THE First Democratic Primary Debate Thread

[Left Coast]

Huh?

You asked me what the philosophical basis of libertarianism is. Don't complain that I gave you an answer.

If you are saying I'm wrong, tell me how, I'm happy to be corrected.

 

[crossfire]

I think it's an exaggeration to say they're "every bit" warmongers as the Right. Too hawkish, yes I'd agree. But that rationalization for voting 3rd party in 2016 has been debunked in the Trump era. Would Clinton have pulled out of the Iran deal? Would she be gearing up for war there? Would she have pissed off and alienated almost all our allies? Doubtful.

Was it really debunked? Perhaps a lack of real choice on the ballet is what drove everyone to the third parties? You can't keep blaming the progressive voters who want change for the failure of the democratic party to deliver said change.

 

[Left Coast]

Was it really debunked? Perhaps a lack of real choice on the ballet is what drove everyone to the third parties? You can't keep blaming the progressive voters who want change for the failure of the democratic party to deliver said change.

Progressive voters would have been vastly more likely to see changes they support under a Clinton administration than the changes we've seen under Trump. I really don't know how anyone can seriously dispute that. Would we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Would we have the ridiculous militarized situation with immigrants at the Southern border? Would we have seen the rollback of I don't even know how many environmental regulations keeping businesses from polluting our air and water? Would we have defanged the individual mandate of the ACA and barely hung onto the entire system at all, or would we have expanded the ACA even more? I could keep going but you get the point. Progressives cannot rationally defend the idea that voting for a non-viable candidate is strategically better than voting for the more liberal of the two viable candidates.

 

[crossfire]

Progressive voters would have been vastly more likely to see changes they support under a Clinton administration than the changes we've seen under Trump. I really don't know how anyone can seriously dispute that. Would we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Would we have the ridiculous militarized situation with immigrants at the Southern border? Would we have seen the rollback of I don't even know how many environmental regulations keeping businesses from polluting our air and water? Would we have defanged the individual mandate of the ACA and barely hung onto the entire system at all, or would we have expanded the ACA even more? I could keep going but you get the point. Progressives cannot rationally defend the idea that voting for a non-viable candidate is strategically better than voting for the more liberal of the two viable candidates.

One can also make the argument that the democratic party has the power to make a non-viable candidate viable. (Hillary Clinton being the example from the last election.)

 

[Left Coast]

You were indeed wrong. The simplistic "opposition to government" is what
I'd expect to hear from lesser minds of the fulminating left...not from you.

Consider that the Libertarian Party is a political party (3rd largest in the US)
with candidates aspiring to office in order to steer government in a more
libertarian direction. Our actively taking part in government is at odds with
the claim that we merely oppose government.

I simply disagree. Again, libertarians share this trait with conservatives. Their rhetoric excoriates the evils of governments and identifies it as an impediment to freedom rather than a tool to ensure it, while they simultaneously run for government positions. I've heard it too many times to count. When elected, they move to systematically disempower government and empower corporate interests in a variety of ways.

We advocate political, social & economic liberty. We say that your right to
swing your arms ends at your neighbor's nose.

These are ubiquitous political values that people left, right, and center could, and do, endorse with equal vigor. So that's not it I'm afraid.
The distinguishing difference with conservatives and libertarians is that they view government as a fundamental impediment to said liberty, because they view that liberty through a primarily individualist lens.

An example might clarify...
Government should ensure that no one pours their used motor oil into
the creek behind their house. This is because the oil would cause harm
to those downstream.

It's encouraging that you would endorse this kind of environmental regulation. It's telling, though, that in real world cases when it comes to actual regulations, the right (both conservatives and libertarians) consistently oppose them and move to eliminate them. Again, we've seen it too many times to count.

 

[Left Coast]

IOW, voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
We only differed on which was which.

And from a left perspective, which is which is rationally indisputable.

Usually, I'll have high certainty that my state (Michiganistan) will put all
of its EC votes towards one candidate or the other, usually a Democrat.
In such elections, I vote for the candidate I think best (Libertarian) so as
to register my opinion, knowing that my vote cannot affect the outcome.
But when it's close, my vote could actually make a difference in the election.
Tis then & only then that I weigh the relative evils of the Big Two's offerings.

Let's look back at your list of what makes a "real" liberal:

- Lifting restrictions on sins: prostitution & recreational drugs.
- Eliminating the draft.
- Ending foreign adventurism.
- Separation of church & state

I hope we can agree that that between Dems and Reps, #1, 2, and 4, Dems are unquestionably the more truly liberal choice. Which leaves #3. As I eargued earlier, while I find many centrist Dems too hawkish, I think Reps still edge them out here. Modern Dems are much more committed to ideas of multilateralism/internationalism and diplomacy/soft power than modern Reps.

Come to the dark side, Rev!

 

[sun rise]

Uh oh....I'm dealing with a poster who has "The Truth".
I don't have that. I find certainty about such things impossible.
So I express preferences & opinions, which are open to challenge.

Libertarian is the dark side.
Booowahahahahahahhaahahhh, etc!!!!!!

Btw, liberals are in no rush to enact an agenda based upon my list.
Granted, some of them, as with conservatives are taking baby steps
on a couple, but they're woefully non-progressive in my eyes.

I've reported the many times repeated posting by a non-liberal in this liberal only thread. TROLL TROLL TROLL.

 

[sun rise]

Biden just utterly disqualified himself in my eyes from the primary vote by speaking of the good old days of working with racist southerners and sucking up to the wealthy as he did recently.

 

[Left Coast]

You're missing the fundamental difference by examining only the superficial, ie,
rhetoric which you notice. Conservatives have great differences with us in our
fundamental philosophy, eg, their religious orientation, their social controls.

