Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Mohamed1993

Build up to 2020

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Perhaps a little too early to start this thread, but since people have started speculating, I thought I'll go ahead and make a post. So far the bets seem to be; Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Liz Warren, Tulsi Gabbard (maybe?), Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar (who even knows who she is?). 

Pros and Cons for each

-Biden: Pros- He seems well liked and the Obama name seems to have helped him, since Trump's election has made democrats forget many of the messed up things Obama did, you know collective amnesia. Cons- He is very Clinton like in his polices. He voted for the Iraq war for one, he has run for president many times and always been crushed in the primaries. So even if he's really popular now, who can tell what happens with time? He is also very pro-establishment.

-Bernie: My pick for president. Pros- He is anti-DC establishment, pushes progressive policies, isn't perfect on Foreign Policy issues, but he's better than most, he's gotten more critical of Saudi Arabia recently, and he pushed for repeated resolutions to end the disaster in Yemen. He has become a bit more critical of Israel recently too, but he still needs to be pushed here. He even during his 2016 campaign advocated for normalizing ties with Iran. He has the best progressive domestic policies out of any US candidate I know. He also seems to take climate change seriously. Cons- He will be subject to an onslaught of propaganda, the entire media has already started running pieces smearing him. They've attacked everything from his age to using his status as a white male as being a disadvantage. People have literally supported Biden and smeared Bernie for being too old, despite the fact that Biden is only a year younger. The race smearing is once again using purely identity politics to attack him and its mostly by the establishment wing of the democratic party that are attempting to use minorities as scapegoats to gather votes.

-Beto: Pros- He recently ran a very good campaign against Ted Cruz in Texas, and came pretty close in a very red state to beating Cruz. Cons- He is actually not as progressive as I once thought, he hasn't supported single-payer, instead using the same vague terminology like universal, guaranteed coverage that Clinton used. He has also been quite weak on the fossil fuel industry, saying that there is a false choice between big oil and renewable energy.

-Kamala Harris: Pros- I don't see any substantial pros other than she's a black woman, which somehow seems to matter these days. Cons- When she was attorney general of CA, she did not prosecute this big banking dude Steve Mnuchin for illegal home foreclosures, because he made campaign contributions to her. Also, she is very corporatist, pro-establishment, so she won't offer anything that Obama didn't offer, just a lot of empty rhetoric.

-Amy Klobuchar: I seriously don't know who she is, nor do I think most people.

-Tulsi Gabbard: Pros- Previous Vet, that will earn her a lot of points. She's been a strong critic of US involvement in Syria and Yemen. She has also supported a resolution, which would prevent US from arming terrorists and also from going to war with Iran. The fact that she's a recent vet makes her more aware of the realities of war, and will probably mean she will be more cautious of starting anything new. She's also progressive on other issues. Cons- She's very young, and I think most of her work is recognized by people who pay attention to foreign policy, which is not most Americans. 

-Liz Warren: Pros- She's most well known for going after the financial industry, in particular many of the wallstreet giants and she had this pretty amazing interview with this wells fargo exec, where she pushed him really hard on some issues. She's also progressive on some climate issues. Cons- She really made a mess of her whole claim to being 1/16th native American, and she got a lot of criticism from native Americans on this. She's also not progressive on FP, she's standard democratic party, pro-Israel, anti-Iran and hostile and aggressive toward Russia, offers nothing new on that front.

What do you guys think? Thoughts/opinions? Any other picks you want to highlight?

I'm basing the pros and cons off the opinion that I think the democrats will need to embrace more progressive policies which will unite many progressive dems with republicans in the rustbelt, who won't vote for another corporatist just the way they didn't vote Hillary. 

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to further research some of these people that I don't know much about. I like Senator Sanders, but I fear that he's all talk, no action. 

If only Alexandria Occasio-Cortez were old enough to be eligible to run for president, she would be my top pick. She's inexperienced, but really motivated to get things done, and so far I like her stated stances. 

Against Trump, I'd pick any one of the people you've mentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, notme said:

If only Alexandria Occasio-Cortez were old enough to be eligible to run for president, she would be my top pick. She's inexperienced, but really motivated to get things done, and so far I like her stated stances. 

