Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[Buffalo_Gal]

</snip>

But Mr. Buttigieg’s stint in the Navy isn’t as impressive as he makes it out to be. His 2019 memoir is called “Shortest Way Home,” an apt description of his military service. He entered the military through a little-used shortcut: direct commission in the reserves. The usual route to an officer’s commission includes four years at Annapolis or another military academy or months of intense training at Officer Candidate School. ROTC programs send prospective officers to far-flung summer training programs and require military drills during the academic year. Mr. Buttigieg skipped all that—no obstacle courses, no weapons training, no evaluation of his ability or willingness to lead. Paperwork, a health exam and a background check were all it took to make him a naval officer.

</snip>

[ComradeKayAdams]

2 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Well, I'd say that whatever judgment makes you believe that Bernie's agenda is appealing or even possible practically or politically speaking explains your position that Bernie with any running mate can beat Trump ?.  Medicare for all would be the largest political and legislative leap in 50 years, and that would be the easy part passing a law.  Then you have to actually have it carried out to the satisfaction of 300+ million people and trust a government that can't manage the entitlements we already have. 

 

Of course the only way to validate either of us is to get a Trump/Bernie match up.  Hope it happens and no I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. 

 

Okay, but I'm not arguing that just about ANY running mate of Bernie's can help him beat Trump. In fact, I only think a very small number of individuals can possibly do it, with Tulsi probably being the best one. I view the pool of potential American voters very roughly as follows:

 

1. 25% Trump/Republican loyalists

2. 25% Democrat loyalists who think Trump is the worst president in the history of presidents

3. 50% independents who are often apolitical, very cynical of all political institutions, and don't even bother to vote in any given year

 

The Republican faithful will simply not abandon Trump at a time with a (speciously) healthy economy and no clear foreign policy blunders. And registered Democrats would, by and large, get behind Sanders regardless of the VP candidate (do not underestimate the strength of Trump Derangement Syndrome). So that leaves us with the largest target pool of voters that could possibly be persuaded by the VP choice: the somewhat apolitical and deeply cynical independents. And what better candidate to motivate them to actually get out and vote for such a feeble-looking socialist than a young, religious, military woman of color who physically resembles Wonder Woman, surfs, snowboards, trains with MMA instructors, wants to legalize pot, and hangs out with Joe Rogan...yet is also just as politically principled as Bernie and has accumulated solid progressive political credentials at the national level while earning endorsements from people as politically diverse as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich?!

 

You raised a few really good points that I unfortunately don't have the time right now to fully address:

 

1. Is Bernie's agenda appealing to a majority of voters?

2. Is it a practical and financially reasonable one?

3. Is it politically feasible?

 

Question #1: In brief, I do feel that the progressive domestic agenda of such things like a living wage, universal healthcare, and student debt amelioration is enormously popular among the working class, the under-40 crowd, and basically anyone right now living paycheck-to-paycheck or suffering from serious medical issues. I will concede, however, to the fact that the professional and managerial classes with investments in the stock market are doing well and likely won't care about Sanders' brand of economic populism. In the end, it will all come down to numbers. Does your team have the numbers? And are they sufficiently motivated to come out and vote? Because I'm highly confident that us Bernie Bros and Bernie Hos are!

 

Point #2: There is a hopelessly nuanced response to this, but to summarize: small Wall Street speculation taxes, the increase of taxes on the 1% (but not to the point where it halts business growth and investments), closing of billionaire tax loopholes, bipartisan government waste trimming, bipartisan crackdowns on crony capitalism, and a DRASTIC reduction/streamlining of the military-industrial complex. The latter point is the biggest one for me and a major reason why I'm an even bigger Tulsi fan than a Bernie fan. Remember that a Bernie revolution is not some dangerous political experiment without precedent! Virtually the entire rest of the developed world has adopted various forms of social democracies by now - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, Germany, Scandinavia, most of Europe really, etc... Many of these countries have higher rates of upward social mobility, higher standards of living, higher quantitative measures of happiness, etc... Actually visiting some of these places and talking to these people is what has gradually led me from Randian libertarianism to my current political beliefs.

 

Point #3: Maybe. It obviously depends on how the Congressional elections turn out in 2020 and 2022. I'm not so naive to think the establishment neoliberal Dems will go down softly without kicking and screaming against a progressive agenda. But if Bernie wins the Dem nomination and goes on to beat Trump, that is an ENORMOUS political signal that the people want to move the country in a different direction. Remember that Trump only had about 35% or so of the support from his own political party in early 2016, and yet look at how much he has since reshaped the Republican Party and the country.

