The 2024 Presidential Primary Election thread

Please be specific. What views are demonstrably worng?

I think we are still waiting to hear you give an example of an actual position she holds that you find idiotic.

Damn you @Jenee !

Again, please be specific. What views of hers makes her an idiot in your opinion?

One thing I can say honestly about AOC is she is very, very far from being intellectually challenged in any sense.

I doubt anyone posting here could hold a candle to her demonstrated successes in life.

Agreed. and not just posters here on wordforge. IRL, she is probably one of the smartest people on the planet - raising the collective IQ of everyone.

One of the reasons winning PA and GA is not just important for the cushion but because it could help the GOP turn away from Trump.

Biden squeaking in (in the EC, popular vote will be a blowout) means constant Trump whining and his base remaining the largest in the GOP coalition.

If, IF the Evangelicals find Jesus once Trump isn’t in a position to give them things then his power in the GOP will take a serious hit. But that’s the only scenario I currently see and I’m not sure how likely that is. I honestly have no faith in Evangelicals being capable of doing the right thing.

Evangelicals, like always, will glom on to any far-right candidate they can find. They're so far away from Christ at this point its not even funny. If God is real, they are fuuuuucked.

One of my more religious whackaloon FB friends posted this yesterday.



Former Baptist turned Catholic so, you know.

As a European evangelical, my faith teaches me to love others, care for the poor, reach out to foreigners and immigrants, and understand that all people are the objects of God's love, regardless of the color of their skin, the slant of their eyes, or the lifestyle choices they have made. And again as a European evangelical, I have a very hard time understanding American evangelicals — even though I grew up there (many, many, many years ago...).

Trump honors Trump. The fact Evangelicals have supported him en masse is shocking. And yet...not shocking at all.

I've seen you assert over and over that AOC is an idiot who doesn't understand economics, but it seems like whenever you're asked to explain why, you just ... assert it again.

I'm really hoping this isn't a reference to homosexuality. I'd be very sad.

I thought he was talking about murderers.

All that proves is that the GOP is going to scream "socialist" about any and all candidates to the left of Cheney. I won't be surprised to find Trumptards turning on Bush for being too socialist like theyve done McCain.

I don't see how doubling down on centralism is gonna get ppl to vote for Dems in the long run.

I have yet to meet a homosexual for whom homosexualtiy is a "lifestyle choice". For that matter, I have yet to meet a heterosexual for whom their sexual orientation is a choice.

But there are plenty of things that are lifestyle choices that a lot of Christians think makes those people into demons. I'm not saying that all lifestyle choices are equally valid; my own younger brother chose drugs and other things, when he was a teenager, that messed him up completely. That ruined his health, and he died at 43. But even such a choice does not in any way change God's love for you.

This is true. But the number of people who believe them will change, depending on the person about whom they say it. When someone calls themself a socialist (Bernie isn't, AOC isn't, and I don't know of any mainstream politicians in the US who are), they make it much harder to say afterward, "No, that isn't socialism. Not even close to what Marx and others meant by the term."

It's not a question of "doubling down on centrism". It's a question of not going to the extremes, and moving things by increments.

Sooner or later, the USA absolutely needs a serious system for financing healthcare, for example. Americans have about the best healthcare system in the world, and about the worst system in the world for paying for it. The costs are horrendous, and tying it to your employment is a particularly stupid idea. Obamacare wasn't the right answer. But it was a step in the right direction, and now that it's there, a solid majority of Americans want to not only maintain it, but go even further.

That's how you bring about long-term changes in society. Not by proposing a total revolution of the system when that is unpopular with the masses, but by getting the masses on your side, little by little.

Not to wander down a rabbit hole, but also because I can't resist . . . there are some philosophies that would say that every aspect of our lives is the result of a choice. A choice made by our "true" selves in whatever higher realm those selves operate. The choices are made because the higher self is trying to learn something, or experience something, in this "lower" realm that's basically an RPG. Alternatively, this is all a simulation and the programmer(s) is/are the one(s) making the choices for us.

