Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 277909 times)

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2350 on: February 29, 2020, 08:20:30 PM »
I predict Bloomberg does not get the Democratic nomination and runs as an independent.  I believe he has said he would support the eventual nominee, but I don't believe him on that point.  Just a gut feeling.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2351 on: February 29, 2020, 08:29:09 PM »
Tom Steyer dropped out.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2352 on: February 29, 2020, 09:35:39 PM »
Tom Steyer dropped out.

Not a huge surprise,  but nice to see the field narrowing down.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2353 on: March 01, 2020, 05:57:17 AM »
Do these people who "care about human rights" feel hypocritical focusing on Castro's past violations while fully supporting a government that is still keeping open an illegal prison of people (including children) kidnapped from around the world, held without hope of trial, who are beaten/tortured/raped/sexually humiliated/religiouly degraded/occasionally murdered?  A prison (ironically) located in Cuba?

Or supporting the same government's drone program - responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilian men, women, and children . . . and far more injuries/maimings.  Again, operating outside of international law, willfully violating the borders of other countries, recklessly endangering civilian life . . . because executing suspected terrorists apparently justifies any act?


Yeah, Castro did a lot of terrible things in the past while giving his people health care and education.  The US is currently still doing terrible things to folks while giving nothing back.  Authoritarianism is bad.  Democracy is certainly no guarantee of a moral government though . . . because it depends on the morality of it's people.

I'm not minimizing the evil of any of those things you mentioned. I'm not defending trump,  done strikes,  Guantanamo,  etc. They are wrong full stop.  The people here who are not criticizing and especially trying to defend Sanders statements are. They're supposed to be enlightened liberal types,  aren't they going to come out against all of these things? Can't they look past a candidate just because they like his policies and admit it?

Also I stand by authoritarianism as having a special place over and beyond the other things mentioned,  especially when the regime isbeing attempted to be justified by a person running for election for the highest office in the land. Democracy doesn't guarantee morality but at least it gives a peaceful way of voting out people that do these immoral things.

ETA: For example despite us disagreeing on almost everything, :-), I've appreciated your consistency on the drone strikes being wrong even when Obama did them.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 06:07:42 AM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2354 on: March 01, 2020, 06:47:54 AM »
Do these people who "care about human rights" feel hypocritical focusing on Castro's past violations while fully supporting a government that is still keeping open an illegal prison of people (including children) kidnapped from around the world, held without hope of trial, who are beaten/tortured/raped/sexually humiliated/religiouly degraded/occasionally murdered?  A prison (ironically) located in Cuba?

Or supporting the same government's drone program - responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilian men, women, and children . . . and far more injuries/maimings.  Again, operating outside of international law, willfully violating the borders of other countries, recklessly endangering civilian life . . . because executing suspected terrorists apparently justifies any act?


Yeah, Castro did a lot of terrible things in the past while giving his people health care and education.  The US is currently still doing terrible things to folks while giving nothing back.  Authoritarianism is bad.  Democracy is certainly no guarantee of a moral government though . . . because it depends on the morality of it's people.

The people here who are not criticizing and especially trying to defend Sanders statements are. They're supposed to be enlightened liberal types,  aren't they going to come out against all of these things? Can't they look past a candidate just because they like his policies and admit it?

Did Sanders defend the regimen or did he say they did some terrible things but there were a couple positive things they seem to have got right? Because from where I sit, you have a created a straw-man. You seem appalled that not everyone is just dismissing Sanders statement's outright. How about this. Did you know the Volkswagen Beetle wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Nazis? That's a pretty iconic car that is still sought after these days. Does that mean I am supporting the Nazi party? Hell no! I picked out a single positive anecdote. FYI, I am an independent and not a huge fan of Sanders.   


BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2355 on: March 01, 2020, 07:04:42 AM »
This is really turning out to be an interesting race.  Not shaping up the way I expected at all.

Personally, my top pick now would be Gabbard.  My second choice would be a toss up between Sanders and a Trump repeat.  I'm a hardcore NeverBloomberg and NeverWarren person now.  Biden scares me, he said some really stupid things while he was VP, but I shrugged it off then.  Unfortunately it has gotten worse and I wonder about his mental state.  The others still standing all seem like nice people, but basically clueless.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2356 on: March 01, 2020, 07:22:28 AM »
Do these people who "care about human rights" feel hypocritical focusing on Castro's past violations while fully supporting a government that is still keeping open an illegal prison of people (including children) kidnapped from around the world, held without hope of trial, who are beaten/tortured/raped/sexually humiliated/religiouly degraded/occasionally murdered?  A prison (ironically) located in Cuba?

Or supporting the same government's drone program - responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilian men, women, and children . . . and far more injuries/maimings.  Again, operating outside of international law, willfully violating the borders of other countries, recklessly endangering civilian life . . . because executing suspected terrorists apparently justifies any act?


