Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?
She's in my top 3. Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.
Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential. One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three). She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.
Andrew Yang seems sane, too. And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.
However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative. It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.
If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.
Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.
What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.
What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*
Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.
That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.
Uhh if you took that personally, that's on you. Cause you aren't even in that message chain.
The difference between Trump and a Biden/Bernie/ basically anyone else, is that the Dem candidates have read the constitution. Heck Obama was a constitutional scholar. But if you want a president that will be the most reserved, and undo some of the dictatorial powers that basically Reagan onward have been adding to, Bernie is your man. Bernie is one of the few that voted not to go to war. Bernie has been a long time Senator, and knows that there is far more power in long-term legislation than anything he can do with executive power.
If congress passes a student debt relief bill, then what? That just means you're in the minority opinion of the general populace. When looking for a president, the real power they have is:
1. who will they appoint to their cabinet and courts
2. how will they behave on the international stage
3. do they have the temperament for foreign negotiations
4. do they respect the constitution and have a willingness to execute laws that they themselves may not even personally like.
Trump in my mind fails all these, a Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc. all would make much better choices in these categories.
Legislation preferences and such is all fluff.
Uhhh...if you don't want people to take it personally, perhaps you should say what you mean (see what you said bolded and underlined above). You didn't say people in this message chain or conservatives in general. You specifically called out conservatives in this thread. This thread generally means this topic on the message board as best as I understand it. Furthermore, I am the one who specifically started this latest round of talks, as a conservative who is talking about voting for a moderate, so it's even less of a stretch to feel included in your generalization. Again, perhaps you should say what you mean or even better, don't generalize and don't assume what posters are actually going to do and accuse them of being disingenuous.
Since you didn't actually respond to what I said about why I feel that way, I'm not going to respond to yours except, it's certainly your prerogative to feel that "Legislation preferences and such is all fluff"...suffice it to say I don't feel that way.
Dude. Very simply, if you are going to vote for someone like Biden in both the primary and general election, then what I said wasn't directed at you. I didn't say all conservatives everywhere and especially in this thread are guilty of x.
Very simply, there are a number of conservatives that will comment and push for a candidate like Biden, but even if Biden wins, will still vote for Trump. I don't blame people for playing this game, but it makes for disingenuous conversation. Again, if that's not you, then I wasn't talking about you.
I didn't respond because I don't consider myself a liberal, nor was I ever directing what I said to you. So if that was just a semi-veiled insult at me, then the only one being a jerk here is you.
So here is the English lesson for you.
What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala
conservatives is the subject
and the 'that' clause is the 'adjective clause' to define "what kind of conservative" I'm talking about.
You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time.
You obviously felt that that 'adjective clause' didn't apply to you yet still took it personally. So I'm not sure why you thought I was attacking you?
You seem to take my statement as a blatant attack on all conservatives
noun: bunch - a number of things, typically of the same kind
ie not 'all' but 'a lot'.
I'm being a jerk......seriously? Your continued persistence lead me to re-read our entire dialogue. Let me recap:
You make an antagonistic and comment about conservatives being disingenuous. This is an extremely insulting assertion to make on an internet forum. No one knows anyone here. We have to take people at face value unless they prove otherwise, or what is the point of actual discussion. To declare someone as disingenuous without cause is seriously harsh.
I call you out on your statement. You say, oh, it wasn't directed at you, after all, you're not even on this message chain. I explain that the message chain is not what you said, disproving that argument. You don't acknowledge (hey, who's got time to admit they were proven wrong on the internet...amirite?) that your argument was disproven and move on to there to very condescendingly insult my reading comprehension.
Your argument that if it doesn't apply to you don't worry about it is, frankly, stupid. It's the same argument used by any bigot making bigoted generalizations of groups saying, if it doesn't apply to you, don't worry, I wasn't talking about you. Shoot, we're on the topic of politics, let's use that as an example. Hispanics and/or Mexican immigrants shouldn't be offended that Trump said Mexico was sending rapists. After all, Mexico isn't actually sending everyone, some are coming of their own accord. He was only talking about immigrants that are rapists...if it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about, right? It's a ridiculous line of logic.
If you had commented, hey, some conservative, somewhere is probably being disingenous, I wouldn't have commented. There's millions of conservatives, sure, someone's being disingenous. Instead you commented (and just becuase you didn't bold it in your snide remark doesn't mean it wasn't there) "What I'm noticing are a bunch of
conservatives in this thread" That comment specifically calls out conservatives in this thread. There's only a handful of us. Your comment implies that there are conservatives on this thread being disingenous. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, that casts a pall on conservatives on this thread for being disingenous. So I will restate what I said to begin with. It's a jerkish thing to say. You've continued to act jerkishly by not admitting flawed logic and condescending about me not actually reading what's been said. It's not helping anything, and you should stop.