The 2020 Presidential Election Primary Thread

[imanihonjin]

If that happens, then a crushing GOP defeat in 2024 will do the trick. I just want it to happen now. All I need is for you, Moli, Iman, and a few million others to hold their noses and vote for the socialist (if him or her survives the primaries). It can be done!

But seriously, yes, a more electable democrat in 2020 does make it easier. My wish for a socialist to win the election would just make a Trump defeat extra delicious.

Pass. I would take the feckless, know-nothing, blowhard in the oval office. Mainly because if he won, other than continue to spew his vile rhetoric on twitter, I don't think he will be able to accomplish much of anything, which, to me, is far better than voting to fundamentally change our economic policy by electing Warren or Sanders.

[frank ryan]

I’m terms of character and ethics I see Bernie as head and shoulders above Trump. I’m not going to give Utahns who vote 3rd party much shit if he is the candidate, but i think Trump is unparalleled in terms of awfulness and much of it has nothing to do with his politics and more with his craven immorality and corruption.

[wapiti]

Pass. I would take the feckless, know-nothing, blowhard in the oval office. Mainly because if he won, other than continue to spew his vile rhetoric on twitter, I don't think he will be able to accomplish much of anything, which, to me, is far better than voting to fundamentally change our economic policy by electing Warren or Sanders.

If Warren or Sanders would end the trade war, I would vote for them. But if they get the nomination I think we'll have two candidates that both agree with tariffs.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I’m terms of character and ethics I see Bernie as head and shoulders above Trump. I’m not going to give Utahns who vote 3rd party much shit if he is the candidate, but i think Trump is unparalleled in terms of awfulness and much of it has nothing to do with his politics and more with his craven immorality and corruption.

No question. But in terms of who will not destroy the US economy, Trump is head and shoulders above Bernie.

That would be a horrible set of choices. I would vote for Hillary over Bernie any day. By a mile.

[creekster]

Fine. Both parties are corrupt. But one is currently much worse. It's leader is generationally bad and immoral. The other party might nominate buffoons, but it's been a while since it had someone as so immoral as Trump at its head.

This is your opinion but it is not objectively verifiable. For example, democrats love to claim that Trump's presidency is an existential threat to the nation and to our system. But the greatest threat of change to our system lies in the announced plans of Sanders and Warren. Trump is a 'generationally' obnoxious and self-absorbed leader and might be generationally stupid, too, at least on the substance of many issues, yet none of these are threats to the system. Implementing Warren's medicare for all plan would materially alter our political outlook and likely destroy our economy, or at least move us much farther towards the third world end of the spectrum.

[creekster]

I’m terms of character and ethics I see Bernie as head and shoulders above Trump. I’m not going to give Utahns who vote 3rd party much shit if he is the candidate, but i think Trump is unparalleled in terms of awfulness and much of it has nothing to do with his politics and more with his craven immorality and corruption.

I don't know enough about Sanders to know for sure. After all, he did start off with nothing, has worked in government his entire productive adult life, and yet is a multi-millionaire owner of multiple homes. Hmmmm. That said, I fully concur that he is perhaps the only presidential candidate that admits exactly what he wants to do and what it will take to do it. I admire that about him. The problem is that what he wants to do would destroy our economy.

[imanihonjin]

I don't know enough about Sanders to know for sure. After all, he did start off with nothing, has worked in government his entire productive adult life, and yet is a multi-millionaire owner of multiple homes. Hmmmm. That said, I fully concur that he is perhaps the only presidential candidate that admits exactly what he wants to do and what it will take to do it. I admire that about him. The problem is that what he wants to do would destroy our economy.

I give Bernie a ton of credit for being the only person running that I genuinely believe he believes everything he says. Unfortunately, he and I fundamentally disagree on pretty much every single economic issue. So while I respect his integrity, I would never consider voting for someone who wants to fundamentally change the economic underpinnings of what I believe has made the US so economically prosperous.

[BlueK]

O'Rourke has just announced his campaign is over.

[Jeff Lebowski]

O'Rourke has just announced his campaign is over.

Hooray!

[creekster]

O'Rourke has just announced his campaign is over.

Functionally he did that when he declared he was going to compel buyback of AR-15s.

Kamala Harris also closed here NH offices claiming she is going "all in" in Iowa, which is a way of saying she is running out of money and will roll the dice and an unexpectedly good showing in the Iowa caucuses but otherwise is out.

[Northwestcoug]

Pass. I would take the feckless, know-nothing, blowhard in the oval office. Mainly because if he won, other than continue to spew his vile rhetoric on twitter, I don't think he will be able to accomplish much of anything, which, to me, is far better than voting to fundamentally change our economic policy by electing Warren or Sanders.

I've joked around a few of these posts. But for the record I should be clear. I think the country needs movement to the Sanders/Warren side of the spectrum. Tax-wise, health-care wise, and otherwise. Not full-on socialism, but then again, they are not full-on socialists.

I think the argument can be made that Trump has already fundamentally changed the economy. He has increased the deficit in a time of large economic growth, pushed through unfunded tax cuts, and enacted socialist trade policies.

This is your opinion but it is not objectively verifiable. For example, democrats love to claim that Trump's presidency is an existential threat to the nation and to our system. But the greatest threat of change to our system lies in the announced plans of Sanders and Warren. Trump is a 'generationally' obnoxious and self-absorbed leader and might be generationally stupid, too, at least on the substance of many issues, yet none of these are threats to the system. Implementing Warren's medicare for all plan would materially alter our political outlook and likely destroy our economy, or at least move us much farther towards the third world end of the spectrum.