Yeah, Castro did a lot of terrible things in the past while giving his people health care and education.  The US is currently still doing terrible things to folks while giving nothing back.  Authoritarianism is bad.  Democracy is certainly no guarantee of a moral government though . . . because it depends on the morality of it's people.

The people here who are not criticizing and especially trying to defend Sanders statements are. They're supposed to be enlightened liberal types,  aren't they going to come out against all of these things? Can't they look past a candidate just because they like his policies and admit it?

Did Sanders defend the regimen or did he say they did some terrible things but there were a couple positive things they seem to have got right? Because from where I sit, you have a created a straw-man. You seem appalled that not everyone is just dismissing Sanders statement's outright. How about this. Did you know the Volkswagen Beetle wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Nazis? That's a pretty iconic car that is still sought after these days. Does that mean I am supporting the Nazi party? Hell no! I picked out a single positive anecdote. FYI, I am an independent and not a huge fan of Sanders.

I guess I'm back to apparently irreconcilable differences between our points of view. Sanders said that the Cuban people didn't join a revolution against Castro and their government because the government improved healthcare. If you don't see the difference between simply saying the Volkswagen Beetle is a fun car that had some ties to the country when the Nazi regime was in power and the statement that Sanders made which implied the Cuban people were decently cool with the regime  because they had some decent healthcare, I really don't know how to help you, and I'm genuinely struggling to see how we're even reading the same thing. You accuse me of a straw man and then act like a vague appreciation of the Volkswagen Beetle is the same thing....lol. I'm at a loss.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15594
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2357 on: March 01, 2020, 08:55:20 AM »
Do these people who "care about human rights" feel hypocritical focusing on Castro's past violations while fully supporting a government that is still keeping open an illegal prison of people (including children) kidnapped from around the world, held without hope of trial, who are beaten/tortured/raped/sexually humiliated/religiouly degraded/occasionally murdered?  A prison (ironically) located in Cuba?

Or supporting the same government's drone program - responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilian men, women, and children . . . and far more injuries/maimings.  Again, operating outside of international law, willfully violating the borders of other countries, recklessly endangering civilian life . . . because executing suspected terrorists apparently justifies any act?


Yeah, Castro did a lot of terrible things in the past while giving his people health care and education.  The US is currently still doing terrible things to folks while giving nothing back.  Authoritarianism is bad.  Democracy is certainly no guarantee of a moral government though . . . because it depends on the morality of it's people.

The people here who are not criticizing and especially trying to defend Sanders statements are. They're supposed to be enlightened liberal types,  aren't they going to come out against all of these things? Can't they look past a candidate just because they like his policies and admit it?

Did Sanders defend the regimen or did he say they did some terrible things but there were a couple positive things they seem to have got right? Because from where I sit, you have a created a straw-man. You seem appalled that not everyone is just dismissing Sanders statement's outright. How about this. Did you know the Volkswagen Beetle wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Nazis? That's a pretty iconic car that is still sought after these days. Does that mean I am supporting the Nazi party? Hell no! I picked out a single positive anecdote. FYI, I am an independent and not a huge fan of Sanders.

I guess I'm back to apparently irreconcilable differences between our points of view. Sanders said that the Cuban people didn't join a revolution against Castro and their government because the government improved healthcare. If you don't see the difference between simply saying the Volkswagen Beetle is a fun car that had some ties to the country when the Nazi regime was in power and the statement that Sanders made which implied the Cuban people were decently cool with the regime  because they had some decent healthcare, I really don't know how to help you, and I'm genuinely struggling to see how we're even reading the same thing. You accuse me of a straw man and then act like a vague appreciation of the Volkswagen Beetle is the same thing....lol. I'm at a loss.

Why haven't the American people risen up against their government for the oppressive and unethical things that are currently being done in their name?

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2358 on: March 01, 2020, 10:14:21 AM »
I predict Bloomberg does not get the Democratic nomination and runs as an independent.  I believe he has said he would support the eventual nominee, but I don't believe him on that point.  Just a gut feeling.

That would not surprise me either. Also, it almost makes financial sense for Bloomberg to spend a couple billion on a presidential campaign in order to keep out a guy that wants to tax him $4.5 billion a year.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2359 on: March 01, 2020, 11:33:58 AM »
Folks calling for the moderates to rally around Biden (meaning Pete, Amy, maybe even Bloomberg would drop out), seem to missing something...

That would leave a race between two 78-year-olds. (or three 78-year-olds if Bloomy stayed in).

I mean, ANYTHING can happen on the campaign trail, and there's a lot of time and stress and nastiness between now and November. I mean, for sake of argument, let's say Biden had a stroke or a heart attack or something this month, but Pete, Amy, etc, had all bailed. What then? Do they jump back in to stop Bernie?

It just seems to be a different calculus when you have such old candidates.


Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2360 on: March 01, 2020, 11:46:33 AM »
Folks calling for the moderates to rally around Biden (meaning Pete, Amy, maybe even Bloomberg would drop out), seem to missing something...