[keepthefaith]

15 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

 

Okay, but I'm not arguing that just about ANY running mate of Bernie's can help him beat Trump. In fact, I only think a very small number of individuals can possibly do it, with Tulsi probably being the best one. I view the pool of potential American voters very roughly as follows:

 

1. 25% Trump/Republican loyalists

2. 25% Democrat loyalists who think Trump is the worst president in the history of presidents

3. 50% independents who are often apolitical, very cynical of all political institutions, and don't even bother to vote in any given year

 

The Republican faithful will simply not abandon Trump at a time with a (speciously) healthy economy and no clear foreign policy blunders. And registered Democrats would, by and large, get behind Sanders regardless of the VP candidate (do not underestimate the strength of Trump Derangement Syndrome). So that leaves us with the largest target pool of voters that could possibly be persuaded by the VP choice: the somewhat apolitical and deeply cynical independents. And what better candidate to motivate them to actually get out and vote for such a feeble-looking socialist than a young, religious, military woman of color who physically resembles Wonder Woman, surfs, snowboards, trains with MMA instructors, wants to legalize pot, and hangs out with Joe Rogan...yet is also just as politically principled as Bernie and has accumulated solid progressive political credentials at the national level while earning endorsements from people as politically diverse as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich?!

 

You raised a few really good points that I unfortunately don't have the time right now to fully address:

 

1. Is Bernie's agenda appealing to a majority of voters?

2. Is it a practical and financially reasonable one?

3. Is it politically feasible?

 

Question #1: In brief, I do feel that the progressive domestic agenda of such things like a living wage, universal healthcare, and student debt amelioration is enormously popular among the working class, the under-40 crowd, and basically anyone right now living paycheck-to-paycheck or suffering from serious medical issues. I will concede, however, to the fact that the professional and managerial classes with investments in the stock market are doing well and likely won't care about Sanders' brand of economic populism. In the end, it will all come down to numbers. Does your team have the numbers? And are they sufficiently motivated to come out and vote? Because I'm highly confident that us Bernie Bros and Bernie Hos are!

 

Point #2: There is a hopelessly nuanced response to this, but to summarize: small Wall Street speculation taxes, the increase of taxes on the 1% (but not to the point where it halts business growth and investments), closing of billionaire tax loopholes, bipartisan government waste trimming, bipartisan crackdowns on crony capitalism, and a DRASTIC reduction/streamlining of the military-industrial complex. The latter point is the biggest one for me and a major reason why I'm an even bigger Tulsi fan than a Bernie fan. Remember that a Bernie revolution is not some dangerous political experiment without precedent! Virtually the entire rest of the developed world has adopted various forms of social democracies by now - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, Germany, Scandinavia, most of Europe really, etc... Many of these countries have higher rates of upward social mobility, higher standards of living, higher quantitative measures of happiness, etc... Actually visiting some of these places and talking to these people is what has gradually led me from Randian libertarianism to my current political beliefs.

 

Point #3: Maybe. It obviously depends on how the Congressional elections turn out in 2020 and 2022. I'm not so naive to think the establishment neoliberal Dems will go down softly without kicking and screaming against a progressive agenda. But if Bernie wins the Dem nomination and goes on to beat Trump, that is an ENORMOUS political signal that the people want to move the country in a different direction. Remember that Trump only had about 35% or so of the support from his own political party in early 2016, and yet look at how much he has since reshaped the Republican Party and the country.

 

WI, MI, OH, PA, NH, FL.

 

Some Democrats and many independents in these key states elected Trump.  The battleground this time around will likely be the same.  I think it's more likely that more independents and dems in these states (particularly union members who have fantastic health ins benefits) will vote for Trump over Bernie or any dem this time around.  Also Bernie's views on illegal immigration will be a real drag on his candidacy beyond the primary IMO.  This stacks up as a very difficult cycle for the dems.  A lot can change in 8 or 9 months and for sure the effort to tear down Trump publicly will continue but a continued strong economy buys a lot of votes.  Going back to Eisenhower  (and probably before that) no President with Trump-like economic numbers wasn't re-elected.  Tulsi has a lot of positives but VP choices (good or bad) don't seem to matter and Bernie's too damn old. 

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Reagan, after giving up on the democrat party and becoming a firebrand. Most of us know him as the fatherly figure who backed up his steely desire to promote conservatism and to do it with humor and grace. This was 16 years before he became president and had a real edge to him.

