Philosophical Vegan Forum

I’m also concerned about Bernie not really having changed his mind about things, but his consistency does show that he doesn't play political games. He’s probably the only candidate with strong principles on how he goes about his actions. Elizabeth Warren is appealing to identity politics to attack Bernie Sanders as sexist... I know most politicians will go low, but Bernie Sanders has more integrity than most. So as President, he may be more transparent.

And I might be biased here, but I think he’s pretty like-able. Basically the whole democratic establishment and national media have been against him, yet I don’t remember Trump beating him in polls. Even though he identifies as a socialist, he’s popular with independents. To an extent, the other democratic candidates not liking Bernie Sanders actually works in his favor. I feel like people see Bernie as a liberal but not devoted to the Democratic Party, whereas the other candidates are just all democrats with varying degrees of progressivism. Bernie also inspires people. Weren’t lack of support from independents and inability to get out the vote from even democrats big reasons Hillary lost?

I don’t know about how passable his policies are, but don’t he and Warren have similar policies? Also, the Democratic Party has gone much farther to the left.

I don’t know about nuclear energy, or the open mindedness. I’m not saying I’m sold on Bernie. It’s not clear to me who would be the best candidate.

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:54 am No, it won't. There is significant overlap between the groups of people who doubt a woman's competence as a president and those who doubt a black man's competence as a president.

AFAIK when it comes to U.S. demographics of democrat voters that may not be true. The black vote will turn out for Biden because he was Obama's vice president, but they likely wouldn't turn out for Warren and the black community is badly needed to win in such a tight race. They tend to be more sexist but not so racist against black candidates.

There are racist and sexist democrats, but Obama and Hillary showed they aren't that relevant with their respective support (remember she did win the majority of votes despite the serious issues with her campaign). Most of the overlap is to be found in Republicans, and they're turning out for Trump anyway. So, you're right about overlap, but I think it's less relevant to the general election because of the differences between the parties.

That said, Biden would probably make a safer running mate because he's already popular. I like Booker, but Obama was a better orator than he is and that might hamper Booker.

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:54 amWhoever gets the democratic nomination would be smart to choose a moderate republican as a running mate.

I don't think so, Republicans aren't going to abandon Trump for a democrat and all they'd be doing in the process is alienating younger voters. They've come around behind Trump, there's no serious primary challenge against him for example.
It appears that playing centrist is a bad strategy, a little counter intuitive but apparently you need to be more extreme as a liberal to motivate younger and even independent voters with radical policy promises. Republicans are mostly old and they're going to vote anyway, and they're voting Republican. We need a candidate who will get lazy millennials out of bed and get working class democrats to make the sacrifice to get to the polls to save their country. It's not easy: you've probably seen what Republican institutions put black voters through to vote (the extremely long lines and commutes, strict registration requirements that are nearly impossible for people to meet without taking off work to get to the social security and other government offices).

Red wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:09 am So why do you think back in September she called for getting rid of it? Was it just an outburst to rally support or a genuine position?

Yeah, she was being dumb, and then somebody showed her the evidence and she changed her mind.
We don't need a smart president, we need a president who will listen to people who are smarter than her and have the humility to accept their policy recommendations.

Kind of how when Trump said he didn't know things but he'd hire the best people to figure it out -- that's not wrong... only he ended up hiring a bunch of yes men and white supremacists who did nothing but parrot racist and anti-science Republican dogma.

Warren is clearly capable of listening to the right people and changing her mind in accordance with evidence rather than political dogma.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:51 am Yeah, she was being dumb, and then somebody showed her the evidence and she changed her mind.

While she has changed her mind for the better, she still talks about eventually phasing it out when we no longer need it. Although if you were to sit her down with me for a few hours, I might be able to convince her.

A fear that I do have is that, if she wins the nomination, she'll change her view back to getting rid of nuclear altogether then the general comes around. That's just a guess though. Speaking of which, do you think the same thing that happened to Hillary will happen to Warren, where a lot of the progressive left doesn't like them thus handing the election to Trump?

I still want Booker to win, but that doesn't seem likely at this point.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:51 amWe don't need a smart president, we need a president who will listen to people who are smarter than her and have the humility to accept their policy recommendations.

Well of course they don't have to be geniuses, but they also have to be smart enough to know to defer to the more knowledgable people. Most politicians seem very sure of themselves without evidence. How do you suggest we remedy this?

I think we should only allow scientists, doctors, and engineers to be politicians. Or, just as close, enforce a science curriculum for those wanting to get into public office.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:51 amKind of how when Trump said he didn't know things but he'd hire the best people to figure it out -- that's not wrong... only he ended up hiring a bunch of yes men and white supremacists who did nothing but parrot racist and anti-science Republican dogma.

Wait, he hired white supremacists? Who?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:44 amWe need a candidate who will get lazy millennials out of bed and get working class democrats to make the sacrifice to get to the polls to save their country.

Good point. I guess that's the main question. Are there more votes to be found among undecided republicans who have a problem with Trump's demeanor, or among democrats who need to feel strong motivation to make it to the booths?

Red wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:00 pmI still want Booker to win, but that doesn't seem likely at this point.

LOL! According to the markets, all of the following are more likely than Booker to become the next POTUS:

Michelle Obama
Ivanka Trump
Deval Patrick
Nicki Haley
Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson

Red wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:00 pm I still want Booker to win, but that doesn't seem likely at this point.

Cory Booker has dropped out.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-cor ... d=67472609

Red wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:00 pm Speaking of which, do you think the same thing that happened to Hillary will happen to Warren, where a lot of the progressive left doesn't like them thus handing the election to Trump?

Hillary was practically a center leaning Republican. You'd find Republicans more left of her in California. Apples vs. Oranges in terms of political scope. I think Warren could inspire progressives.