That would leave a race between two 78-year-olds. (or three 78-year-olds if Bloomy stayed in).

I mean, ANYTHING can happen on the campaign trail, and there's a lot of time and stress and nastiness between now and November. I mean, for sake of argument, let's say Biden had a stroke or a heart attack or something this month, but Pete, Amy, etc, had all bailed. What then? Do they jump back in to stop Bernie?

It just seems to be a different calculus when you have such old candidates.

At this point, I think it’s either Sanders or Biden. So, we’re looking at two old dudes either way.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2361 on: March 01, 2020, 11:52:06 AM »
Folks calling for the moderates to rally around Biden (meaning Pete, Amy, maybe even Bloomberg would drop out), seem to missing something...

That would leave a race between two 78-year-olds. (or three 78-year-olds if Bloomy stayed in).

I mean, ANYTHING can happen on the campaign trail, and there's a lot of time and stress and nastiness between now and November. I mean, for sake of argument, let's say Biden had a stroke or a heart attack or something this month, but Pete, Amy, etc, had all bailed. What then? Do they jump back in to stop Bernie?

It just seems to be a different calculus when you have such old candidates.

At this point, I think it’s either Sanders or Biden. So, we’re looking at two old dudes either way.

Well, yeah it's looking that way, but if everyone jumps out of the race, leaving Biden one-on-one with Bernie, and then something happens to Biden, there's no Plan B. It just seems rash and unwise, again considering his age.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2362 on: March 01, 2020, 12:08:45 PM »
Well, yeah it's looking that way, but if everyone jumps out of the race, leaving Biden one-on-one with Bernie, and then something happens to Biden, there's no Plan B. It just seems rash and unwise, again considering his age.

By the end of March it may well be mathematically impossible for any candidate who is not Biden or Sanders to collect a majority of delegates. By Wednesday (after Super Tuesday) it may be effectively impossible to do so.

At that point I don't see the benefit of having an "understudy" candidate still in the race on either the far left side or the moderate left side. If something were to happen to either Sanders or Biden after super Tuesday, the realistic best case for people supporting candidates in the same lane would be to end up at a brokered convention where a replacement candidate is selected.

If anything, I think the optics of a democratic convention picking a former candidate with similar political positions to the candidate who won a purality of delegates (rather than whoever got the second most delegates) would be better than doing the same thing with an active candidate (skipping over whoever came in second to pick a candidate who came in fourth or fifth because they were politically closer to #1 who isn't able to run anymore).

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2363 on: March 01, 2020, 12:52:26 PM »
By the end of March it may well be mathematically impossible for any candidate who is not Biden or Sanders to collect a majority of delegates. By Wednesday (after Super Tuesday) it may be effectively impossible to do so.

It may also be impossible for Biden or Sanders, so at that point staying in gives the other candidates negotiating power at a brokered convention.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2364 on: March 01, 2020, 01:03:39 PM »
By the end of March it may well be mathematically impossible for any candidate who is not Biden or Sanders to collect a majority of delegates. By Wednesday (after Super Tuesday) it may be effectively impossible to do so.

It may also be impossible for Biden or Sanders, so at that point staying in gives the other candidates negotiating power at a brokered convention.

I agree that's a motivation to stay in. But that's a different argument from wanting to keep them in the race as replacements in case something happens to Sanders or Biden.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2365 on: March 01, 2020, 02:58:28 PM »
Quote
I mean, ANYTHING can happen on the campaign trail, and there's a lot of time and stress and nastiness between now and November. I mean, for sake of argument, let's say Biden had a stroke or a heart attack or something this month, but Pete, Amy, etc, had all bailed. What then? Do they jump back in to stop Bernie?

Well Bernie actually DID have a heart attack and that hasn't seemed to alter anything.  I'm not holding my breath to see his medical records.  It's either Bernie or Biden or Trump at this point.  It will be a 70-something year-old no matter what.  The other candidates staying in makes it more difficult for any of them to reach the 15% threshold.  They should drop out (but they won't).  I hope the Democrats refuse to give Bernie the nomination if he doesn't reach the required number of delegates.  He's made it clear over his career that he isn't a Democrat.  The Democrats should make that a two-way street.   

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2366 on: March 01, 2020, 04:18:35 PM »
Wow. Buttigieg is dropping out.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2367 on: March 01, 2020, 04:33:10 PM »
Oh man, I'm sorry, Pete people. I did not expect this.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2368 on: March 01, 2020, 04:34:59 PM »
Wow. Buttigieg is dropping out.

I wonder what Biden offered him to drop out BEFORE super Tuesday.

geekette

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1977
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2369 on: March 01, 2020, 05:09:39 PM »
Wow. Buttigieg is dropping out.

I wonder what Biden offered him to drop out BEFORE super Tuesday.
I'd take him as a VP to Biden. 

