US Elections 2020 thread

[Ferris]

Hillary 2.0. Corporate. Has put a generation of black people in jail. Tried to put parents of truant children in jail and cackled about it. Has no populist policies, but sure does have a lot of merchandise on her campaign website and probably can't grasp the problem with that.

In short, she very much needs to not happen.

From the Jacobin article it seems like she had some failures as state AG (the Larsen case seems particularly egregious), and she seemed to do a poor job holding big banks accountable. I wonder how feasible that would be on the national stage under targeted pressure though. Re: jailing a generation - she didn't put "Three Strikes" in place, but did refuse to hand down draconian sentences based on it which is a good thing. She eventually tried to repeal it piecemeal, then entirely. She took a bit of time, but whatever. No death sentences which is also an admirable stance.

I'm fine with the anti-truancy legislation - the best thing you can do for kids is make sure they get an education and a shot at life, and that is the responsibility of their guardians. From a skim of the law, they prosecuted a grand total of 2 people so it is hardly Big Brother. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion for some reason though. I also don't know enough about her level of corporate coziness, which could be an issue. All CA politicians (and all federal politicians tbh) have some level of corporate entanglement, but how much is the biggest concern for me.

Jacobin's main issue with her seems to be that she ran to the right of a Republican on some things, regardless of what they were or why. That's fine, I'm not ideologically pure on every single topic (I'm probably to the right of everyone on CaB on firearm ownership, for example) and Republicans tend to run left in coastal states anyway - it's not a surprise that they might overlap with Dems on some items - especially as all prosecutors have to run on "tough on crime" platforms. No major concern there.

I'm saying "concern" like I have any kind of say in the matter. I don't, obvs - all I can do is hope for a reasonable candidate. If Harris is the worst they have to offer, that's fine by me. She's not perfect, but she seems far from Hillary-level awful. She may even be likeable, which is a big improvement on 2016 but I've never heard her speak or interviewed so can't comment.

As I say, I have no vote so I'm not really interested in arguing about it but that's my opinion after a cursory glance. She hardly seems the devil incarnate to me. I'm also not going to read in-depth on her (or any candidates) until there is a front runner or 2 to focus on so that's yer lot for now, Ferris-fans!

[Twed]

The US has a massive problem with the prison-industrial complex, corporate influence in politics and racial profiling by policy. She is deeply rooted in all of this, and these are all things that disillusioned so many voters that we ended up with Trump. Her purpose is to appear progressive without actually being progressive, so that the mainstream can keep doing what it's doing. Here is a prime example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgh_v8MpeR4

Remember what I said about the phrase "access to healthcare"? Access. ACCESS. Understanding this is the key to understanding the problem with candidates like Kamala.

[Ferris]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Twed]

And there's a big difference between fucking horrible and perfect.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Getting Trump out and then doing little/nothing afterwards would be a repeat of Obama. A waste of time smokescreened by middle class liberal back-patting.

Best to choose someone who is a genuine street fighter and revolutionary (by American standards anyway) who makes Trump look like the piss drinking corporate turd and liar he is.

[Ferris]

Getting Trump out and then doing little/nothing afterwards would be a repeat of Obama. A waste of time smokescreened by middle class liberal back-patting.

Best to choose someone who is a genuine street fighter and revolutionary (by American standards anyway) who makes Trump look like the piss drinking corporate turd and liar he is.

Totally agree, but that isn't a choice I get to make.

My point was if Harris is the worst on offer, that's better than in 2016. She seems alright, and there's actually a popular left-wing Democratic presence on the Hill (you down with AOC? Yeah you know me) so any president will have to tack left from internal political pressure and to keep the base in line. The days of a disinterested and easily placated democratic grassroots are gone, you have trump to that for that. I doubt that will lead to nothing happening even if your preferred candidate doesn't win. The base won't allow it.

My preferred president would be Warren or Bernie, but even Harris/Booker would be pushed left. And you'd have the federal government functioning to boot. Win-win.

[Twed]

The only reason that the likes of Kamala have to present as more left-wing than corporate candidates did in 2016 is because Bernie threatened them. So let's cut it out with the complacency and keep making these fuckers uncomfortable. It's unhelpful to compare the worst outcome of the 2020 Dem primary with the outcome of the 2016 primary.

[Ferris]

We're making different sides of the same point.

