DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
ml1 said:
If someone is going to be a one-issue voter, you'd think they'd be looking at climate change, and which candidates support a Green New Deal.
This is very true. If we can manage climate change, then we will have the luxury of continuing to argue about everything else. If climate change starts to manage us, then the world isn't going to be a very pretty place what with tens of millions of people dying due to agricultural failures and borders being closed by deadly force and so on.
I may be becoming a one-issue voter. The one issue is Donald Trump.
I am for whoever can rid us of him.
drummerboy said:
You're a one issue voter if you say you won't vote for someone unless they support issue x. They might support issue a,b,c,d,e,f,g and h, but unless they support x, you say, you won't vote for them.
One issue voter. Just like anti-abortion voters.
No, I'm not a one issue voter like anti-abortion voters. They are brainwashed into thinking that one relatively minor issue (in the big scheme of things) is the only thing worth voting for. They suffer from extreme tunnel vision and will vote for a monster over a saint if the monster is anti-choice. I have talked to some of these people and they don't even check the position on the other issues.
Healthcare, on the other hand, is a major life and death issue for the entire population, myself included. Another difference is that I am not stating Medicare for All as the single issue, but as a proxy for a candidate who is less influenced by donor money and more motivated by the needs of voters. Kind of like the canary in the coal mine. Something like 9 out of 10 Democrats and many Republicans want Medicare for All. It's extremely popular and a no-brainer for the Democrats to adopt if they want to beat Trump in 2020. So, you have to scratch the head and wonder why they don't do that and the reason is that they are corrupt and bought off.
I don't want to vote for corrupt and bought off politicians at such a critical time. I could have also chosen a Green New Deal, as some have suggested, which is rightly said to be even more important. But, anyone pushing Medicare for All, is probably also pushing climate change legislation and many of the other issues that are important to me cause I'm looking for someone who has a specific platform geared to favor working people over the oligarchs.
I dread going into the voting booth and facing another two crappy choices. We know at least one of the choices will be Trump so that's out. I'd like for once the other choice to be someone I actually want to vote for and it has been getting harder and harder. So this time, I'm thinking, Medicare for All as a BARE MINIMUM. If they can't even do that, they are pathetic and we will eventually be back on the road to Trump.
nan said:
drummerboy said:No, I'm not a one issue voter like anti-abortion voters. They are brainwashed into thinking that one relatively minor issue (in the big scheme of things) is the only thing worth voting for. They suffer from extreme tunnel vision and will vote for a monster over a saint if the monster is anti-choice. I have talked to some of these people and they don't even check the position on the other issues.
You're a one issue voter if you say you won't vote for someone unless they support issue x. They might support issue a,b,c,d,e,f,g and h, but unless they support x, you say, you won't vote for them.
One issue voter. Just like anti-abortion voters.
Healthcare, on the other hand, is a major life and death issue for the entire population, myself included. Another difference is that I am not stating Medicare for All as the single issue, but as a proxy for a candidate who is less influenced by donor money and more motivated by the needs of voters. Kind of like the canary in the coal mine. Something like 9 out of 10 Democrats and many Republicans want Medicare for All. It's extremely popular and a no-brainer for the Democrats to adopt if they want to beat Trump in 2020. So, you have to scratch the head and wonder why they don't do that and the reason is that they are corrupt and bought off.
I don't want to vote for corrupt and bought off politicians at such a critical time. I could have also chosen a Green New Deal, as some have suggested, which is rightly said to be even more important. But, anyone pushing Medicare for All, is probably also pushing climate change legislation and many of the other issues that are important to me cause I'm looking for someone who has a specific platform geared to favor working people over the oligarchs.
I dread going into the voting booth and facing another two crappy choices. We know at least one of the choices will be Trump so that's out. I'd like for once the other choice to be someone I actually want to vote for and it has been getting harder and harder. So this time, I'm thinking, Medicare for All as a BARE MINIMUM. If they can't even do that, they are pathetic and we will eventually be back on the road to Trump.
Got it, you are not a one-issue voter just like anti-abortion voters because ... you think your one issue is very important and their one issue isn't. Right.
gerritn said:
nan said:Got it, you are not a one-issue voter just like anti-abortion voters because ... you think your one issue is very important and their one issue isn't. Right.
drummerboy said:No, I'm not a one issue voter like anti-abortion voters. They are brainwashed into thinking that one relatively minor issue (in the big scheme of things) is the only thing worth voting for. They suffer from extreme tunnel vision and will vote for a monster over a saint if the monster is anti-choice. I have talked to some of these people and they don't even check the position on the other issues.