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2370 on: March 01, 2020, 05:19:14 PM »
I thought for sure Klobuchar would drop out before Buttigieg. Wow.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2371 on: March 01, 2020, 05:47:07 PM »
Too bad.  Pete was my favorite and I submitted my primary ballot too early.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2372 on: March 01, 2020, 06:14:47 PM »
Wow. Buttigieg is dropping out.
I wonder what Biden offered him to drop out BEFORE super Tuesday.
I'd take him as a VP to Biden.

I was thinking that, but that would put two white males on the Democratic ticket, and I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Secretary of State is my guess.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1567
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2373 on: March 01, 2020, 06:26:47 PM »
I thought you guys were pulling my leg.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/01/buttigieg-dropping-out-of-presidential-race-118489

I'm wondering about all the advertising from the 600 lb gorilla in the room who arrived late.  Will he be the one to pull the centrist votes that would have been Mayor Pete's?  We could be facing a real big surprise after Tuesday.  It could be billed as the "Battle of the New York Billionaires."

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2374 on: March 01, 2020, 06:27:52 PM »
Wow. Buttigieg is dropping out.
I wonder what Biden offered him to drop out BEFORE super Tuesday.
I'd take him as a VP to Biden.

I was thinking that, but that would put two white males on the Democratic ticket, and I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Secretary of State is my guess.

Should white and male disqualify someone?

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2375 on: March 01, 2020, 07:07:27 PM »
It's clear Buttigieg is taking the long view on his career and will probably get a comfy appointment should anyone but Sanders be nominated and win.

There is now a 37% chance of Sanders getting a plurality but not majority of the pledged delegates. Get your popcorn ready.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2376 on: March 01, 2020, 07:22:49 PM »
I was thinking that, but that would put two white males on the Democratic ticket, and I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Secretary of State is my guess.
Should white and male disqualify someone?

Should it, no. Does it, yes. See Bernie Sanders comments about his possible choices for VP as an example.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2377 on: March 01, 2020, 08:57:08 PM »
Too bad.  Pete was my favorite and I submitted my primary ballot too early.

I also submitted my primary ballot early for Pete, but in Michigan, you're allowed to get a new ballot to replace the submitted one in case the candidate drops out.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2378 on: March 01, 2020, 09:07:17 PM »

Why haven't the American people risen up against their government for the oppressive and unethical things that are currently being done in their name?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the question. If you mean why have the American people not risen up in revolution, I would say two reasons - one, it takes a whole heck of a lot for people to violently revolt against a country with actual democratic elections (and I know there's gerrymandering and different things, but different people legitimately have a chance to be elected). The other thing is the people who are experiencing the really bad stuff you mentioned have no or very little power - some are not even in this country.

If you're meaning why don't people stand up and vote against it in mass, the answers are myriad - from a my team/whataboutisim (i.e. Obama had cages, why can't Trump) to the people being so remote that it doesn't seem real to feeling other moral issues (i.e. abortion) trump those issues.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2221
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2379 on: March 02, 2020, 05:42:39 AM »

Personally, my top pick now would be Gabbard. 

Who? 

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3901
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2380 on: March 02, 2020, 06:12:43 AM »
The real reason people do not rise up in mass to protest, because they have jobs, lives, family members who depend on them to have a job and go to work every day. The only people who have the time, lack of responsibility and ability to do that are young energenic people who are not tied down yet, but still have a little disposable income. Most people want to keep their heads down and improve their personal situation as much as possible. Protesting doesn't help with that, and may actually undermine int. We have no-cause firing in the US. Remember the female biker who gave Trump's motorcade a middle finger, got fired (she did end up having a happy ending though).
« Last Edit: March 02, 2020, 07:09:48 AM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15594
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2381 on: March 02, 2020, 07:30:56 AM »

Why haven't the American people risen up against their government for the oppressive and unethical things that are currently being done in their name?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the question. If you mean why have the American people not risen up in revolution, I would say two reasons - one, it takes a whole heck of a lot for people to violently revolt against a country with actual democratic elections (and I know there's gerrymandering and different things, but different people legitimately have a chance to be elected). The other thing is the people who are experiencing the really bad stuff you mentioned have no or very little power - some are not even in this country.

If you're meaning why don't people stand up and vote against it in mass, the answers are myriad - from a my team/whataboutisim (i.e. Obama had cages, why can't Trump) to the people being so remote that it doesn't seem real to feeling other moral issues (i.e. abortion) trump those issues.

The real reason people do not rise up in mass to protest, because they have jobs, lives, family members who depend on them to have a job and go to work every day. The only people who have the time, lack of responsibility and ability to do that are young energenic people who are not tied down yet, but still have a little disposable income. Most people want to keep their heads down and improve their personal situation as much as possible. Protesting doesn't help with that, and may actually undermine int. We have no-cause firing in the US. Remember the female biker who gave Trump's motorcade a middle finger, got fired (she did end up having a happy ending though).