A nice philosophy, that totally avoids the Popperist criterium of being falsifiable. As such, it doesn't need to be taken too seriously.

Hey! Welcome back to the thread. I believe you were grabbing us some examples of AOC’s policy positions that you find idiotic.

Here is my theory: Biden steps down before the midterms. First of all because he's old. The job takes its toll, and he seems like the type who'd enjoy the high point of his long career but knows when to go. So, Harris becomes Madame President and VPs somebody like Beto O'Rourke (or another young white hotshot).

This gives the Dems a boost in the midterms. When the House and Senate are blue too, they can get to work at real reforms. Green New Deal kind of stuff. All those things the GOP would fight teeth and claws (aka The Future).

As I said, it's just a personal theory. But boring old Joe all but guarantees they will lose in '24 to yet another stone age caveman like Pence. Which spells doom, of course, for the big problems of our time.

Biden has said it himself: I will be a transitional president.

I believe him.

Trouble with that theory is that Harris doesn't have any particular interest AFAIK in Green New Deal or progressive policies, and I don't know if a Harris presidency leads to a boost in the Dems' chances for midterms.

What makes you say that? She has indicated her support for the Green New Deal over and over. She has cosponsored climate change legislation with AOC. She also has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, basically tied with Elizabeth Warren (and several notches to the left of Bernie Sanders).

If Biden doesn’t serve 2 years and a day then whoever succeeds him can only serve one additional term.

Bad assumption on my part because of who her future boss is and he doesn't support it fully.

She's also a cosponsor of the Medicare for All bill.

I am sure @Lanzman has some well thought out policy disagreements with AOC and his disdain isn’t due to resentment over someone with her age and background being uppity.

Persona is as important as policy. A self-described socialist (of any variety) can't win the presidency. FDR would never have won even one term if he'd run to the left of Hoover - he didn't; he just governed that way. Plus the Green New Deal rollout was a disaster that's probably unrecoverable for anyone involved. It was a hard enough sell as it was, but then the leaked draft with "Income for those who are unable or unwilling to work" was a complete non-starter in the US. People think she said the quiet part out loud, confirming all their worst fears.

She's ideologically motivated in an unpopular direction. You can motivate people to go in an unpopular direction with sufficient charm or data, but not ideology. Warren excelled at the former two. No one thinks Warren is an ideologue. Sure, plenty of people think her solutions aren't the best, but few would criticize how she got there: "I used to be a Republican from Oklahoma. I like free markets, I want to save them. Here's what we have to do to do that, and this is why." (This is exactly what FDR ran on in 1936-44, and how he explained his actions from 1933-1937) Where people disagree with Warren on policy, it's severable. There is no monolithic grand plan that has to be followed to the letter. Warren emphasized that. "I've got a/another plan for that," not, "My plan takes care of that." There's a huge difference.

AOC has no such story to give her cover for what might be broadly similar policy outcomes (after molding in Congress). Because they're afraid (and not pointlessly) that that's not the end of it, that she'll keep going.

I can't emphasize enough how badly she capped her future prospects with the Green New Deal, especially as a brown woman in a racist, misogynistic country. It was ostensibly about climate change, which even most Americans think is a real problem. But it went way, way beyond that. It was a whole societal transformation blueprint. That feels extremely dishonest to many people. "You want to fix the climate but also guarantee everyone a living wage? Even people who don't want to work?? Those don't have anything to do with each other! I smell a rat!" was the reaction from the persuadable middle. She could make Senator, but only from New York, Vermont, or maybe Massachusetts. She cannot be President, not without a complete reinvention.

Bernie would have gotten about 35% of the vote...but they would have been really enthusiastic votes, just like George McGovern supporters were so passionate. Of course, my unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as someone else's enthusiastic vote...