I'm saying I don't have any input so all I can do is consider the potential outcomes, and the worst case scenario doesn't seem too bad for the reasons I gave.

You are being much more positive, and asking for something better. You're right to be positive and demand more, and you're also correct (in my opinion) to credit Bernie for driving the party to the left. That hopefulness for a better outcome is my preference also, but you have more of a say than I do (I think?) so you are in a better position to achieve that outcome.

I'll be interested to see how this all shakes out, but I won't be following in a huge amount of depth because US politics has become a tad exhausting.

[greenman]

Honestly though I'd say recent political history tends to show that establishment backed compromise politicians are the "enemy of good".

Beyond stated policy as well your in a Corbyn like situation were credibility is a big issue, can someone be trusted to follow though on promises?

[Dog Botherer]

Sooo it seems that Kamala Harris continued the fine tradition of covering up the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandals while in office in California.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-arellano-catholic-church-sex-abuse-california-20180912-story.html

As the kids say, that's a yikes from me fam.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

That is absolute wet nonsense. No, people with the same politics as Thatcher are not the same as the closest thing the US has had to a mainstream economic left since FDR.

What the fuck are you on about?

[garnish]

What the fuck are you on about?

He said people with the same policies as Margaret Thatcher are not progressives.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

He said people with the same policies as Margaret Thatcher are not progressives.

Are people who voted for the invasion of Afghanistan progressives?

[garnish]

Are people who voted for the invasion of Afghanistan progressives?

No

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

No

Correct! Which is why none of these people are heroes and labeling all candidates who aren't one's chosen hero as Margaret Thatcher is not very productive.

Sanders is a better choice than Harris or Booker, but Harris and Booker are considerably better than what has been on offer for decades.

[Dog Botherer]

Correction, Harris and Booker are simply better at pretending to be human than dems have been for a long time. They're still appallingly bad at it, which says a lot. I wouldn't trust those corporations in fleshsuits for one millisecond.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Correction, Harris and Booker are simply better at pretending to be human than dems have been for a long time. They're still appallingly bad at it, which says a lot. I wouldn't trust those corporations in fleshsuits for one millisecond.

What exactly are you basing that on? They both support Medicare-for-All, Booker has spoken in favor of a federal jobs guarantee, wants to end the war on drugs, etc.

Policy-wise they appear to be better than, say, Obama

Focusing on their inevitable flaws, since all politicians are scumbags, like Harris having been a prosecutor or Booker getting duped into bringing charter schools into Newark and using that as a basis for declaring them Evil is about as productive as dismissing Bernie Sanders as Margaret Thatcher because of all the anti-progressive things he's done in his political career.

[Twed]

They don't support Medicare For All. They support saying that they support Medicare For All because they know that's the baseline for getting voter support. I just showed you how Kamala backtracked within 24 hours.

[Dog Botherer]

What exactly are you basing that on? They both support Medicare-for-All, Booker has spoken in favor of a federal jobs guarantee, wants to end the war on drugs, etc.

Policy-wise they appear to be better than, say, Obama

Focusing on their inevitable flaws, since all politicians are scumbags, like Harris having been a prosecutor or Booker getting duped into bringing charter schools into Newark and using that as a basis for declaring them Evil is about as productive as dismissing Bernie Sanders as Margaret Thatcher because of all the anti-progressive things he's done in his political career.

Harris has a long history of enforcing a massively unpopular right wing crime bill, and showed no mercy or compassion in doing so. Also, she literally has no policies.

Booker wasn't duped into anything. Charter schools are making him very rich, as is AIPAC and the pharmaceutical industries.

They might talk a better game than Obama, but actions speak louder than words. It's the same fucking bullshit as last time, Hillary was constantly "evolving" on every issue under the sun in an effort to make her even slightly palatable, while everyone could see she was rotten. This crop are no better. They're going to get in there and do absolutely fucking nothing, while people die in poverty, America ransacks the worlds resources under the guise of "aid", and the oceans boil.

Do you honestly think that a spineless twerp like Cory Booker is going to do anything meaningful ever? C'mon dude.

[Twed]

Hillary was constantly "evolving" on every issue under the sun in an effort to make her even slightly palatable, while everyone could see she was rotten.

Yesterday I heard a Kamala supporter explain that we should allow her to show that she has evolved on criminal justice. The idea that we let politicians evolve as soon as it becomes politically expedient is one pill to swallow, but asking us to accept them evolving against thing they have done themselves for their entire careers is a XL suppository of hubris.