I was asking the question to try to demonstrate that there are a myriad of reasons why people don't revolt against their government.  Even though the US government is currently perpetrating human rights atrocities, it's also doing a combination of:
- enough stuff to keep enough of it's people happy that there's less incentive to revolt
- creating a punitive system so that people are afraid to revolt because of the personal cost


This carrot and stick approach typical of most governments to maintain power.  I don't agree with the assessment here:

Note, I didn't cut any of this out to make it sound worse in context (left the last sentence there). However, the last sentence in no way makes up for what is either absurdly naive/sheer idiocy at best, reprehensibly atrocious at worst. There's no two ways to look at this. Sanders implied that the reason there wasn't a groundswell of support to stop an invasion of Cuba was because of childhood education or healthcare? Oh my word. If he had said it was because it was an invasion and people don't tend to take kindly to being invaded regardless, it would have at least been a decent point. No, he acted like people just misrepresented the guy - Castro was this beloved leader who had made things so, so much better for everyone. NO! There wasn't political opposition of him or much if any opposition against him at all because he freakin' killed them or put them in labor camps. I don't make this analogy lightly, but this is an awful lot like someone who would say of a lady in an abusive relationship who didn't side against her abuser as, oh, well, people forget that the guy provides for her, brings her home money and buys her nice things, of course she wouldn't go against him. To make the argument in any way that there was not opposition to Castro, in a society where governmental dissenters were executed is abhorrent.

So no, there likely wasn't anything he could have said that would have satisfied the pundits. There shouldn't have been anything he could have said that would have satisfied anyone who actually cared about Cuba cares about human rights aside from a total and complete apology and explanation for why he made such a jacked up statement.

 . . . that the sole reason people in Cuba didn't rise up against Castro was fear of being killed, and that the carrot part of what he did played no part in his maintaining power.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that Castro's more populist policies helped to keep him in power.  Just as it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that the structure of the capitalist system in the US helps to cow into submission those who would otherwise fight.  Neither are the sole reason, but both are certainly contributors.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2382 on: March 02, 2020, 08:13:49 AM »
I was thinking that, but that would put two white males on the Democratic ticket, and I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Secretary of State is my guess.
Should white and male disqualify someone?

Should it, no. Does it, yes. See Bernie Sanders comments about his possible choices for VP as an example.

I don't think it's "disqualifying" per se. I think that the Democrats are just in a much tougher position than Republicans because they actually have to represent and enthuse people of all races to come out and vote for them, and it's hard to say that you're "representing" someone when you have exclusively people in leadership who are not like them and haven't shared some of the same struggles.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2020, 08:18:32 AM by sherr »

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2383 on: March 02, 2020, 09:02:14 AM »
I was thinking that, but that would put two white males on the Democratic ticket, and I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Secretary of State is my guess.
Should white and male disqualify someone?

Should it, no. Does it, yes. See Bernie Sanders comments about his possible choices for VP as an example.

I don't think it's "disqualifying" per se. I think that the Democrats are just in a much tougher position than Republicans because they actually have to represent and enthuse people of all races to come out and vote for them, and it's hard to say that you're "representing" someone when you have exclusively people in leadership who are not like them and haven't shared some of the same struggles.

So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2384 on: March 02, 2020, 09:09:28 AM »
Candidates have always chosen their running mates based on demographics that they think will give them an advantage with communities they themselves are weak on. This is no surprise, and I'm not sure workplace discrimination criteria are really applicable. Is it good or bad? I don't know. But it is.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2385 on: March 02, 2020, 09:10:38 AM »
So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

I don't disagree with you, and hopefully one day it will be that way. But for now, the Iron Chancellor's words ring true:
Quote
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”
― Otto von Bismarck

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2386 on: March 02, 2020, 09:46:28 AM »
Pete had no special appeal outside of being the only moderate candidate in the race without a major liability/flaw.


Biden & Klobuchar both lose their shit on stage in different ways.

Biden has a habit of trailing off on unrelated tangents where he begins to spout off a bunch of what could accurately be described as, ironically, malarkey. And you really don't know that he's NOT going to use a noun like chinaman or an adjective like cotton picking.

When Klobuchar is forced to answer a question too far outside of her comfort zone of retelling the hilarious twitter zing she hit Trump with, she stammers, shakes, and desperately relies on friendly crowds so she can get back to her folksy talking points.

They're both campaigning as if our problems are the same ones we faced a decade ago, except with the addition of Trump in the white house. Why will the results of the 2020 election be any different than 2016?

Ultimately their candidacies represent a plastering over of problems that still loom large in Trump country, and don't address other more real problems either such as continued growth of deficit spending, continued growth of the military industrial complex, etc.  Mayor Pete at least had the background and vocabulary to suggest he could approach these issues from the perspective of a compassionate, young, competent, Midwestern military vet as opposed to a dusty insider going through the same tired motions of running a primary campaign.

Bloomberg doesn't have a chance for obvious reasons.

Warren might theoretically be a good compromise candidate but she's too extreme for the moderates and too moderate for the extremes.