You're a one issue voter if you say you won't vote for someone unless they support issue x. They might support issue a,b,c,d,e,f,g and h, but unless they support x, you say, you won't vote for them.
One issue voter. Just like anti-abortion voters.
Healthcare, on the other hand, is a major life and death issue for the entire population, myself included. Another difference is that I am not stating Medicare for All as the single issue, but as a proxy for a candidate who is less influenced by donor money and more motivated by the needs of voters. Kind of like the canary in the coal mine. Something like 9 out of 10 Democrats and many Republicans want Medicare for All. It's extremely popular and a no-brainer for the Democrats to adopt if they want to beat Trump in 2020. So, you have to scratch the head and wonder why they don't do that and the reason is that they are corrupt and bought off.
I don't want to vote for corrupt and bought off politicians at such a critical time. I could have also chosen a Green New Deal, as some have suggested, which is rightly said to be even more important. But, anyone pushing Medicare for All, is probably also pushing climate change legislation and many of the other issues that are important to me cause I'm looking for someone who has a specific platform geared to favor working people over the oligarchs.
I dread going into the voting booth and facing another two crappy choices. We know at least one of the choices will be Trump so that's out. I'd like for once the other choice to be someone I actually want to vote for and it has been getting harder and harder. So this time, I'm thinking, Medicare for All as a BARE MINIMUM. If they can't even do that, they are pathetic and we will eventually be back on the road to Trump.
What you don't get is that anti-abortion voters are one-issue voters and I'm not.
So if the one issue that you use to disqualify candidates is REALLY BIG AND IMPORTANT than you're not a one-issue voter.
Got it.
drummerboy said:
So if the one issue that you use to disqualify candidates is REALLY BIG AND IMPORTANT than you're not a one-issue voter.
Got it.
No, I'm not. I really want to vote for someone who is for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal and those other issues I mentioned. I was trying to find some way I could manage to vote for what will probably be a repugnant choice--but probably I should just give up. Do you think the Democrats will put those things in their platform so they can have a better chance to win? Cause one is something everyone wants and the second is something essential to life on the planet. Should not be a stretch to figure the DNC nominee would support those loud and clear, right? What do you think?
nan said:
drummerboy said:No, I'm not. I really want to vote for someone who is for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal and those other issues I mentioned. I was trying to find some way I could manage to vote for what will probably be a repugnant choice--but probably I should just give up. Do you think the Democrats will put those things in their platform so they can have a better chance to win? Cause one is something everyone wants and the second is something essential to life on the planet. Should not be a stretch to figure the DNC nominee would support those loud and clear, right? What do you think?
So if the one issue that you use to disqualify candidates is REALLY BIG AND IMPORTANT than you're not a one-issue voter.
Got it.
You can vote for whoever you want. But why are you so obsessed with not being a single-issue voter when you clearly are one?
gerritn said:
nan said:You can vote for whoever you want. But why are you so obsessed with not being a single-issue voter when you clearly are one?
drummerboy said:No, I'm not. I really want to vote for someone who is for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal and those other issues I mentioned. I was trying to find some way I could manage to vote for what will probably be a repugnant choice--but probably I should just give up. Do you think the Democrats will put those things in their platform so they can have a better chance to win? Cause one is something everyone wants and the second is something essential to life on the planet. Should not be a stretch to figure the DNC nominee would support those loud and clear, right? What do you think?
So if the one issue that you use to disqualify candidates is REALLY BIG AND IMPORTANT than you're not a one-issue voter.
Got it.
No, I am not and I've explained why multiple times and can we please get back to the issues and stop focusing on me? We need to move on. What are YOU looking for in a candidate? Are you OK with a candidate that won't' embrace the healthcare strategy that everyone, including Republicans want? Are you OK, with a candidate that is not ready to embrace drastic changes needed to stabilize the climate (i.e. a ban on fracking)? Will you just dutifully vote for any Beto, Kamilla or Hillary the DNC puts out there and shrug it off?
I’m kind of a single issue voter also. Don’t want to see anymore first graders get blown away in their classrooms.