As I noted before, if we used observed rhetoric to define underlying philosophy,
then liberals' foundation is endlessly bigger government, higher taxes, more
control over us, & hating Republicans.
But I recognize that those are emergent properties, not fundamental philosophy.

I didn't mention only rhetoric, I also mentioned how they govern. How else would you recommend one deduce a group's values/philosophy, aside from what they say and what they do?

I agree with you that conservatives are more religiously oriented and more open to social control. But that is a difference in calculation of where government is absolutely necessary. The distaste for/distrust of government still underlies it.

I disagree. Liberals (not classical ones), conservatives, Democrats & Republicans
don't share all of those values. But they do agree with us on this or that, here & there.

Oh, you might disagree that we do, but frankly that's irrelevant. I disagree that libertarians and conservatives actually care about liberty in every case as well. But we're talking about how political groups define themselves. And sorry, but everyone claims to be flying the banner of freedom. The distinguishing features are how each group proposes we get there.

Now you're wrong about both conservatives and Libertarians.
Government is useful to both.
The questions become about how much of it, in what way, & at what cost.

None of this is 100% black and white. I understand that right wingers don't, mostly, want complete anarchy and dissolution of all government. Same as progressives don't want absolute government control of every aspect of life. Again, we're talking about what principles underlie those real world decisions.

It seems that people outside a group, particularly those in opposition,
have great difficulty understanding the other. My advice...
More questions...fewer pronouncements.

Rev - I'm asking you to educate me on your political philosophy. Thus far you've told me you believe in liberty - which as we've covered, everyone and their mom does. So what else?

Examples?

83 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump

 

[Left Coast]

Uh oh....I'm dealing with a poster who has "The Truth".
I don't have that. I find certainty about such things impossible.
So I express preferences & opinions, which are open to challenge.

I'm very confident in my opinion on that particular issue, yep. However, my opinion has and could again change, given evidence.

Btw, liberals are in no rush to enact an agenda based upon my list.
Granted, some of them, as with conservatives are taking baby steps
on a couple, but they're woefully non-progressive in my eyes.

Liberals are in no rush to push for drug legalization? Where have you been?

The draft is functionally a non-issue because we have no need for it so it's not high on anyone's priority list, we have bigger fish to fry like getting people healthcare.

Foreign adventurism we've covered.

Re: separation of church and state, what more do you want to see? We're vocally opposed to the RFRA nonsense, religiously motivated abortion bans...Bernie is an atheist for Christ's sake. You want "in God we trust" on our money to be a campaign issue?

 

[Left Coast]

I've reported the many times repeated posting by a non-liberal in this liberal only thread. TROLL TROLL TROLL.

Meh, I know but it at least made for interesting conversation with someone who I really don't think was trolling. @Revoltingest happy to continue the convo in a different thread if you want.

We should refocus the thread on the OP, which is the debates! Primarily want to hear from people actually intending to vote in the Dem primaries.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

This is the Liberal Only forum. If you don't identify as such, please don't post here. ​

 

[Quintessence]

I've started paying a bit more attention to this now. The New York Times released an interesting series of interviews with most of the candidates yesterday and I've been going through it bit by bit. So far, I find myself quite impressed with Booker, with Warren and Delaney in the mix as well. Looks like most of the candidates I found myself gravitating towards are on day 1, so we'll see if I'm able to fit it into my schedule.

 

[Left Coast]

I've started paying a bit more attention to this now. The New York Times released an interesting series of interviews with most of the candidates yesterday and I've been going through it bit by bit. So far, I find myself quite impressed with Booker, with Warren and Delaney in the mix as well. Looks like most of the candidates I found myself gravitating towards are on day 1, so we'll see if I'm able to fit it into my schedule.

I didn't know about the NYT interviews, I'll have to check them out!

 

[Left Coast]

Biden keeps trending down, Warren keeps trending up:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

 

[Left Coast]

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLEEEEEE!

Here are the rules for the first Democratic debate

 

[Left Coast]

Well, night one is over. Warren clearly excelled. Beto struggled, especially in the first half, and Castro bested him on immigration. De Blasio tried desperately to make himself relevant but I still don't know anything that makes him stand out other than his impressive ability to interrupt. Klobuchar did...okay, though she didn't come across as very confident.

What did you think?

 

[dybmh]

What did you think?

Is it worth watching? In your opinion is Warren 'likable'?

 

[Left Coast]

Is it worth watching? In your opinion is Warren 'likable'?

I think it was worth it but I'm sort of a political nerd. The format is tough because they only had 60 seconds to respond to questions, or 30 seconds for replies. You can't get into a ton of policy depth in that format.

Tomorrow will be more interesting because more of the popular candidates are going to be there: Biden, Sanders, etc. Tonight was mostly people low on the totem pole.

I think Warren came off as very likeable. She had more than one mic drop moment tonight.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, night one is over. Warren clearly excelled. Beto struggled, especially in the first half, and Castro bested him on immigration. De Blasio tried desperately to make himself relevant but I still don't know anything that makes him stand out other than his impressive ability to interrupt. Klobuchar did...okay, though she didn't come across as very confident.

What did you think?

I thought during the whole debate that O'Rourke looked like a little boy trying to talk at the grown-ups' table. He looked like he didn't have the foggiest idea what he was doing on the stage, and rarely did he ever move beyond platitudes and get into any concrete ideas. He was nowhere close to being a picture of confidence. Castro piledrived him into the ground and he was smarting from that for the rest of the night.

Castro definitely came away looking like a pretty strong candidate who knew what he was about. De Blasio looked oafish the way he kept trying to cut in. I thought Gabbard aquitted herself well and had a very clean performance, and Tim Ryan was a mixed bag for my political stances.