printing press was destroyed en route. So he got another one and paid to have it guarded in transport. That worked and, for a time, he was able to resume publishing the Observer. But his editorials -- editorials about abolishing slavery -- continued to anger white people (even poor white people who didn't own slaves.)

One night, a group of men broke into his office, vandalized it, and destroyed the new press. So he got a third. When that one was thrown into a river, he got a fourth. At this point, he had received national attention. He used this spotlight to call for the creation of an anti-slavery society.

When the mob arrived to destroy the fourth one, the mayor of Alton showed up and tried to broker peace between Lovejoy and the mob. But the mob refused to leave and Lovejoy would not rescind his views and cease publishing. So the mayor -- the person in control of the local authority, the "cool head" in the room that was calling for an "amicable" solution that could make both sides happy, the centrist who cast himself as the reasonable "middle-ground" voice between the two equally extreme agendas of "slavery is fine" and "we should abolish slavery" -- decided that the correct course of action was to quietly walk away and let events play out.

Elijah Lovejoy was shot dead, his press destroyed.

In looking over some of the reporting at the time, it is fascinating to see that he's often framed as being a defender of "free speech" before he's framed as an abolitionist -- the cause and purpose of the free speech he was exercising. I can only attribute this to some perceived need by moderates of the era to present Lovejoy as a martyr for a cause that wasn't so controversial. Abolition was considered an extremist view, after all. It was far left, radical, and required a massive restructuring of the way Americans would have to think about society. Free speech, however, was a no-brainer. It is more ephemeral and far less partisan. And easier. Ostensibly it already existed, after all.

Here in 2019, watching moderate Democrats go out of their way to decry "extreme" ideas like the Green New Deal and single-payer healthcare while contorting themselves to woo the modern-day equivalent of the same racist voters who murdered my relative, I feel dismayed. Because even though Lovejoy's cause of abolition did eventually succeed, it took a war. And even then, it was ultimately neutered by moderates who looked the other way while white southern conservatives used gerrymandering, citizenship tests, poll taxes, fraud, and terrorism to perpetuate structural injustices and commit atrocities. I can easily see the world where popular, correct, and just ideas on the Left "win" but the moderates allow conservatives to sabotage the entire enterprise.

It is more important than ever to learn from history and loudly reject all of the institutions which prop these extreme centrists up. Reject the way establishment news sources frame concentration camps at our southern border as "normal" and calling them concentration camps as "extreme." Reject the way CNN makes the primary debates some kind of Hunger Games-style spectacle. Reject the way newspapers cover cops getting water spilled on them as if that is a big deal while burying stories about black transgender women being murdered by bigots. Reject the way antifa is framed as a terrorist group (despite having killed exactly zero people) and Right-wing extremists who shoot up schools/churches/nightclubs/etc are just weird anomalies.

Yell about it, even though Tim Ryan doesn't want you too.

Remember: Fascists want you dead and centrists, when forced to choose between having to struggle against injustice or quietly letting you die, will opt for the latter. They would rather you not be so loud about the forces conspiring to end you or people you care about, as it is upsetting a status quo that works fine for them.

That's really good, Harpo.

Setting aside all the justice and equality issues (I know, that's a lot, but bear with me), I think it's astounding that ambitious plans to try to keep the Earth habitable are "extreme" positions.

It doesn't give me much hope for the future.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

I can easily see the world where popular, correct, and just ideas on the Left "win" but the moderates allow conservatives to sabotage the entire enterprise.

I sadly feel like this is almost guaranteed to happen on most issues.

Yonder wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

I can easily see the world where popular, correct, and just ideas on the Left "win" but the moderates allow conservatives to sabotage the entire enterprise.

I sadly feel like this is almost guaranteed to happen on most issues.

It already is.

Malcom spoke of lack of progress and his speech back then is as accurate then as it is today. You can't make progress with a side that doesn't even think theres a problem to begin with.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Remember: Fascists want you dead and centrists, when forced to choose between having to struggle against injustice or quietly letting you die, will opt for the latter. They would rather you not be so loud about the forces conspiring to end you or people you care about, as it is upsetting a status quo that works fine for them.