Guns and Ammo magazine has voted Vermont as the second friendliest state for gun owners. 16 year olds can get guns there I am told. No way , Bernie fans.
nan wants a candidate who believes that the MSM is the enemy of the people- hmmm, who embraces that platform, hmmmm??????????? I think's it's Bernie or Bust for nan.
nan said:
gerritn said:No, I am not and I've explained why multiple times and can we please get back to the issues and stop focusing on me? We need to move on. What are YOU looking for in a candidate? Are you OK with a candidate that won't' embrace the healthcare strategy that everyone, including Republicans want? Are you OK, with a candidate that is not ready to embrace drastic changes needed to stabilize the climate (i.e. a ban on fracking)? Will you just dutifully vote for any Beto, Kamilla or Hillary the DNC puts out there and shrug it off?
nan said:You can vote for whoever you want. But why are you so obsessed with not being a single-issue voter when you clearly are one?
drummerboy said:No, I'm not. I really want to vote for someone who is for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal and those other issues I mentioned. I was trying to find some way I could manage to vote for what will probably be a repugnant choice--but probably I should just give up. Do you think the Democrats will put those things in their platform so they can have a better chance to win? Cause one is something everyone wants and the second is something essential to life on the planet. Should not be a stretch to figure the DNC nominee would support those loud and clear, right? What do you think?
So if the one issue that you use to disqualify candidates is REALLY BIG AND IMPORTANT than you're not a one-issue voter.
Got it.
Stop being hysterical. I would just like to listen to what these candidates have to say for themselves, and then make up my mind. Isn't that what the process is supposed to be all about? Why do you have to make all these absolute statements on who you are going to support before the debate has even started?
annielou said:
I’m kind of a single issue voter also. Don’t want to see anymore first graders get blown away in their classrooms.
Guns and Ammo magazine has voted Vermont as the second friendliest state for gun owners. 16 year olds can get guns there I am told. No way , Bernie fans.
Bernie Sanders has a D- rating from the NRA. He's not going to protect people who want to blow up first graders. This is an issue used to smear him unfairly. And if we don't do something radical about climate change, there will be no first graders left anyway.
jamie said:
nan wants a candidate who believes that the MSM is the enemy of the people- hmmm, who embraces that platform, hmmmm??????????? I think's it's Bernie or Bust for nan.
Where did I say that? Why are you putting words in my mouth? It's not Bernie or bust for me, but I feel strongly about some issues and if he is the candidate that supports those than that's the way it will go. What part of Medicare for All, A Green New Deal, a living wage, prison reform, Wall Street regulations, and a reduction in wealth inequality do you not like?
gerritn said:
nan said:Stop being hysterical. I would just like to listen to what these candidates have to say for themselves, and then make up my mind. Isn't that what the process is supposed to be all about? Why do you have to make all these absolute statements on who you are going to support before the debate has even started?
gerritn said:No, I am not and I've explained why multiple times and can we please get back to the issues and stop focusing on me? We need to move on. What are YOU looking for in a candidate? Are you OK with a candidate that won't' embrace the healthcare strategy that everyone, including Republicans want? Are you OK, with a candidate that is not ready to embrace drastic changes needed to stabilize the climate (i.e. a ban on fracking)? Will you just dutifully vote for any Beto, Kamilla or Hillary the DNC puts out there and shrug it off?
nan said:You can vote for whoever you want. But why are you so obsessed with not being a single-issue voter when you clearly are one?
drummerboy said:No, I'm not. I really want to vote for someone who is for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal and those other issues I mentioned. I was trying to find some way I could manage to vote for what will probably be a repugnant choice--but probably I should just give up. Do you think the Democrats will put those things in their platform so they can have a better chance to win? Cause one is something everyone wants and the second is something essential to life on the planet. Should not be a stretch to figure the DNC nominee would support those loud and clear, right? What do you think?
So if the one issue that you use to disqualify candidates is REALLY BIG AND IMPORTANT than you're not a one-issue voter.
Got it.
hysterical? Sounds like a sexist remark. You should listen to what candidates have to say, but you should also check on who funds their campaigns and if they have voted in favor of their donors. You should carefully check out their position on the issues. What they say and what they do sometimes don't match. And there is nothing wrong in knowing what you are shopping for before you go in the store. Better to be an informed consumer.