Red wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:00 pmMost politicians seem very sure of themselves without evidence. How do you suggest we remedy this?

Change the way elections work to a runoff style and reform campaign financing might be a start. I don't know if you can fundamentally solve it, though, because very arrogant people can often convince their constituents and get a lot of support with that misplaced certainty.

Red wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:00 pmI think we should only allow scientists, doctors, and engineers to be politicians. Or, just as close, enforce a science curriculum for those wanting to get into public office.

You might be able to require it for certain positions, it would be a difficult sell, people don't like tests of office.

Red wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:00 pmWait, he hired white supremacists? Who?

Probably half of his appointees to major positions, but here's one that came out kind of recently: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ation-guru

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:43 pm I’m also concerned about Bernie not really having changed his mind about things,

It's good to see that you're more disillusioned to Sernie Banders.

I don't think many politicians change their mind (and sometimes, those who do change it for the worse; look at Trump for instance), so Banders does not have a monopoly on this.

I can understand if Banders doesn't change his mind on more social policies; those are mostly pretty sensible (although I think he should advocate for experimenting with policies before implementing), and that's the platform he's running on. However, it becomes concerning when he doesn't change his mind on science-related issues, where the answer isn't divided by politics.

That's a reason why I was a big fan of Corbyn; although he was an anti-nuclear activist for a big part of his life, when he was running for PM, he supported Nuclear energy as a part of the UK's energy future. I doubt Banders would have the same epiphany.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:43 pm but his consistency does show that he doesn't play political games. He’s probably the only candidate with strong principles on how he goes about his actions.

But 'principles' in politicians lead to the stubbornness we discussed earlier. He's too committed to his principles to change his mind.

If his principles included changing his mind when it suits the evidence, that'd be fine. But it obviously isn't that.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:43 pmIAnd I might be biased here, but I think he’s pretty like-able.

so

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:43 pmEven though he identifies as a socialist, he’s popular with independents.

I'm not sure why that is, but if I were to guess it might be because he himself is an independent (outside of trying to get the nomination). There are very good criticisms to make of both parties, and of the entire two party system. I do respect Banders for taking a stand against that, although it seems more symbolic than anything else.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:43 pmI don’t know about how passable his policies are, but don’t he and Warren have similar policies? Also, the Democratic Party has gone much farther to the left.

I think they're quite similar in terms of social policy, but at least to me, Warren has shown that she's willing to change her mind and follow the evidence.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:43 pmI don’t know about nuclear energy, or the open mindedness. I’m not saying I’m sold on Bernie. It’s not clear to me who would be the best candidate.

Well in terms of policy I think Yang was best. I'm not sure who would be the best overall candidate in this race, but I'm willing to take a chance on Warren.

RedAppleGP wrote:I don't think many politicians change their mind (and sometimes, those who do change it for the worse; look at Trump for instance), so Banders does not have a monopoly on this.

Most do when politically convenient. Then you have Bernie Sanders who advocated for gay rights in the 90's.

I can understand if Banders doesn't change his mind on more social policies; those are mostly pretty sensible (although I think he should advocate for experimenting with policies before implementing), and that's the platform he's running on. However, it becomes concerning when he doesn't change his mind on science-related issues, where the answer isn't divided by politics.

I could counterargue that for nuclear energy specifically, there hasn't been serious debate about it in the democratic party, because the party is more focused on getting republicans to acknowledge the existance of climate change.

But 'principles' in politicians lead to the stubbornness we discussed earlier. He's too committed to his principles to change his mind.

If his principles included changing his mind when it suits the evidence, that'd be fine. But it obviously isn't that.

By principled, I didn't mean to reference that he is committed to specific issues, I meant his overall outlook. He doesn't play political games and genuinely cares about policy.

so

So he could win a general election. Elizabeth Warren? I don't think she appeals to enough people. Joe Biden is kind of another Hillary Clinton.

I'm not sure why that is, but if I were to guess it might be because he himself is an independent (outside of trying to get the nomination). There are very good criticisms to make of both parties, and of the entire two party system. I do respect Banders for taking a stand against that, although it seems more symbolic than anything else.

He's an independent and he also doesn't get along with the democratic party at all. Regardless if you consider it symbolic, he could win over independents in a general election.

I think they're quite similar in terms of social policy, but at least to me, Warren has shown that she's willing to change her mind and follow the evidence.

Would Warrren win in the first place?

EquALLity wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:56 pm Most do when politically convenient.

How do you know? You're basing this off of nothing. Fucking idiot.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:56 pmThen you have Bernie Sanders who advocated for gay rights in the 90's.

Get your red herrings out of here. Have you learned nothing over the past 4 years? Dimwit.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:56 pm I could counterargue that for nuclear energy specifically, there hasn't been serious debate about it in the democratic party, because the party is more focused on getting republicans to acknowledge the existance of climate change.

What do you mean by this? Stop speaking in riddles and start making some fucking sense.

The Republicans likely aren't going to be swayed by the dumbocrats. How many times must I wipe the floor with you on this

EquALLity wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:56 pm By principled, I didn't mean to reference that he is committed to specific issues, I meant his overall outlook. He doesn't play political games and genuinely cares about policy.

Well, what is his outlook?

EquALLity wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:56 pm So he could win a general election. Elizabeth Warren? I don't think she appeals to enough people. Joe Biden is kind of another Hillary Clinton.

You are accidentally right when you say people vote more based on character than policy. But still I'd rather have a bastard with good policies than a nice guy without.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:56 pm He's an independent and he also doesn't get along with the democratic party at all. Regardless if you consider it symbolic, he could win over independents in a general election.

So did Ross Perot.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:56 pm Would Warrren win in the first place?

I don't have all the answers you dependent parasite.