Can I share this? If so, how would you like to be credited?

Harpo,
You could get that published as an op-ed in most major newspapers with very little editing. I encourage you to do so!

Please feel free to share! I’ll put it up on Facebook and circle back with a direct link.

EDIT - circling back. Thinking it over, based on everyone’s generous feedback, I am going to try and use this to pull together a pitch. Do feel free to share, refer to the post link and credit it to Richard Lovejoy.

Those are really interesting maps for a number of reasons. Thanks for sharing them.

Remember folks, poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids

(Not sure if this was a gaffe or trying to connect with Trump's base)

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Remember folks, poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids

(Not sure if this was a gaffe or trying to connect with Trump's base)

It doesn’t take a political strategist to understand that you’re not connecting with trumps base. By poor, it sure feels like Biden said ‘minority.’ It’s distressing that we might end up with Biden when we need someone else in office*

*that isn’t trump.

Hickenlooper wasn't exactly loved in Colorado...

garion333 wrote:

Hickenlooper wasn't exactly loved in Colorado...

A recent poll has him up 51-38 over Gardner, so.. loved enough, sounds like.

garion333 wrote:

Hickenlooper wasn't exactly loved in Colorado...

I feel like that's been a theme with a decent chunk of these "candidates." It's a bunch of hyperlocal nobodies that one time said a thing on social media.

We're now apparently in an era where a politician thinks if they get a thousand likes on a tweet then they should run for President.

Tanglebones wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Hickenlooper wasn't exactly loved in Colorado...

A recent poll has him up 51-38 over Gardner, so.. loved enough, sounds like.

He initially became governor in Colorado because the right ran two candidate against each other and then barely won re-election. No one seemed to particularly love him and instead voted party lines.

Course I feel the same way about Michael Bennett.

Maybe it's just my time living in Colorado coloring my views, but both Hickenlooper and Bennett are milquetoast.

So is he running for Senate now? Anyone who can bring Moscow Mitch one seat closer to being Senate Minority Leader gets a thumbs up from me.

Agathos wrote:

So is he running for Senate now? Anyone who can bring Moscow Mitch one seat closer to being Senate Minority Leader gets a thumbs up from me.

Yup. Hopefully Bullock will consider doing the same in Montana, and Beto in Texas.

Tanglebones wrote:
Agathos wrote:

So is he running for Senate now? Anyone who can bring Moscow Mitch one seat closer to being Senate Minority Leader gets a thumbs up from me.

Yup. Hopefully Bullock will consider doing the same in Montana, and Beto in Texas.

Or Castro.

BlackSheep wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Agathos wrote:

So is he running for Senate now? Anyone who can bring Moscow Mitch one seat closer to being Senate Minority Leader gets a thumbs up from me.

Yup. Hopefully Bullock will consider doing the same in Montana, and Beto in Texas.

Or Castro.

I'm still holding out for a Warren/Castro ticket, to be honest. Though I was also holding out for a Clinton/Castro ticket in 2016, so what do I know

Sadly there's very little talk of policy in this thread, so here's a big one. Sanders unveils proposal for massive overhaul of criminal justice system. Here's some of the highlights:

  • Ban solitary confinement
  • Ban private prisons
  • End cash bail
  • Abolish the death penalty
  • Legalize marijuana and erasure of past convictions
  • Legalization of safe injection sites
  • Introduce a "Prisoner Bill of Rights" (includes rights to living wages, educational training, and the right to vote)
  • Create a “civilian corps of unarmed first responders” to deal with mental health emergencies. This would deal with "low-level" issues like homelessness and mental health emergencies.
  • Goal of "cutting the incarcerated population in half"
  • Mandatory investigation by attorney general whenever someone is killed in police custody.

Some of this is under the control of the States and may be hard to change from the oval office, but Sanders is claiming that he will use a carrot and stick approach. Withhold state funds from States who don't comply and give grants to States that reduce their inmate populations.

This is the kind of stuff that I like to see and is way overdue. I'm especially interested in the "civilian corps" which I think sounds like a great alternative to sending cops with guns to deal with issues that don't require force.