Before anyone gets on nan’s case about saying “hysterical” is a sexist remark, based on the history of its usage it pretty much is a sexist term often used by men in the past to incarcerate perfectly normal women who just so happened to have opinions about things, and men should do better to remove it from their lexicon when describing women. I’ve used it in the past and have since read more and had discussions on the subject and I now regret using it as much as I do any R-word variations and (most) various other terms that should really be left in the past, even if their original meanings have become watered down over time.
annielou said:
I’m kind of a single issue voter also. Don’t want to see anymore first graders get blown away in their classrooms.
Guns and Ammo magazine has voted Vermont as the second friendliest state for gun owners. 16 year olds can get guns there I am told. No way , Bernie fans.
Yes, that is true of handguns in Vermont. However, most states distinguish between handguns and rifles/shotguns in terms of the age to legally purchase or possess (with parental permission). In several states (e.g. New York), a 16 year old can possess a rifle or shotgun. And, in Minnesota and Massachusetts, it's even younger. State gun laws can be found on the Giffords Law Center website.
ridski said:
Before anyone gets on nan’s case about saying “hysterical” is a sexist remark, based on the history of its usage it pretty much is a sexist term often used by men in the past to incarcerate perfectly normal women who just so happened to have opinions about things, and men should do better to remove it from their lexicon when describing women. I’ve used it in the past and have since read more and had discussions on the subject and I now regret using it as much as I do any R-word variations and (most) various other terms that should really be left in the past, even if their original meanings have become watered down over time.
Hysterectomy reminds me of the word’s root, which helps wave me off of using it.
FWIW, I recollect there was a comment in which gerritn indicated she’s a woman.
DaveSchmidt said:
ridski said:Hysterectomy reminds me of the word’s root, which helps wave me off of using it.
Before anyone gets on nan’s case about saying “hysterical” is a sexist remark, based on the history of its usage it pretty much is a sexist term often used by men in the past to incarcerate perfectly normal women who just so happened to have opinions about things, and men should do better to remove it from their lexicon when describing women. I’ve used it in the past and have since read more and had discussions on the subject and I now regret using it as much as I do any R-word variations and (most) various other terms that should really be left in the past, even if their original meanings have become watered down over time.
FWIW, I recollect there was a comment in which gerritn indicated she’s a woman.
Pre-coffee. I should of course have said that we could all strive to eliminate the word from our vocabulary when describing women.
ridski said:
Before anyone gets on nan’s case about saying “hysterical” is a sexist remark, based on the history of its usage it pretty much is a sexist term often used by men in the past to incarcerate perfectly normal women who just so happened to have opinions about things, and men should do better to remove it from their lexicon when describing women. I’ve used it in the past and have since read more and had discussions on the subject and I now regret using it as much as I do any R-word variations and (most) various other terms that should really be left in the past, even if their original meanings have become watered down over time.
you are correct. been in the same boat.
Nan,
If a candidate supported Medicare for All but wanted an exception for abortion because she had a religious belief that abortion is murder, and also supported your other positions, would you vote for her?
Suppose there was a candidate who was an absolute pacifist and opposed all wars and military spending but did not support Medicare for All, what would you think about that candidate?
Others besides Nan are free to answer.
LOST said:
Nan,
If a candidate supported Medicare for All but wanted an exception for abortion because she had a religious belief that abortion is murder, and also supported your other positions, would you vote for her?
Suppose there was a candidate who was an absolute pacifist and opposed all wars and military spending but did not support Medicare for All, what would you think about that candidate?
Others besides Nan are free to answer.
Those are highly unlikely combinations. As I said a bunch of times, I picked out Medicare for All as my basic starting point for picking a candidate somewhat arbitrarily. I probably should have picked, as some have noted, A Green New Deal, because without that we are all gonna die. So, as I said, I'm just looking for bare minimun to begin my consideration for a candidate. That is just a starting point. I think it's amazing that we are even having this conversation, cause Medicare for All should be a no-brainer for the Democrats. They should all be passing my first round easily, and yet perhaps only one. Maybe that's why I often think the Democrats would rather lose than go Progressive. Seems that way.
Not getting Betomania. At all.
WHAT DOES BETO O’ROURKE ACTUALLY STAND FOR?
What makes anyone think O’Rourke should be president? He is neither a bold progressive nor a distinguished legislator.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/12/what-does-beto-orourke-actually-stand-for
While O’Rourke steadily avoided left-wing legislation, he went above and beyond to ally himself to the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. In 2015, Congress narrowly gave President Obama so-called “Fast Track” authority as it related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This essentially greased the skids for Obama to accept and implement this agreement, which many labor, consumer, human rights, and environmental advocates worried would vastly expand the power of investors and corporations and undermine U.S. sovereignty. The 219 to 211 vote in the House sent shockwaves through this community, and a foreboding sense that the TPP would become a reality (at that point, no one expected Donald J. Trump to be the President soon and deep six the TPP, but politics got really weird over the next few years).