[Z]

Harris seems better on healthcare than Warren but that could be because Harris has been more vague.

I think Harris is more Obama than Clinton. She does possess some charisma at least with media/Washington types.

Does she though?

I mean, as shit as Obama was, he was clearly charismatic enough to make 8 years of a non-republican pretty likely. What I've seen of Harris has been much closer to Hillary in the charisma stakes and I don't think there was any chance in hell that Hillary was ever going to be more than a one term president.

[Twed]

The media will drag her through, puff her up and use her identity to transform legitimate criticism into sexist racism.

Did you see that bullshit that happened the other day when CNN went to cover her campaigning? https://www.rt.com/usa/451650-harris-jacket-cnn-bias/

CNN political journalists are working as her press team.

Huey-Burns argued that the trip was not merely a shopping spree but was intended as an encouragement to women "who faced serious hardships growing up and see entrepreneurship as a way out and up."

"It wasn't promotion, we were very critical of the self-made success story strong woman who is an inspiration to all of humankind".

[garnish]

Correct! Which is why none of these people are heroes and labeling all candidates who aren't one's chosen hero as Margaret Thatcher is not very productive.

Sanders is a better choice than Harris or Booker, but Harris and Booker are considerably better than what has been on offer for decades.

I don't.. I mean, what? Saying a politician has the same policy platform as Margaret Thatcher isn't "labelling" them, it's accurately placing their policy platform in a historical context.

[Twed]

The notion that "the same as before but with clever PR to trick ya" is "better" is wet as fuck, too. That's not better, it's much worse. They want to placate us and then get on with evil as usual. Not allowed. People need to stop letting them, fuck sake.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

They don't support Medicare For All. They support saying that they support Medicare For All because they know that's the baseline for getting voter support. I just showed you how Kamala backtracked within 24 hours.

They were both co-sponsors of the bill with Sanders, what are you on about?

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

I don't.. I mean, what? Saying a politician has the same policy platform as Margaret Thatcher isn't "labelling" them, it's accurately placing their policy platform in a historical context.

What the FUCK are you people talking about? Margaret Thatcher was worse than Trump. What policies do Harris and Booker share in common with Margaret Thatcher? For fuck's sake, get a grip.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Harris has a long history of enforcing a massively unpopular right wing crime bill, and showed no mercy or compassion in doing so. Also, she literally has no policies.

Booker wasn't duped into anything. Charter schools are making him very rich, as is AIPAC and the pharmaceutical industries.

They might talk a better game than Obama, but actions speak louder than words. It's the same fucking bullshit as last time, Hillary was constantly "evolving" on every issue under the sun in an effort to make her even slightly palatable, while everyone could see she was rotten. This crop are no better. They're going to get in there and do absolutely fucking nothing, while people die in poverty, America ransacks the worlds resources under the guise of "aid", and the oceans boil.

Do you honestly think that a spineless twerp like Cory Booker is going to do anything meaningful ever? C'mon dude.

Yes, they're all bad... where am I disagreeing with that? Some are less bad than others.

Welcome to the modern world!

[garnish]

What the FUCK are you people talking about? Margaret Thatcher was worse than Trump. What policies do Harris and Booker share in common with Margaret Thatcher? For fuck's sake, get a grip.

What the FUCK is this shit?

[garnish]

How the FUCK does your brain work that comparing someone's policies to Margaret Thatcher's is the worst thing you can say about them?

How the FUCK do you read this thread and arrive at the interpretation that only you understand that some politicians are "less bad" than others?

[Twed]

They were both co-sponsors of the bill with Sanders, what are you on about?

And it worked for them, because people like you believe that means that's the same thing as being on board. It's very easy to sign a bill and say "whoopsy didn't work out!" or soften it in favor of moneyed entities.

I don't know what your point is. Are you asking us to stop criticising Kamala because other people exist and aren't perfect, even though they're better? What do you want? It feels like you're just lashing out aimlessly at criticism of mainstream, centrist candidates. Well, sorry. Better is possible and we're going to keep aiming for it. The candidates you're prepared to settle for are designed to reset progress made since 2016. "Better than before" is not measured in terms of "what politicians are giving lip-service to currently". It's measured in terms of whether movements that actually help people are crushed or not. It's measured in actual tangible progress.

Rebranding leftward shifts so that they benefit corporate fucks is not better, Pearly.