Philosophical Vegan Forum

Do you guys think the Democrats will get back in control of the houses in the Midterms? That'd actually be cool. If they get supermajorities, that'd be even better so they can override any vetoes. What are the chances of them getting control of the house? The senate? Both? I mean, most Republicans hate Trump, so it'd be even worse for him.

Trump is barely President as he is, but he basically won't be President if that happens.

I really don't know, Democrats have a LOT to make up. I think there will be gains, but I don't know if it'll be enough,.

five thirty eight doesn't have any projections yet as far as I can see.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:20 pm I really don't know, Democrats have a LOT to make up. I think there will be gains, but I don't know if it'll be enough,.

Well, they might be able to get back the Senate, since Republicans only have a simple majority, and beat the Democrats 51-49 if you count the 2 independents that caucus with them (then again, one of them is Bernie).

The House may be a bit difficult, but they may get a few seats in the House.

The Senate is definitely more important than the House in terms of powers, but the House is needed to push bills to the Senate.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:20 pmfive thirty eight doesn't have any projections yet as far as I can see.

There's still way too much time to make an accurate prediction, but I think that it's important to note that Trump is a provocative asshole which alienates a lot of people.

Bernie is going to run in 2020.
@EquALLity Thoughts?

Red wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:19 am Bernie is going to run in 2020.

I'm very happy about this. I agree with him on economics, healthcare, education, etc. My biggest concerns are his anti-nuclear views, but I doubt he will get very far in advancing those.

It berns when I pee.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:22 am
I'm very happy about this. I agree with him on economics, healthcare, education, etc. My biggest concerns are his anti-nuclear views, but I doubt he will get very far in advancing those.

Well, it's important to remember that nuclear energy is less of a 'hot button issue' as they say (even though it probably should be more in line with the mainstream politics), so I'm not sure if either the Dems or Reps would care much if he were to scrap it (hey, they have renewables and fossil fuels anyway), so it's a real possibility that he'd be able to get anti-nuclear legislation passed.

I don't think it's worth the risk, unless he were to change his mind or have a running mate who is good on Nuclear, then we'd just have to hope he's too old to be President and dies early in office. And I'm not talking Zachary Taylor early, I'm taking William Henry Harrison early. Hell, even earlier than that if possible.

I wouldn't bank on that though.

Now for an issue like healthcare, which takes more center stage in American Politics, and where it's much more contested, he would have a much harder time getting something like Single Payer passed.

Even if getting Single Payer healthcare passed is my #1 Priority instead of nuclear, I'd definitely vote for Sanders over Trump (since Trump is trying to reverse healthcare), but I'm not sure if I'd be too thrilled if he were to win; He doesn't seem to be the compromising type, and for issues like healthcare, compromising is essential to be able to get anything done.

Red wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:30 am Well, it's important to remember that nuclear energy is less of a 'hot button issue' as they say (even though it probably should be more in line with the mainstream politics), so I'm not sure if either the Dems or Reps would care much if he were to scrap it (hey, they have renewables and fossil fuels anyway), so it's a real possibility that he'd be able to get anti-nuclear legislation passed.

What makes you say it's less of a hot button issue? It's actually starting to become quite a key criticism of AOC's Green New Deal. For instance, you have the Republican Dan Crenshaw who has stated "The fact that the Green New Deal also eliminates new carbon free nuclear energy indicates this plan is not about carbon emissions. It's about destroying our economy so that they can build a socialist one". Right-wing paranoia aside, he raises a key point that a lot of people will agree with, and it makes me think that the anti-nuclear policies of the Green New Deal may have to be dropped. As well as that, because most Democrats and Republicans are pro-nuclear so I think the possibility of him getting anti-nuclear legislation passed is pretty slim.

I don't think it's worth the risk, unless he were to change his mind or have a running mate who is good on Nuclear, then we'd just have to hope he's too old to be President and dies early in office. And I'm not talking Zachary Taylor early, I'm taking William Henry Harrison early. Hell, even earlier than that if possible.

The risk is very tiny, as well as that, it is indeed shrank by the fact that he could very well die in office.

I wouldn't bank on that though.

He's not going to reach his second term, at the very least.

Now for an issue like healthcare, which takes more center stage in American Politics, and where it's much more contested, he would have a much harder time getting something like Single Payer passed.

Maybe, but he can get something a lot closer to it, and pave the way for it being passed in future.

Even if getting Single Payer healthcare passed is my #1 Priority instead of nuclear, I'd definitely vote for Sanders over Trump (since Trump is trying to reverse healthcare), but I'm not sure if I'd be too thrilled if he were to win; He doesn't seem to be the compromising type, and for issues like healthcare, compromising is essential to be able to get anything done.

What makes you say that he doesn't seem to be the compromising type? He seems very moderate compared to somebody like Corbyn. In fact, I worry that he's going to be too compromising.

Anyway, if you want to convince somebody to not vote for Sanders, you should probably convince an American who actually has a vote in this election. Don't worry about the massive amounts of voter fraud I am planning on committing for him.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:46 am What makes you say it's less of a hot button issue? It's actually starting to become quite a key criticism of AOC's Green New Deal. For instance, you have the Republican Dan Crenshaw who has stated "The fact that the Green New Deal also eliminates new carbon free nuclear energy indicates this plan is not about carbon emissions. It's about destroying our economy so that they can build a socialist one".

Bernie does seem to be the type to advocate for the GND.