No matter what the DNC throws at Bernie this time he will win and then Trump will get reelected because Bernie is too associated with that other kind of socialism that Americans really really don't like.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2387 on: March 02, 2020, 09:58:24 AM »
I was thinking that, but that would put two white males on the Democratic ticket, and I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Secretary of State is my guess.
Should white and male disqualify someone?

Should it, no. Does it, yes. See Bernie Sanders comments about his possible choices for VP as an example.

I don't think it's "disqualifying" per se. I think that the Democrats are just in a much tougher position than Republicans because they actually have to represent and enthuse people of all races to come out and vote for them, and it's hard to say that you're "representing" someone when you have exclusively people in leadership who are not like them and haven't shared some of the same struggles.

So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

When congress is still 76% male, is it really that bad to say "hey, we have plenty of qualified female candidates. We need more representation at the top so that we can attract a more diverse field of candidates to run for office"

What is politics but looking at the vote totals and power that comes with a certain person? And the greatest vote totals for democrats come when you provide greater representation. For republicans it typically comes by choosing a WASP from middle America.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2388 on: March 02, 2020, 10:04:25 AM »
Then again all 3 female VP/POTUS candidates have lost their elections so....

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2389 on: March 02, 2020, 10:12:10 AM »
Candidates have always chosen their running mates based on demographics that they think will give them an advantage with communities they themselves are weak on. This is no surprise, and I'm not sure workplace discrimination criteria are really applicable. Is it good or bad? I don't know. But it is.

Well, it's definitely bad when they make sure NOT to run a minority candidate in order to keep the bigots happy and voting.

And it's probably bad when the candidate reeks of tokenism.

But it's probably good if a minority candidate organically develops a fan/voter base that corresponds to their identity.

And then of course there's basic marketing, that would favor a name like, for example, Barack Obama over a name like Gary Johnson. Barack Obama just sounds new and exciting, even if the politics of Gary Johnson are far more unusual or exotic than Obama's.




v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2390 on: March 02, 2020, 10:21:21 AM »
I was thinking that, but that would put two white males on the Democratic ticket, and I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Secretary of State is my guess.
Should white and male disqualify someone?

Should it, no. Does it, yes. See Bernie Sanders comments about his possible choices for VP as an example.

I don't think it's "disqualifying" per se. I think that the Democrats are just in a much tougher position than Republicans because they actually have to represent and enthuse people of all races to come out and vote for them, and it's hard to say that you're "representing" someone when you have exclusively people in leadership who are not like them and haven't shared some of the same struggles.

So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

When congress is still 76% male, is it really that bad to say "hey, we have plenty of qualified female candidates. We need more representation at the top so that we can attract a more diverse field of candidates to run for office"

What is politics but looking at the vote totals and power that comes with a certain person? And the greatest vote totals for democrats come when you provide greater representation. For republicans it typically comes by choosing a WASP from middle America.

I realize that choosing a female over male is not a great example since females are under represented in politics and so strategically choosing a female as a VP is a win-win.  But to illustrate my point go down the Buttigieg path with me.  Let's say the Russians hack nominee Biden's e-mail and there's a train of e-mails that surfaces discussing VP choice.  Let's say it comes out that Buttigieg was not chosen because the Biden team determined that Pete's sexual orientation would hurt their vote count in the South (not sure if that would even be true, but just play along).  Is there outrage?  Is it just politics?  Do people say, "Candidates have always chosen their running mates based on demographics so it's OK"? 

In my eyes it's the year 2020, there should no position filled based on anything other than the best suited person for the job... regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or "strategy".  But yet, for some reason it is the same people who openly discriminate when it comes to picking the VP of the USA that would be up in arms if they heard of discrimination in any other workplace.  Is this just another example of politicians getting to live by a different set of rules than the rest of us?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2391 on: March 02, 2020, 10:26:05 AM »

Why haven't the American people risen up against their government for the oppressive and unethical things that are currently being done in their name?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the question. If you mean why have the American people not risen up in revolution, I would say two reasons - one, it takes a whole heck of a lot for people to violently revolt against a country with actual democratic elections (and I know there's gerrymandering and different things, but different people legitimately have a chance to be elected). The other thing is the people who are experiencing the really bad stuff you mentioned have no or very little power - some are not even in this country.

If you're meaning why don't people stand up and vote against it in mass, the answers are myriad - from a my team/whataboutisim (i.e. Obama had cages, why can't Trump) to the people being so remote that it doesn't seem real to feeling other moral issues (i.e. abortion) trump those issues.

The real reason people do not rise up in mass to protest, because they have jobs, lives, family members who depend on them to have a job and go to work every day. The only people who have the time, lack of responsibility and ability to do that are young energenic people who are not tied down yet, but still have a little disposable income. Most people want to keep their heads down and improve their personal situation as much as possible. Protesting doesn't help with that, and may actually undermine int. We have no-cause firing in the US. Remember the female biker who gave Trump's motorcade a middle finger, got fired (she did end up having a happy ending though).


