Who should challenge Trump in 2020? - Part 1

[Schlosser85]

The evangelicals and Trump's hardcore base have proven they have no moral standards whatsoever. I don't know what more they have to say or do to make that any clearer than they already have.

 

[MaceB]

I feel like it's important to hammer that point home though. If the next election is guided in any way by family values, then I'll be disappointed. They've used that card, and now I hope that means they'll lose that card. They can't just keep whipping it out all the time.

Don't tell me gay people can't adopt babies when your role model for children is a guy who pays prostitutes to shut up. They can't have it both ways. Well, they can... but we shouldn't let them.

 

[Hypestyle]

I feel like it's important to hammer that point home though. If the next election is guided in any way by family values, then I'll be disappointed. They've used that card, and now I hope that means they'll lose that card. They can't just keep whipping it out all the time.

Don't tell me gay people can't adopt babies when your role model for children is a guy who pays prostitutes to shut up. They can't have it both ways. Well, they can... but we shouldn't let them.

with books being released like The Faith of Donald Trump, I suspect the most ardent of his base just don't care and they've just chosen to be defiantly ignorant in support of this man..

 

[Aximili86]

That's always how it goes though, it's not like previous Democratic eras haven't been dealing with the same thing from within, the Bubbas and John Edwards cluster****s. Seems pretty funny to aim that as GOP guys alone - it's a matter of powerful people abusing power, not where they sit on the ideological line.

 

[MaceB]

Huh? I'm sorry... you're arguing that Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans at using The Bible to justify their bigoted policies? That's not true.... at all.

Evangelicals tarred and feathered the Obamas and the Clintons for years... but they are now totally cool with a multimillionaire who pays his ****es to shut their mouths. And which side are the Evangelicals on? Oh... the conservative side... that's right.... because the truth is that their religion isn't as important to them as liberal tears.

Whenever in doubt, let's just pretend that both sides are equally bad. That'll make life easier. Please.

 

[Herofan]

Evangelicals tarred and feathered the Obamas and the Clintons for years...

They criticized Obama for mandating that employers, including religious employers, provide employees with birth control and some did for not being pro-Israel enough, though they were passionately upset about those issues I don't think they attacked his ethics or character in general.

but they are now totally cool with a multimillionaire who pays his ****es to shut their mouths. And which side are the Evangelicals on? Oh... the conservative side...

What do you think they should do in response to the more-conservative candidate having had affairs, not vote in a presidential election or afterward demand he resign? (Or there's a third option, vote for the liberal candidate?) Those first two responses actually probably are the appropriate response for a principled person but demanding they do so is asking quite a lot.

 

[MaceB]

They criticized Obama for mandating that employers, including religious employers, provide employees with birth control and some did for not being pro-Israel enough, though they were passionately upset about those issues I don't think they attacked his ethics or character in general.

Evangelicals called Obama the anti-christ. They burned him in effigy. They said that he was a secret muslim. They said his minister wasn't of God. They called him a secret athiest. The criticized him for going to a black church. They insinuated that Michelle was a man. They literally said on multiple occasions that the end times and the horseman of the Apocalypse were coming because of Obama. The idea that Evangelicals hated Obama purely based on his policies is rich..
And the Clintons? My goodness.... it was all family values talk! How can we trust a man who breaks the bonds of marriage? He's a philanderer, a sex addict, a bad role model for children.

What do you think they should do in response to the more-conservative candidate having had affairs, not vote in a presidential election or afterward demand he resign? (Or there's a third option, vote for the liberal candidate?) Those first two responses actually probably are the appropriate response for a principled person but demanding they do so is asking quite a lot.

I'd like them to vote on their principles and actually support candidates that push Evangelical values... things like helping the poor, protecting the planet, taking care of children and elderly, promoting a soft power foreign policy. They can't do that though, because the liberal position IS the Christian position. They're more interested in culture wars. If it doesn't have to do with abortion (never mentioned in The Bible) or guns (live by the sword, die by the sword according to The Bible), they aren't honestly interested. The Bible stuff is just a dog and pony show that they use to convince the rubes...

 

[Herofan]

Evangelicals called Obama the anti-christ. They burned him in effigy. They said that he was a secret muslim. They said his minister wasn't of God. They called him a secret athiest. The criticized him for going to a black church. They insinuated that Michelle was a man. They literally said on multiple occasions that the end times and the horseman of the Apocalypse were coming because of Obama.

I'd like some support for the claim that many of them either thought or expressed those crazy ideas.

And the Clintons? My goodness.... it was all family values talk! How can we trust a man who breaks the bonds of marriage? He's a philanderer, a sex addict, a bad role model for children.

Yeah, with the Clintons it was pretty personal disdain.

I'd like them to vote on their principles and actually support candidates that push Evangelical values... things like helping the poor, protecting the planet, taking care of children and elderly, promoting a soft power foreign policy. They can't do that though, because the liberal position IS the Christian position.