But let's say hypothetically Bernie does become President; Let's grant that he can not get any anti-nuclear legislation passed- He still has the power to veto Pro-Nuclear Legislation. Can't forget that things go both ways.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:46 amRight-wing paranoia aside, he raises a key point that a lot of people will agree with, and it makes me think that the anti-nuclear policies of the Green New Deal may have to be dropped. As well as that, because most Democrats and Republicans are pro-nuclear so I think the possibility of him getting anti-nuclear legislation passed is pretty slim.

Fingers crossed?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:46 am The risk is very tiny, as well as that, it is indeed shrank by the fact that he could very well die in office.

Yeah but we also have to hope his VP has good Nuclear policies, which is even less likely.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:46 am He's not going to reach his second term, at the very least.

Fingers tightlier crossed?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:46 am Maybe, but he can get something a lot closer to it, and pave the way for it being passed in future.

But as I said, he doesn't seem to be the compromising type.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:46 am What makes you say that he doesn't seem to be the compromising type? He seems very moderate compared to somebody like Corbyn. In fact, I worry that he's going to be too compromising.

Look at his track record; He doesn't seem to be the compromising type ( @@EquALLity even said that Bernie wouldn't be willing to compromise, unlike Hillary)

He's what we call an ideologue. It even says it on his own website he isn't the compromising type.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom ... compromise

As for the whole Corbyn comparison, from where I'm standing, they both seem to be the same, though Corbyn is more on the left than Sanders since he supports Democratic Socialism, but aside from that, they're basically the same (though Corbyn is much more sensible as well as more handsome).

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:46 amAnyway, if you want to convince somebody to not vote for Sanders, you should probably convince an American who actually has a vote in this election. Don't worry about the massive amounts of voter fraud I am planning on committing for him.

Well what state will you do it in?

Red wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:58 am What makes you say it's less of a hot button issue? It's actually starting to become quite a key criticism of AOC's Green New Deal. For instance, you have the Republican Dan Crenshaw who has stated "The fact that the Green New Deal also eliminates new carbon free nuclear energy indicates this plan is not about carbon emissions. It's about destroying our economy so that they can build a socialist one".

Bernie does seem to be the type to advocate for the GND.

But let's say hypothetically Bernie does become President; Let's grant that he can not get any anti-nuclear legislation passed- He still has the power to veto Pro-Nuclear Legislation. Can't forget that things go both ways.[/quote]

I don't really know that much about American politics, but can't he only veto stuff that is unconstitutional?

Fingers crossed?

It's more like crossing all your fingers and toes, as the chances of him succeeding in rolling back anti-nuclear legislation seem very very slim.

Yeah but we also have to hope his VP has good Nuclear policies, which is even less likely.

How is that less likely? Bernie's probably going to have to pick a centrist Democrat as his VP as a gesture of party unity, sort of like a Dukakis/Bentsen thing, so on the plus side, they're likely to be pro-nuclear, but on the bad side, they're likely to be some sort of liberal (and I mean that in the British sense).

Fingers tightlier crossed?

Come on, look at him.

Look at his track record; He doesn't seem to be the compromising type ( @@EquALLity even said that Bernie wouldn't be willing to compromise, unlike Hillary)

He's what we call an ideologue. It even says it on his own website he isn't the compromising type.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom ... compromise

He may maintain an outward image of being opposed to compromise, but he's actually not so much. Even John McCain praised him for this: "Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate, and he and I are both very strong-willed people, and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word. But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented."

Look, if you don't want to vote for Bernie for nuclear reasons, that's fine. But please, God oh God, don't vote for Trump. Vote Libertarian or something. There needs to be a third party movement built in your country anyway.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:14 am I don't really know that much about American politics, but can't he only veto stuff that is unconstitutional?

That used to be the case, but starting with Andrew Jackson, Presidents started vetoing stuff that goes against their agenda/worldview. There's good and bad to it of course but hey.

Constitutionality is more the Supreme Court's job, though they sometimes rule against something due to politics rather than if something is unconstitutional.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:14 am How is that less likely? Bernie's probably going to have to pick a centrist Democrat as his VP as a gesture of party unity, sort of like a Dukakis/Bentsen thing, so on the plus side, they're likely to be pro-nuclear, but on the bad side, they're likely to be some sort of liberal (and I mean that in the British sense).

I'd like that, but again, Bernie is not compromising. Who knows on that front, though.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:14 am

Fingers tightlier crossed?

Come on, look at him.

True.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:14 am He may maintain an outward image of being opposed to compromise, but he's actually not so much. Even John McCain praised him for this: "Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate, and he and I are both very strong-willed people, and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word. But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented."

I don't think so. McCain was more liberal than most Republicans so he probably had an easier time discussing with Bernie on these issues. Also, this quote doesn't take into account anything else. What issue were they discussing? Did it get passed? We have to know the context.

Again, look at his track record. Bernie is pretty uncompromising. Most of his bills didn't even get passed through Congress.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:14 amLook, if you don't want to vote for Bernie for nuclear reasons, that's fine. But please, God oh God, don't vote for Trump. Vote Libertarian or something. There needs to be a third party movement built in your country anyway.

Sorry man, but my hands are tied. You think I would want to vote for Trump?

In terms of numbers, I agree with Bernie on more issues, but in terms of importance of the issues, I, unfortunately, side with Trump. I hate him, but this issue is much too important for the world to possibly overlook. I'm sorry dude.

And again, remember what we said about Tribalism. Unless the US were to overhaul its system to be able to give third parties a bigger chance, as it stands,