• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Watching CNN Town Halls for Democratic Presidential Candidates on YouTube

sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
Buttigieg describes himself as a proponent of democratically influenced capitalism.

He favors universal healthcare with retention of private insurance; dialogue and cooperation between the Democratic Party and organized labor; universal background checks for firearms purchases; and pro-environment policies that address pollution and fight climate change, which he views as "a security issue".

He also supports federal legislation banning discrimination against LGBT people and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for immigrants.

Buttigieg self-identifies as a progressive and a supporter of democratic capitalism. He identifies regulatory capture as a significant problem in American society.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
averageJOE said:
Her "actions" during her deployment to middle east in the medical unit, where everyday she had to read a list of every solider who was either hurt or killed took a toll on her. She saw first hand to impact it was having and the stupidity of the missions they were dying for.
Click to expand...

Ergo join an intervention invasion willingly but is now against the very ideas she supported. All while using her military career to her advantage.

She's not a pacifist.
Click to expand...

Never said she was.

The reality of her deploying again is very real, being that she STILL is in the military. And has stated time and time again that if/when her unit is called she will go back. She has ALWAYS been against regime change wars. I deployed to Iraq, and I was against the war.
Click to expand...

She had an out as a political candidate. She dropped it in order to be deployed.

"Flip flopping" on issues are what the other candidates are doing, like Harris and Warren for example. On their speeches announcing their candidacy they proudly stated they support Medicare For All. Now, they support the "idea" of getting their one day, and that we should focus on "expanding coverage".
Click to expand...

Ergo status quo.
 
sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Do we elect candidates within a party based on policies when the policies between candidates are typically much more similar than they are different.

Or do we elect candidates that appeal to us on a deeper level that perhaps we can't rationally explain?
 
averageJOE

averageJOE

zombie
Shad said:
Ergo join an intervention invasion willingly but is now against the very ideas she supported. All while using her military career to her advantage.
Click to expand...
I'm confused by this. But let me try to explain through my experience.

I joined the military late, at age 27, in 2006. I went in already AGAINST the Iraq war. I deployed to Iraq in 2008 AGAINST the war. I came back even more AGAINST the war. And my experience is not unique. A lot of people in the military had a similar mindset before, during and after their military career. So why go in if I was against the war? My personal answer: So someone else didn't have to. By no means does translate to "supporting" the war. When it comes to Tulsi Gabbard, I can relate to that mindset, as well as other veterans. We don't "support" the wars, but we do support the military. I'm OK with you using the word "advantage". She has the advantage to say to the other candidates running that she see's first hand what these wars are doing to soldiers and their families. Being a major in the Army National Guard, a congresswoman, and on the Foreign Affairs Committee she has the advantage to say that these regime change wars are being waged for profit reasons.
 
sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
averageJOE said:
I'm confused by this. But let me try to explain through my experience.

I joined the military late, at age 27, in 2006. I went in already AGAINST the Iraq war. I deployed to Iraq in 2008 AGAINST the war. I came back even more AGAINST the war. And my experience is not unique. A lot of people in the military had a similar mindset before, during and after their military career. So why go in if I was against the war? My personal answer: So someone else didn't have to. By no means does translate to "supporting" the war. When it comes to Tulsi Gabbard, I can relate to that mindset, as well as other veterans. We don't "support" the wars, but we do support the military. I'm OK with you using the word "advantage". She has the advantage to say to the other candidates running that she see's first hand what these wars are doing to soldiers and their families. Being a major in the Army National Guard, a congresswoman, and on the Foreign Affairs Committee she has the advantage to say that these regime change wars are being waged for profit reasons.
Click to expand...

Profit in Iraq?
 
averageJOE

averageJOE

zombie
sealchan said:
Do we elect candidates within a party based on policies when the policies between candidates are typically much more similar than they are different.

Or do we elect candidates that appeal to us on a deeper level that perhaps we can't rationally explain?
Click to expand...
It should always be "policies over the person". I use the word "should" because that's rarely the case. People tend to become a "fan" of a candidate regardless of issues. If anyone would have asked me in 2016, 2018, and 2018 if I would ever vote for anyone other than Bernie Sanders for president I would have confidently and firmly said "No". But I'm listening to the other candidates and right now Tulsi Gabbard won my vote over Bernie Sanders. Her foreign policy is the best of any one else running, and I think her OFF Fossil Fuel Act is far more aggressive to fight climate change than the Green New Deal. (but I know she won't win the nomination)
 
averageJOE

averageJOE

zombie
sooda said:
Buttigieg describes himself as a proponent of democratically influenced capitalism.

He favors universal healthcare with retention of private insurance; dialogue and cooperation between the Democratic Party and organized labor; universal background checks for firearms purchases; and pro-environment policies that address pollution and fight climate change, which he views as "a security issue".

He also supports federal legislation banning discrimination against LGBT people and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for immigrants.

Buttigieg self-identifies as a progressive and a supporter of democratic capitalism. He identifies regulatory capture as a significant problem in American society.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you are finding a candidate that is supporting your political views.

I can go on about him as to why I will not support him. But I will let him tell you himself: (4:28 - 5:27 is why I believe he is the wrong person for the White House)


He's wrong. Not only do I want a candidate to be policy oriented, I demand it. I demand it because once the person I voted for gets into office I want to hold their feet to the fire on the policies. I want to say "hey, this is why I voted for you, and you're not doing it." To me, like the other candidates, he's just offering himself up as a blank canvas, so that when he gets to the White House he can say "I never said that I would do that."

He's defiantly not the worst candidate. He is better than most.
 
sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
averageJOE said:
It should always be "policies over the person". I use the word "should" because that's rarely the case. People tend to become a "fan" of a candidate regardless of issues. If anyone would have asked me in 2016, 2018, and 2018 if I would ever vote for anyone other than Bernie Sanders for president I would have confidently and firmly said "No". But I'm listening to the other candidates and right now Tulsi Gabbard won my vote over Bernie Sanders. Her foreign policy is the best of any one else running, and I think her OFF Fossil Fuel Act is far more aggressive to fight climate change than the Green New Deal. (but I know she won't win the nomination)
Click to expand...

I make a lot of room for how the candidate will be able to handle the particular state of politics, the political landscape, once they reach office. Their individual difference from their same party competitors won't likely be nearly as important as the shared platform their party supports especially since it is that broader platform which they will find support for in Congress.

I submit to you that perhaps your assessment of a candidate's policies is really an assessment of their character in disguise. Once they reach office they may have some mandate as to their particular approach but more so they will need to implement the broader shared platform that their party supports. And knowing their more personal attitude toward how to implement those policies gives one some personal reason to prefer them as they take on the role of leader and negotiate what will (or not) become the ultimate solution.
 
sealchan

sealchan

Well-Known Member
And with that I have found all the past CNN Town Halls...and I see some new ones are already out. I will post those after I watch Howard Schultz.

Thank you YouTube community for keeping this content alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top