Unlike O’Rourke, Hernandez ran on an unflinching support for the Sanders platform of universal college and higher education. O’Rourke’s support for similar politics was, like his opposition to needlessly funding the Israeli military, fleeting. When he first announced his Senate run, he said we “need a single-payer healthcare system for all Americans.” As his campaign progressed, his language on healthcare did, too. A year after O’Rourke said we need single-payer, Politico noted that the congressman slyly changed his wording on health care issues. He stopped using the phrases Medicare for All or single-payer, and instead would tell crowds we need “universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care for all.” His Senate campaign page eventually settled on saying that we could have single-payer, or maybe something completely different. The page lists all kinds of health care policies, from incentivizing insurers to join the exchanges to creating a public option to “achieving universal healthcare coverage—whether it be through a single payer system, a dual system, or otherwise—so that we can ensure everyone is able to see a provider when it will do the most good and will deliver healthcare in the most affordable, effective way possible.” There is reason to suspect that when the time comes, it’s that “or otherwise” we’ll see O’Rourke advocating.
This is nan's "Bash anyone but Bernie mode" - carry on. This is the type of rhetoric Trump and RT loves to see this - division among democrats.
And without surprise - the author of this piece is a big Bernie Bro.
Nan,
You did not answer. It was a serious question.
nan said: Those are highly unlikely combinations.
There are Catholics who are "Progressive" on all issues except abortion. I bet the Pope is for Universal Government-Funded Healthcare.
There are Libertarian Pacifists.
You were being attacked as a "single-issue voter". I was giving you a way to show that that was not correct.
BTW, Did anyone notice the Letter to the Editor in today's NY Times from Sherrod Brown?
Short and to the point!
jamie said:
This is nan's "Bash anyone but Bernie mode" - carry on. This is the type of rhetoric Trump and RT loves to see this - division among democrats.
And without surprise - the author of this piece is a big Bernie Bro.
LOST said:
Nan,
You did not answer. It was a serious question.
nan said:There are Catholics who are "Progressive" on all issues except abortion. I bet the Pope is for Universal Government-Funded Healthcare.
Those are highly unlikely combinations.
There are Libertarian Pacifists.
You were being attacked as a "single-issue voter". I was giving you a way to show that that was not correct.
I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter. I repeatedly explained why I was not one, so why do you continue on with the lie?. However, on some issues, the old saying "politics makes strange bedfellows" rings true. Being anti-war, I have connected with some people on the right and libertarians. I would probably not vote for any of them, especially the Libertarians. I dated a Libertarian briefly in the 1980s and I'm so done with them.
From Pew (by way of The Atlantic):
Currently, nearly half of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (46%) say they are liberal, while 37% identify as moderates and 15% say they are conservatives. A decade ago, more Democrats described their views as moderate (44%) than liberal (28%), while 23% said they were conservative.
Conservatives have long constituted the majority among Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans (68%) characterize their views as conservative, while 27% are moderates and 4% are liberals.
I don't really buy in to the idea that politician lead change, by and large. I think more often their function is to legitimize it. Obama on same-sex marriage is a prime example -- he wasn't out in front on it, but having the POTUS come around on this and support it both signaled a large change that had already happened, and sped the consolidation of that change as a societal norm.
I think that in general, anyone looking for candidates who are going to be out in front of society as a whole and by force of will, charisma, whathaveyou, bring everyone else along with them, will be disappointed. And to that point, when the majority of the "liberal" party identifies as either moderate or conservative, that suggests some limits on exactly how "progressive" its national standard bearers are likely to be.
Worth noting that the share of Democrats identifying as liberal has increased -- and so, unsurprisingly, the party leaders are more liberal than in the past (compare H.R. Clinton W.J. Clinton, or even H.R. Clinton to 2008-vintage Obama), but any candidate sufficiently left of the median is going to face a pretty hard slog winning over the party as a whole, much less the entire country.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I hate absolutism, and one-issue voting is an absolutism. But you are right, if you had to pick something, environment is by far the most impactful issue of our time.