I would imagine most would say we already are helping the poor (though not very effectively) and taking care of children and the elderly. And believe that we should protect the planet but without reducing employment.

 

[MaceB]

I'd like some support for the claim that many of them either thought or expressed those crazy ideas.

What kind of evidence would suffice? News articles? Videos? There's no poll of course. But if a good amount were against that rhetoric, they certainly didn't speak up against it very loudly.

Yeah, with the Clintons it was pretty personal disdain.

But none for President Trump, who paid a prostitute to shut up about having an affair with him while his 3rd wife, a foreigner, was pregnant with his child. And let's not forget.. he lied about. Isn't that weird that there's no outrage over that? Nope, not weird at all. Predictable. Again, Evangelicals care about the culture wars: abortion and guns. All this family value stuff is just a smoke screen.

I would imagine most would say we already are helping the poor (though not very effectively) and taking care of children and the elderly. And believe that we should protect the planet but without reducing employment.

Not really...on the poor - they vote in a guy who's major philosophy comes from Ayn Rand, who says that entitlements are just helping "the takers." They openly argue that people being on food stamps is a bad thing. They advocate for higher taxes for the poor. They try to defund programs designed to help the poor, because we can't afford it... but we can afford a gigantic military apparently.
On taking care of children - they dismantled Obamacare, advocated that we shouldn't help refugees, advocated that homosexuals shouldn't have children, and defund maternity programs.... cause you know... ****s.
Protecting the planet - several Evangelical conservatives have mentioned how the End of Days would be good. The conservative Evangelical EPA head says global climate change isn't man made, and that oil was given to us from God to use. They actively vote in supporters of dirty fuels.

Talk is cheap, and that's all Evangelical voters are these days. They say they are in favor of these things sure... they don't want to think of themselves as monsters.. but their actions and the people they support are incompatible with their faith. If their faith were actually important to them, they'd be progressives.

 

[redhawk23]

I'd like some support for the claim that many of them either thought or expressed those crazy ideas.

"Please present to me the entirety of a decade's worth of political rhetoric from half the country. I've lived under a rock since the Bush administration."

Actually the crazy thing is, there actually WERE polls done. Upwards of 40% of Republicans and 29% of Americans overall of believed that Obama was a Muslim as late as 2015.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-obama-is-a-muslim/?utm_term=.835aa68d733e

 

[Ouch]

That's always how it goes though, it's not like previous Democratic eras haven't been dealing with the same thing from within, the Bubbas and John Edwards cluster****s. Seems pretty funny to aim that as GOP guys alone - it's a matter of powerful people abusing power, not where they sit on the ideological line.

The difference is when Democrats do it, there are consequences. John Edwards political career is over. Al Franken's political career is over. When news of Eric Schnidermann's misdeeds came out, he was gone that very night. Bill Clinton could not win the Democratic nomination today. Yet you look at the Republicans, and Donald Trump is President. Eric Greitens is still Missouri Governor, The only sort of scandal that has toppled conservative politicians is if it involves homosexual activities.



So no, it's not that Democrats have not done bad things, it's that for Democrats there have been consequences.

 

[Silvermoth]

I’ve got to say, it’s been years and no one is really reaching ahead in that poll in this thread

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I’ve got to say, it’s been years and no one is really reaching ahead in that poll in this thread

Obama was hardly the most well known political figure in the country around the times of the midterms in W.'s first term either though.

 

[Aximili86]

Yeah, but none of the young Democratic upstarts around now are exactly on Obama's level of future potential. Dude was like Bill Clinton levels of charismatic even back in '04, there's no one like that in the party at the moment, that's a once-a-generation thing.

 

[Silvermoth]

Yeah it’s going to take a bit more searching. But I guess we shouldn’t just keep trying to find obamas. There might be someone really good who’s really different. Let’s be honest, it’s not 2008 anymore and the world is very different

 

[MaceB]

It should be about principles and not about personalities. Bernie gave us the blueprint on how to win... just stay focused on the issues and don't let the media drag you into a popularity contest.

Democrats are right on the issues, but lacking in the bombastic personality department. That's fine... pimp what you are good at, and don't try to be what you're not.

 

[Aximili86]

It should be about principles and not about personalities.

*Bursts out laughing*

And over here, in Realityville...

 

[SV Fan]

It should be about principles and not about personalities. Bernie gave us the blueprint on how to win... just stay focused on the issues and don't let the media drag you into a popularity contest.

Democrats are right on the issues, but lacking in the bombastic personality department. That's fine... pimp what you are good at, and don't try to be what you're not.

At times it's frustrating watching Dems just sit and care to much how something polls. I will give credit to many Republicans who won't care about polling and will double down on stuff.

One time recently this stood out for me is when Clinton was quoted out of context how she wants to get coal miners out of coal mining jobs and instead of doubling down on that statement and putting context to it(ie she wants to bring programs to those areas that will train them in newer jobs) she basically just went silent hoping the issue would pass.