I was asking the question to try to demonstrate that there are a myriad of reasons why people don't revolt against their government.  Even though the US government is currently perpetrating human rights atrocities, it's also doing a combination of:
- enough stuff to keep enough of it's people happy that there's less incentive to revolt
- creating a punitive system so that people are afraid to revolt because of the personal cost


This carrot and stick approach typical of most governments to maintain power.  I don't agree with the assessment here:

Note, I didn't cut any of this out to make it sound worse in context (left the last sentence there). However, the last sentence in no way makes up for what is either absurdly naive/sheer idiocy at best, reprehensibly atrocious at worst. There's no two ways to look at this. Sanders implied that the reason there wasn't a groundswell of support to stop an invasion of Cuba was because of childhood education or healthcare? Oh my word. If he had said it was because it was an invasion and people don't tend to take kindly to being invaded regardless, it would have at least been a decent point. No, he acted like people just misrepresented the guy - Castro was this beloved leader who had made things so, so much better for everyone. NO! There wasn't political opposition of him or much if any opposition against him at all because he freakin' killed them or put them in labor camps. I don't make this analogy lightly, but this is an awful lot like someone who would say of a lady in an abusive relationship who didn't side against her abuser as, oh, well, people forget that the guy provides for her, brings her home money and buys her nice things, of course she wouldn't go against him. To make the argument in any way that there was not opposition to Castro, in a society where governmental dissenters were executed is abhorrent.

So no, there likely wasn't anything he could have said that would have satisfied the pundits. There shouldn't have been anything he could have said that would have satisfied anyone who actually cared about Cuba cares about human rights aside from a total and complete apology and explanation for why he made such a jacked up statement.

 . . . that the sole reason people in Cuba didn't rise up against Castro was fear of being killed, and that the carrot part of what he did played no part in his maintaining power.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that Castro's more populist policies helped to keep him in power.  Just as it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that the structure of the capitalist system in the US helps to cow into submission those who would otherwise fight.  Neither are the sole reason, but both are certainly contributors.

The real reason people do not rise up in mass to protest, because they have jobs, lives, family members who depend on them to have a job and go to work every day. The only people who have the time, lack of responsibility and ability to do that are young energenic people who are not tied down yet, but still have a little disposable income. Most people want to keep their heads down and improve their personal situation as much as possible. Protesting doesn't help with that, and may actually undermine int. We have no-cause firing in the US. Remember the female biker who gave Trump's motorcade a middle finger, got fired (she did end up having a happy ending though).

Yes, general life and providing for your family are a tremendous impediment to doing something as crazy as armed revolution. And there are multiple reasons why people didn't do it there or in the U.S. However, if you listen to people in Cuba, the regime was certainly more than just one more reason. In the midst of this conversation, I received a PM from someone who had parents in Cuba during the revolution and left afterwards. They described a systematic culture of fear where if kids in school mentioned that their parents were counter-revolutionary the parents would be imprisoned. Any situation where that is the reality, and I'm sorry but bringing up healthcare or general life as a reason why people don't revolt (especially when it's the only reason brought up such as in the Sanders interview)...it's obscuring the facts.

I go back to my person in an abusive situation. If I were to say, well, what the abuser is doing is not all bad; they are bringing home money and buying the person things, so that's definitely a reason why the victim doesn't leave, I would be legitimately shamed for such an abhorrent stance. I'm not saying that Bernie is a dictator in the making. I'm saying he's running for president, and when you do that, it's fair as a constituent to try to see how they're going to govern if they get in. Maybe Bernie wouldn't do the things that Trump is doing in terms of overstepping constitutional authority and violating the rule of law. However, I don't think it's too much to ask to try to find someone who doesn't say stupid crap like this that seems to imply they don't really appreciate the negatives of authoritarianism. We've already have one guy who doesn't give a crap in office. I'd prefer to not have another.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15594
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2392 on: March 02, 2020, 10:26:50 AM »
I was thinking that, but that would put two white males on the Democratic ticket, and I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Secretary of State is my guess.
Should white and male disqualify someone?

Should it, no. Does it, yes. See Bernie Sanders comments about his possible choices for VP as an example.

I don't think it's "disqualifying" per se. I think that the Democrats are just in a much tougher position than Republicans because they actually have to represent and enthuse people of all races to come out and vote for them, and it's hard to say that you're "representing" someone when you have exclusively people in leadership who are not like them and haven't shared some of the same struggles.

So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

When congress is still 76% male, is it really that bad to say "hey, we have plenty of qualified female candidates. We need more representation at the top so that we can attract a more diverse field of candidates to run for office"

What is politics but looking at the vote totals and power that comes with a certain person? And the greatest vote totals for democrats come when you provide greater representation. For republicans it typically comes by choosing a WASP from middle America.