I share Warren's and others' vision for health care, not necessarily their economic plan for it. I support universal health care and a bigger governmental hand in it. Meaning that I support more taxation for that purpose. 50-plus trillion over 10 years? No. But a significant increase. I doubt it will 'destroy' our economy and move us closer to a third world status. It would move us closer to the rest of the developed world, however.

[creekster]

I've joked around a few of these posts. But for the record I should be clear. I think the country needs movement to the Sanders/Warren side of the spectrum. Tax-wise, health-care wise, and otherwise. Not full-on socialism, but then again, they are not full-on socialists.

I think the argument can be made that Trump has already fundamentally changed the economy. He has increased the deficit in a time of large economic growth, pushed through unfunded tax cuts, and enacted socialist trade policies.



I share Warren's and others' vision for health care, not necessarily their economic plan for it. I support universal health care and a bigger governmental hand in it. Meaning that I support more taxation for that purpose. 50-plus trillion over 10 years? No. But a significant increase. I doubt it will 'destroy' our economy and move us closer to a third world status. It would move us closer to the rest of the developed world, however.

Apart from disagreeing about whether Sanders is a 'true' socialist, or not, I understand your yearning for a more just world, but I don't understand how you propose to get there. The examples you cite about Trump are neither unique to his presidency nor do they constitute 'fundamental' changes to the economy. You realize, I assume, that Warren and Sanders want to outlaw, literally make illegal, private health care insurance? This is the nationalization of a trillion dollar industry. It is also a fundamental change in our economy. And against this you make a whatboutism comparison to Trump's decision to impose tariffs? Even if the comparison was sound, which it isn't for several reasons, the scope of the change urged by warren/sanders dwarfs the tariff issue.

[Northwestcoug]

Apart from disagreeing about whether Sanders is a 'true' socialist, or not, I understand your yearning for a more just world, but I don't understand how you propose to get there. The examples you cite about Trump are neither unique to his presidency nor do they constitute 'fundamental' changes to the economy. You realize, I assume, that Warren and Sanders want to outlaw, literally make illegal, private health care insurance? This is the nationalization of a trillion dollar industry. It is also a fundamental change in our economy. And against this you make a whatboutism comparison to Trump's decision to impose tariffs? Even if the comparison was sound, which it isn't for several reasons, the scope of the change urged by warren/sanders dwarfs the tariff issue.

It's not whataboutism when I brought up Trump's economic policy. I'm just stating it because I think he has significantly altered the economic landscape. If we're going to have the argument that a vote for Trump over a socialist makes clear economic sense, we should at least be honest with what he is doing. It's not on the same scale as Warren's or Sander's plan, but it is not insignificant. In fact, I'd argue that both Trump's and most democrats' policies are on the same side of the spectrum, the unsustainable side. One may cause insolvency sooner, but both plans lead to the same place. And if both trajectories are inevitable, best try to take care of as many people as possible, says I.

I am aware of the plan to end private insurance. I am against that. This was one of my philosophical problems with Canadian health care. There's been some relaxation of that in the courts up there, so now I'm cool with it.

[creekster]

It's not whataboutism when I brought up Trump's economic policy. I'm just stating it because I think he has significantly altered the economic landscape. If we're going to have the argument that a vote for Trump over a socialist makes clear economic sense, we should at least be honest with what he is doing. It's not on the same scale as Warren's or Sander's plan, but it is not insignificant. In fact, I'd argue that both Trump's and most democrats' policies are on the same side of the spectrum, the unsustainable side. One may cause insolvency sooner, but both plans lead to the same place. And if both trajectories are inevitable, best try to take care of as many people as possible, says I.

I am aware of the plan to end private insurance. I am against that. This was one of my philosophical problems with Canadian health care. There's been some relaxation of that in the courts up there, so now I'm cool with it.

All presidents make economic decisions, some of which work and some of which don't work. Trump is no different.

Warren/Sanders plan is to NATIONALIZE a trillion dollar industry. Plus, she proposes to fund this boondoggle by taxing wealth. The government is going to roll up and take your property. Not your income stream, but your stuff. That is, by any measure, socialism of the worst sort and constitutes a fundamental alteration (and a huge negative one from my POV) to our economic system. There is simply no comparison to Trump's economic policies, however misguided they may be. It is simply laughable to assert that Trump's economic policies constitute an equal risk to our economic system, particularly when what you are implicitly worried about is a deficit. Moreover, as a philosophical matter moving toward sanctioned socialism is a bad idea, IMO. What industry is next? Oil and Gas? Why allow energy sector profits when we could make life so much easier with centrally planned production and distribution? It has worked so well in Venezuela, eh?

[Northwestcoug]

All presidents make economic decisions, some of which work and some of which don't work. Trump is no different.

Warren/Sanders plan is to NATIONALIZE a trillion dollar industry. Plus, she proposes to fund this boondoggle by taxing wealth. The government is going to roll up and take your property. Not your income stream, but your stuff. That is, by any measure, socialism of the worst sort and constitutes a fundamental alteration (and a huge negative one from my POV) to our economic system. There is simply no comparison to Trump's economic policies, however misguided they may be. It is simply laughable to assert that Trump's economic policies constitute an equal risk to our economic system, particularly when what you are implicitly worried about is a deficit. Moreover, as a philosophical matter moving toward sanctioned socialism is a bad idea, IMO. What industry is next? Oil and Gas? Why allow energy sector profits when we could make life so much easier with centrally planned production and distribution? It has worked so well in Venezuela, eh?

Creek, this is now the second time I have explicitly said that the effects of Trump's and Warren's economic policies are fundamentally different. Please listen to me this time.

Whenever I hear Venezuela in these discussions, I tune out. It's a lazy argument. If you want to do better, there are a number of developed countries that do rather well with more nationalized health care than we have. Pick one and let's go from there.