[3rdnlng]

 

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

WI, MI, OH, PA, NH, FL.

 

Some Democrats and many independents in these key states elected Trump.  The battleground this time around will likely be the same.  I think it's more likely that more independents and dems in these states (particularly union members who have fantastic health ins benefits) will vote for Trump over Bernie or any dem this time around.  Also Bernie's views on illegal immigration will be a real drag on his candidacy beyond the primary IMO.  This stacks up as a very difficult cycle for the dems.  A lot can change in 8 or 9 months and for sure the effort to tear down Trump publicly will continue but a continued strong economy buys a lot of votes.  Going back to Eisenhower  (and probably before that) no President with Trump-like economic numbers wasn't re-elected.  Tulsi has a lot of positives but VP choices (good or bad) don't seem to matter and Bernie's too damn old. 

You may be right but Bernie pry has the best chance out of any of these candidates to win these states.  There's a populist, pro worker, anti interventionist rhetoric he espouses that the other candidates besides Trump can't match.  A $15 national minimum wage and taxing the rich also polls well which is a difference from Trump.  If Sanders win I think Warren will be the VP pick despite their recent dispute as he's already apparently inquired about whether she can be VP and treasury secretary at the same time.

[Nanker]

Oh goodie. President Bernie, VP Fauxahontas with control of the US Treasury! I can’t think of a better qualified Dream Team to drive us into a record-breaking Great Depression. Putin and Xi would enjoy our demise. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 hours ago, Nanker said:

Oh goodie. President Bernie, VP Fauxahontas with control of the US Treasury! I can’t think of a better qualified Dream Team to drive us into a record-breaking Great Depression. Putin and Xi would enjoy our demise. 

 

...I'd make Quid Pro Joe the "Secretary of the Inferior"...……….

[B-Man]

 

 

Popular Vote Proponent Pete Buttigieg Claims Victory in State Where Another Guy Got More Votes: By the standard Mayor Pete has celebrated on the campaign trail, Bernie Sanders emerged victorious from the Iowa cacuses. 

 

Mayor Pete is a phony.

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

[Rob's House]

Bernie is dangerous.

 

I know the DNC & the Rick Wilsons of the world think he's a sure loss in the general election, but I'm not so sure. He's the only one with passionate supporters, he's appealing to those who reject the establishment, and the TDS crew will fall in line behind whoever gets the nomination.

 

The casual Bernie Bros seem to think "Democratic Socialism" means raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on the super rich so everyone can have free healthcare and college, while still retaining what is essentially a market based economy. Why they're so confident that a western European style mixed economy is the end game is a mystery to me. Given Bernie's history and rhetoric, I think something more akin to Chinese or Soviet style Communism is a more likely goal.

 

That may seem extreme, but no one's going to admit to that goal outright. It's a slow incremental approach. Recall a few years ago it was considered the height of absurdity to suggest that Obama (and by extension, the Dems) was a socialist. Fast forward just a few years and they're openly advocating for it.

 

Forgetting for a minute that governments seldom if ever cease to pursue power, Bernie's own words are cause for concern. He says he wants to "fundamentally transform" our society. That's not language to be taken lightly. That's the kind of talk that starts with a free and prosperous society and millions of corpses later ends in oppression and poverty.

 

Most of the Bernie Bros care about policy, but few really understand those policies or the history of their effects. The basis for their belief that these things will work the way they envision is that they want them to. 

 

Many of the hardcore Bernie Bros who are deep in it and have been from the start are self-avowed Marxists. I was not the least bit surprised to see that some of his paid staffers we're caught on tape defending Soviet gulags. Diving into Bernie's history shows us a guy who was enchanted with Marxist ideology, and there's no indication that he's veered from that course. It's not hard to see him trying to implement a command economy.

 

Fortunately Presidents don't have the power to make such drastic changes, but with the level of indoctrination in media, entertainment, and academia, he could start us down that path. It's a dangerous path to go down, because you don't have to go very far before you can't walk it back.

 

As one fella said, you can vote your way into Communism, but you have to shoot your way out.

 

 

 

Tingles of all people raised a similar point, but I doubt it gets much traction. Follow the link to see his take:

 

 

[/dev/null]

9 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

Bernie is dangerous.

 

I know the DNC & the Rick Wilsons of the world think he's a sure loss in the general election, but I'm not so sure. He's the only one with passionate supporters, he's appealing to those who reject the establishment, and the TDS crew will fall in line behind whoever gets the nomination.