I realize that choosing a female over male is not a great example since females are under represented in politics and so strategically choosing a female as a VP is a win-win.  But to illustrate my point go down the Buttigieg path with me.  Let's say the Russians hack nominee Biden's e-mail and there's a train of e-mails that surfaces discussing VP choice.  Let's say it comes out that Buttigieg was not chosen because the Biden team determined that Pete's sexual orientation would hurt their vote count in the South (not sure if that would even be true, but just play along).  Is there outrage?  Is it just politics?  Do people say, "Candidates have always chosen their running mates based on demographics so it's OK"? 

In my eyes it's the year 2020, there should no position filled based on anything other than the best suited person for the job... regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or "strategy".  But yet, for some reason it is the same people who openly discriminate when it comes to picking the VP of the USA that would be up in arms if they heard of discrimination in any other workplace.  Is this just another example of politicians getting to live by a different set of rules than the rest of us?

It's acutally because of us that politicians make these decisions.  As long as voters for a party care about race, gender, and sexual orientation politicians will make decisions based on the same.  If they don't, they'll be replaced with the more successful politicians who do.
 That's why democrats tend to try to elect more women, gay people, and folks of different minorities . . . and why Republicans are quite uniformly white, christian, male, and (at least openly) hetero.  It's what the people want in the candidates they elect.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2393 on: March 02, 2020, 10:33:48 AM »
"Positive" discrimination like affirmative action has not yet been fleshed out in terms of whether or not it's beneficial, or even acceptable.  The problem with affirmative action is that it compromises against the prior hierarchy; namely competence.  There is a compromise occurring.  Harvard discriminates AGAINST Asians because their attendance is too great.  Do you care about the intersectionality of your surgeon, for instance?

I think the dems have chosen to wear identity politics as their albatross and now it's coming back to bite them, with a pair of rich old white men as their leading candidates.  Alienating their more progressive base.  Compromise seems to be the dem's blind spot.  Promoting inclusion is great but it gets messy when it's actively pursued.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2394 on: March 02, 2020, 11:09:05 AM »
So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

Would you say the same for religion too?

Trump chose Pence as a running mate not because of some incredible qualifications that Pence had that no one else did, but because he wanted to have an Evangelical on the ticket to win over conservative Evangelicals who might otherwise be queasy about Trump's obvious immorality. Same difference, different population.

I would argue that Republicans lean into identity politics way harder than Democrats do, they're just more dishonest about calling it that. How many Republicans are openly gunning for a (conservative Evangelical) Christian theocracy?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2020, 11:14:44 AM by sherr »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15594
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2395 on: March 02, 2020, 11:41:46 AM »
"Positive" discrimination like affirmative action has not yet been fleshed out in terms of whether or not it's beneficial, or even acceptable.  The problem with affirmative action is that it compromises against the prior hierarchy; namely competence.

This assumes that before affirmative action people were chosen based on competence.  I'm pretty sure a strong case can be made against that statement.[/quote]

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2396 on: March 02, 2020, 11:50:42 AM »
And Amy is out. Will endorse Biden.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2397 on: March 02, 2020, 11:53:36 AM »
Amy Klobuchar just dropped out.  Looks like the moderates can coalesce around Biden and Warren can continue to drain Sander's support. 

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2398 on: March 02, 2020, 11:53:42 AM »
So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

Would you say the same for religion too?

Trump chose Pence as a running mate not because of some incredible qualifications that Pence had that no one else did, but because he wanted to have an Evangelical on the ticket to win over conservative Evangelicals who might otherwise be queasy about Trump's obvious immorality. Same difference, different population.

I would argue that Republicans lean into identity politics way harder than Democrats do, they're just more dishonest about calling it that. How many Republicans are openly gunning for a (conservative Evangelical) Christian theocracy?

Yes. Same for religion.  Not saying this is a one sided issue.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2399 on: March 02, 2020, 12:02:43 PM »
So the candidate would be strategically choosing someone for position (VP) based on their race, age and gender?  Do you know what that's called in any other workplace?   What if the president of a company strategically chose a male VP instead of a female VP due to concerns that she might get pregnant?  Or what if Biden did not choose Buttigeg as his VP because strategically his sexual orientation might hurt him for votes in the south?

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky, but a party or candidate should not be making ANY choices based on race age or gender, no matter how strategic it or "for the greater good" it might be.

Would you say the same for religion too?

Trump chose Pence as a running mate not because of some incredible qualifications that Pence had that no one else did, but because he wanted to have an Evangelical on the ticket to win over conservative Evangelicals who might otherwise be queasy about Trump's obvious immorality. Same difference, different population.

I would argue that Republicans lean into identity politics way harder than Democrats do, they're just more dishonest about calling it that. How many Republicans are openly gunning for a (conservative Evangelical) Christian theocracy?

Yes. Same for religion.  Not saying this is a one sided issue.

Okay. I guess then our difference in opinion is that I'm not sure it's really an "issue" at all, it simply "is". I think that it's certainly possible to go too far, and that that would be an issue, but I don't have a problem with the situation right now.