It's a basic case even if you don't win that coal miner vote I think speaking of your policy will make people elsewhere say hey that is a good idea.

 

[MaceB]

*Bursts out laughing*

And over here, in Realityville...

That's cute. Insightful response.

At times it's frustrating watching Dems just sit and care to much how something polls. I will give credit to many Republicans who won't care about polling and will double down on stuff.

One time recently this stood out for me is when Clinton was quoted out of context how she wants to get coal miners out of coal mining jobs and instead of doubling down on that statement and putting context to it(ie she wants to bring programs to those areas that will train them in newer jobs) she basically just went silent hoping the issue would pass.

It's a basic case even if you don't win that coal miner vote I think speaking of your policy will make people elsewhere say hey that is a good idea.

It is so frustrating. That's a perfect example of a Democrat being right on the issues, but too afraid to actually advocate for them. It happens over and over. I like to say that the stereotypes are roughly true... Republicans are a$$ho*#s and Democrats are pus$*#s. The problem is that regardless of which side you're on... you're gonna get f&*ck#d.

Democrats need to realize that it's not about them... it's about the issues. Bernie showed us how this can work. We don't care about Hillary or Bill or Obama... we care about clean drinking water, well kept schools, a fair justice system... etc, etc, etc. If they could just stay on the issues, they'll win. If they try to go toe to toe with Trump on personality... it's hard to say what will happen.

 

[Aximili86]

"Right" on the issues is subjective though. The other half of the country thinks the GOP's right.

Who determines objectivity in a country split 50/50 down the middle? The whole point of democract is consensus, they edged you guys out with the electoral system, way it's always been.

 

[MaceB]

Common sense determines it. The world is warming. There is a scientific consensus on that issue. There aren't two equally right sides to that coin.

Once you dissect conservative policies... most of them are like that. They're all based on self interest and not the common good.


It's up to Democrats to stand at the podium and say that.

 

[SV Fan]

"Right" on the issues is subjective though. The other half of the country thinks the GOP's right.

Problem is if you poll on an issue by issue basis, stuff Dems claim they stand for generally polls better(gun control, raising min wage, government helping the public improve stuff, funding planned parenthood, etc)

 

[Aximili86]

And that's fine. But they voted a GOP guy in, with the system we've always used. Individual policies polling better doesn't mean much, when the big overall picture went the other way.

And Mace, the thing with "common sense" is that's subjective in a way too. Rednecks screaming for the wall call it "common sense", the same way hardcore-lefty Portlandites think legalizing every substance out there is "common sense". Different strokes for different folks, they're all equal in terms of that.

 

[MaceB]

No one is debating whether Trump won or not.. that's not the conversation at hand. The conversation at hand is how the Democrats can beat him in 2020, and they can do that by sticking to the issues, because that's where they win.

The best example is Obamacare. When you dissect the actual policy choices of Obamacare, people like it. They like it because it's common sense that if we pool together, we can reduce cost. It's common sense that pre-existing conditions should go away. It's obvious that everyone should have the right to affordable care. However... when Republicans turn it into a popularity contest by branding it with Obama's name.. then they get the upper hand. Democrats can't let them do that in 2020 if they want to win.

And yes, of course there are some issues that are up for debate... and those issues can be debated on. But there are many many issues in which Democrats are prima facia "right" on.
Global climate change - no debate. Scientific consensus.
Debt and infrastructure - no debate. Everyone wants infrastructure spending and Democrats historically are the best on handling the debt.
Increasing taxes on the wealthy - no debate. Economic experts agree that lower class stimulus gives greater returns.
The Assault Rifles Ban - no debate. Only ammophiles believe that Assault Rifles are sacrosanct.

Those are just some of the few policy issues in which all the experts agree. And yeah... there will be some Republicans so lost in the conservative echo chamber, that they'll never agree. But Democrats shouldn't run away from their positions because of those people. Those people should run away because they're wrong. And it's up to Democrats to stand their ground and to show that. Typically, Democrats are so afraid of their own shadow, that they run away at the first sign of the minority disagreeing with them.

 

[Aximili86]

Some of that's true, like climate change. Thing is, the debate seems to be on what we should do about it. The same scientists asserting it's a thing (the vast majority) also say that every car turning electric immediately, best case scenario, is only going to drop emissions overall by 1%.

So there's still a debate there. Do you spend tens of billions, a trillion, whatever it'd be, to completely ditch fossil fuels (not just cars but the works) knowing it'll only have a marginal effect and it might be too late?

"Common sense" on that would dictate no, no you don't. Among people who believe in global warming being a threat.

But surely "common sense" on the data there is wrong too, because we should at least try, right? Even in the face of "data-wise the same studies backing global warming are also skeptical we can do much", you still go green anyway.

It's more complicated than you're making it out to be.