 

 

 

Agreed.  It's hard to stop a political movement.  We saw that in 2016 with Trump, 2008 with Obama, and in 1992 when Perot's movement cost Bush I his re-election

[Deranged Rhino]

[Deranged Rhino]

 

@transplantbillsfan  

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Agreed.  It's hard to stop a political movement.  We saw that in 2016 with Trump, 2008 with Obama, and in 1992 when Perot's movement cost Bush I his re-election

Don't discount the democrats that are moderate and their abhorrence of socialism to either stay away from the election or secretly vote for Trump. See Chris Mathews comments above. At some point in time Trump will be addressing the horrors of socialism and warning people about what can happen to our fabulous economy if we change direction now. 

[Tiberius]

Bloomberg has thousands of full time staff working in all the Super Tuesday states, has a robust Hispanic outreach program, is a head of the game in using technology, data and advertising...just saying 

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

@transplantbillsfan  

 

Mini Mike has the charisma of a turnip. You can't buy excitement. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Tiberius]

26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is Bloomberg a murdering, corrupt, antisemite yet? 

[RochesterRob]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

Bernie is dangerous.

 

I know the DNC & the Rick Wilsons of the world think he's a sure loss in the general election, but I'm not so sure. He's the only one with passionate supporters, he's appealing to those who reject the establishment, and the TDS crew will fall in line behind whoever gets the nomination.

 

The casual Bernie Bros seem to think "Democratic Socialism" means raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on the super rich so everyone can have free healthcare and college, while still retaining what is essentially a market based economy. Why they're so confident that a western European style mixed economy is the end game is a mystery to me. Given Bernie's history and rhetoric, I think something more akin to Chinese or Soviet style Communism is a more likely goal.

 

That may seem extreme, but no one's going to admit to that goal outright. It's a slow incremental approach. Recall a few years ago it was considered the height of absurdity to suggest that Obama (and by extension, the Dems) was a socialist. Fast forward just a few years and they're openly advocating for it.

 

Forgetting for a minute that governments seldom if ever cease to pursue power, Bernie's own words are cause for concern. He says he wants to "fundamentally transform" our society. That's not language to be taken lightly. That's the kind of talk that starts with a free and prosperous society and millions of corpses later ends in oppression and poverty.

 

Most of the Bernie Bros care about policy, but few really understand those policies or the history of their effects. The basis for their belief that these things will work the way they envision is that they want them to. 

 

Many of the hardcore Bernie Bros who are deep in it and have been from the start are self-avowed Marxists. I was not the least bit surprised to see that some of his paid staffers we're caught on tape defending Soviet gulags. Diving into Bernie's history shows us a guy who was enchanted with Marxist ideology, and there's no indication that he's veered from that course. It's not hard to see him trying to implement a command economy.

 

Fortunately Presidents don't have the power to make such drastic changes, but with the level of indoctrination in media, entertainment, and academia, he could start us down that path. It's a dangerous path to go down, because you don't have to go very far before you can't walk it back.

 

As one fella said, you can vote your way into Communism, but you have to shoot your way out.

 

 

 

Tingles of all people raised a similar point, but I doubt it gets much traction. Follow the link to see his take:

 

 

  I doubt that the average Bernie Bro if having attended a public school is aware of any history prior to the Clinton Administration and any discussion about communism is done in the manner of a soft sell.  My nieces and nephews being the age of the average Bernie Bro tell me that things such as World War II or the Cold War barely get a mention in high school.

[reddogblitz]

12 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I doubt that the average Bernie Bro if having attended a public school is aware of any history prior to the Clinton Administration and any discussion about communism is done in the manner of a soft sell.  My nieces and nephews being the age of the average Bernie Bro tell me that things such as World War II or the Cold War barely get a mention in high school.

 

This is a very common mis-characterization of Bernie supporters.  They're not all kids.  A LOT of them are older people too. 

[Rob's House]

7 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I doubt that the average Bernie Bro if having attended a public school is aware of any history prior to the Clinton Administration and any discussion about communism is done in the manner of a soft sell.  My nieces and nephews being the age of the average Bernie Bro tell me that things such as World War II or the Cold War barely get a mention in high school.

 

I find it interesting that Nazi Germany, which is subversively referred to as "right-wing," is taught in great depth, and in such cartoonish & moralistic fashion that nothing of value could ever be gleened from it, but the history of the Soviet Union, which was equally if not more brutal in measure, and far more deadly in scope, barely gets a mention.

 

I assume some of that is due to the fact that the Soviets were our allies and post-war propaganda always sensationalizes the evils of the enemy & downplays that of allies, but I don't think that explanation is sufficient.

 

I find it far more likely that the leftists who control the curriculum do not want to shed light on the horrors and atrocities of a government born out of a "workers" revolution, that cannot be described as anything other than "left-wing."

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

This is a very common mis-characterization of Bernie supporters.  They're not all kids.  A LOT of them are older people too. 

  That is true of any political personality.  Quite a number of Reagan supporters during the 1980's were younger people.  I would venture a guess that most of the Bernie Bro's are under the age of 35 such as it is with my family.

[Rob's House]

4 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

This is a very common mis-characterization of Bernie supporters.  They're not all kids.  A LOT of them are older people too. 

 

That's true. A lot of them look like this.

 

 

[gr8billsfan]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

This is a very common mis-characterization of Bernie supporters.  They're not all kids.  A LOT of them are older people too. 

The only problem with Bernie is that it’s not possible to give out anything for free. Another problem is pulling in moderates. 

[njbuff]

Why can't the Democrats find a worthy candidate?

 

There are a lot more registered Democrats in this country and they can't find ANYONE worth a darn?

 

Sad.

[3rdnlng]

Nazi

[ˈnätsē]

 

NOUN

1. historical

   a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

ADJECTIVE

1. of or concerning the Nazis or Nazism.

   synonyms:

   authoritarian · totalitarian · dictatorial · despotic · draconian · autocratic · 

   [more]

    

   Hmmmn.

[RochesterRob]

3 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I find it interesting that Nazi Germany, which is subversively referred to as "right-wing," is taught in great depth, and in such cartoonish & moralistic fashion that nothing of value could ever be gleened from it, but the history of the Soviet Union, which was equally if not more brutal in measure, and far more deadly in scope, barely gets a mention.

 

I assume some of that is due to the fact that the Soviets were our allies and post-war propaganda always sensationalizes the evils of the enemy & downplays that of allies, but I don't think that explanation is sufficient.

 

I find it far more likely that the leftists who control the curriculum do not want to shed light on the horrors and atrocities of a government born out of a "workers" revolution, that cannot be described as anything other than "left-wing."

  From what I can gather any discussion of Nazi Germany is limited to a sub-topic of the rise of communist-socialist-Marxist school of thought starting in the 19th Century.  Like you said any discussion of Nazi Germany is limited to a cartoonish take featuring white supremacy.  Virtually nothing is said about Germany losing WWI and reparations creating a climate where extremists would thrive.  I wish some of my ancestors were still around that lived through the aftermath of WWI in central Europe.  People used to criticize one of them as being introverted but I realized that after getting to know that person that they lived through an environment where keeping your mouth shut kept you alive even among your own family. 

4 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Why can't the Democrats find a worthy candidate?

 

There are a lot more registered Democrats in this country and they can't find ANYONE worth a darn?

 

Sad.

  The trouble is that a lot of them have died off including big labor Dems who under pinned the party for a big chunk of the 20th Century.

[njbuff]

6 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  From what I can gather any discussion of Nazi Germany is limited to a sub-topic of the rise of communist-socialist-Marxist school of thought starting in the 19th Century.  Like you said any discussion of Nazi Germany is limited to a cartoonish take featuring white supremacy.  Virtually nothing is said about Germany losing WWI and reparations creating a climate where extremists would thrive.  I wish some of my ancestors were still around that lived through the aftermath of WWI in central Europe.  People used to criticize one of them as being introverted but I realized that after getting to know that person that they lived through an environment where keeping your mouth shut kept you alive even among your own family. 

  The trouble is that a lot of them have died off including big labor Dems who under pinned the party for a big chunk of the 20th Century.

 

Their best bet is Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) in 2024. ?

[reddogblitz]

20 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  That is true of any political personality.  Quite a number of Reagan supporters during the 1980's were younger people.  I would venture a guess that most of the Bernie Bro's are under the age of 35 such as it is with my family.

 

Excuse me, I resemble that remark.  As did a lot of my friends at the time.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Their best bet is Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) in 2024. ?

Careful now, you'll get Buffalo_Gal all excited.

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Excuse me, I resemble that remark.  As did a lot of my friends at the time.

  What?  

[njbuff]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Careful now, you'll get Buffalo_Gal all excited.

 

Sorry.

 

?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

No chance Joe.

(He never had a chance, @transplantbillsfan -- because he's a terrible candidate with more skeletons in his closet than IQ points)

[Buffalo_Gal]

56 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Their best bet is Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) in 2024. ?

I'd vote for him!!! ? ? 

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  From what I can gather any discussion of Nazi Germany is limited to a sub-topic of the rise of communist-socialist-Marxist school of thought starting in the 19th Century.  Like you said any discussion of Nazi Germany is limited to a cartoonish take featuring white supremacy.  Virtually nothing is said about Germany losing WWI and reparations creating a climate where extremists would thrive.  I wish some of my ancestors were still around that lived through the aftermath of WWI in central Europe.  People used to criticize one of them as being introverted but I realized that after getting to know that person that they lived through an environment where keeping your mouth shut kept you alive even among your own family. 

 

A related point that gets overlooked is the view of race, ethnicity, genetics, and nationality that existed throughout the developed world in the decades leading up to that point.

 

The way it's taught you'd think these theories just popped up out of the blue.

 

There are a lot of parallels between the evolution of those ideas and those of the dominant global theory that prevails today. It runs in the opposite direction, but is running to such an extreme that it threatens to become just as destructive as that which it runs from, just as right-wing authoritarianism (as it is widely defined) is virtually indistinguishable from left-wing totalitarianism.

 

The primary distinction is that the former was defined by the belief of racial/ethnic distinctions as the primary foundation of culture and value, and a goal of genetic and cultural purity, and relative hegemony of the superior group(s). The latter is defined by a categorical rejection of genetic racial/ethic distinctions with a goal of suppressing the dominant culture and subjugating those racial/ethnic groups who are perceived to be part of that culture.

 

We are coming full circle as rhetoric about the inherent evils of whiteness become more prevalent in our discourse, particularly in traditional propaganda outlets such as mass media and institutions of education, starting in elementary school.

 

It takes no great stretch of the imagination to see the parallels between Nazi propaganda about Jews and US propaganda about consevatives, 1%ers, and white supremacists (the definition of which is being expanded to include virtually all white people). The message is clear: all your problems are caused by these people taking advantage of you.

 

Public schools look increasingly more like a more subversive version of the Hitler youth. Children are indoctrinated by the state with left-wing ideology from a young age. The ideology is taught as fact and critical thinking is actively discouraged. The primary difference is that the Hitler youth were taught to follow the party and the leader whereas the leftist youth are taught to follow the ideology. The leftist youth are brought into the fold more subversively so as to provide plausible deniability.

 

Despite extensive coverage on Nazi Germany, these lessons are largely lost as the curriculum focuses on racism, white supremacy, and genocide for the purpose of creating a visceral moral aversion to all things associated with Nazis - like the "right-wing" and "white supremacists." The cultural and political aspects of that situation are a minor footnote.

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

@transplantbillsfan  

 

You do understand why Democrats would naturally be nervous, regardless of any candidate on the ballot, right?

 

But nerves don't translate to who wins.

 

In fact, have you even considered that nerves could have the opposite effect you think they will? That people are so nervous that Trump gets reelected that it gets MORE people to turn out rather than less?

 

And before you point to Primaries as indicative of voter turnout, speaking for myself, I won't vote in the Primary this year because I know I will vote for whichever Democratic candidate is elected in November, when I will show up to cast my ballot.

 

I suspect I'm not alone in this sentiment.

[B-Man]

 

 

Democratic Presidential Clown Car Update for February 10, 2020. 

 

“Iowa screws everything up, the Bernie juggernaut gathers momentum, there was another debate, and Biden calls a voter a ‘lying dog-faced pony soldier’.”

 

 

 

 

[RochesterRob]

6 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You do understand why Democrats would naturally be nervous, regardless of any candidate on the ballot, right?

 

But nerves don't translate to who wins.

 

In fact, have you even considered that nerves could have the opposite effect you think they will? That people are so nervous that Trump gets reelected that it gets MORE people to turn out rather than less?

 

And before you point to Primaries as indicative of voter turnout, speaking for myself, I won't vote in the Primary this year because I know I will vote for whichever Democratic candidate is elected in November, when I will show up to cast my ballot.

 

I suspect I'm not alone in this sentiment.

  Not voting in your primary is foolish.  It's your chance to vote for the person who closest reflects your views/values.  It's also not only about the office of POTUS but everybody on down to your town supervisor, town clerk, etc.that may be primary'd in that year.  Quite often it matters a great deal to me who may be running for town supervisor or county judge.

Edited February 11, 2020 by RochesterRob