Think her heart is in the right place, but she needs to do better research on issues to really have the ability to debate well and tackle questions thrown at her. 

5 hours ago, notme said:

 Against Trump, I'd pick any one of the people you've mentioned. 

True, I think I underestimated in 2016 just how much more destructive republican policies are. Not that dems have anything new to offer, they at least don't deny climate change as a Chinese hoax, and they aren't hell bent on undoing every multilateral treaty the US has signed onto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really love if they didn’t involve themselves in the Israel lobby or be lapdogs to Saudia arabaia

but damn it’s just a pipe dream isn’t it

like picking a goblin out of a lineup of goblins based on what costume they wear

they're still war mongering goblins at the end of the day 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Among all those on that list, only Tulsi Gabbard has a chance to win the Whitehouse.

The others are bad candidates with baggage, or unknowns with bad policies.

Bernie does not have the support of his own party, and cannot raise the necessary funds to run a legitimate campaign. His policies are way left and do not resonate with the American middle-class. He is also too old.

Kamala Harris is way too radical and out-of-touch to even be considered.

Biden is old-news, and doesn't stand a chance.

Only Gabbard has the charisma, the military record, and the anti-establishment credentials to challenge the GOP in 2020. If she adopts centrist policies, and resists the temptation to go hard-left, she will easily win the Whitehouse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Silas I disagree. I think the Democrats need to quit being the equivalent of 80s Republicans and move into more "radical" territory if they want to win. 

They won't though. They're almost all bought by big corporations, same as as the Republicans. 

Both parties should be outlawed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, notme said:

@Silas I disagree. I think the Democrats need to quit being the equivalent of 80s Republicans and move into more "radical" territory if they want to win. 

They won't though. They're almost all bought by big corporations, same as as the Republicans. 

Both parties should be outlawed. 

This is what the conventional wisdom is that Bernie is too far to the left and we need more centrist candidates to take on Trump. Problem is we had that in 2016, and it flopped miserably. Many areas Clinton lost in actually were won by Obama, who campaigned on this promise of hope and change, which ultimately didn’t amount to much beyond rhetoric. If you look at the policies Bernie has advocated for they’re supported by a good chunk of the population, single-payer especially. The party will do everything to destroy him though using his race, gender and trying to make claims about how he worked with the Russians to prevent a Clinton presidency. The DNC I’m not sure with the superdelegates gives him much of a chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 12:54 PM, notme said:

@Silas I disagree. I think the Democrats need to quit being the equivalent of 80s Republicans and move into more "radical" territory if they want to win. 

They won't though. They're almost all bought by big corporations, same as as the Republicans. 

Both parties should be outlawed. 

sis what do you think of Independents like jessie ventura?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lion of Shia said:

sis what do you think of Independents like jessie ventura?

I don't know much about Ventura specifically, but the only way we're going to break this two-party travesty is for more Independents and more "minor party" candidates to run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, King said:

lol Bernie isn't too far left.  Half the policies he supports were actually supported by old school Republicans.  The actual left has virtually no representation in mainstream politics.  

Right, that's what I've been saying for years. I've always been very moderate in my views, but the United States has shifted so far to the right that now I most closely identify with Democratic socialists without any change in my views. It's a scary world when the "extremists" are the only moderates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, notme said:

Right, that's what I've been saying for years. I've always been very moderate in my views, but the United States has shifted so far to the right that now I most closely identify with Democratic socialists without any change in my views. It's a scary world when the "extremists" are the only moderates. 

The problem with Americans is they are so easily manipulated by fear and propaganda, it’s laughable. Like people literally compare Bernie to the Soviet Union, Venezuela and Cuba, when almost every industrialised nation has the policies he advocates for. The democrats unfortunately have become a party of nothing, all they do is scream and yell about how republicans are mean and we need to more civil and then they try and manipulate minorities to vote for them by using identity politics. It’s not doing the job anymore. It’s not helping anymore to just call the people in middle America deplorables, backward and racist, they are the ones who’ve suffered most from the dems embracing of globalisation, trade deals etc. People want to get rid of Trump and get back to an era where we could ignore problems that existed with nice PC rhetoric, but the problems won’t go away and we won’t do ourselves any favours by not addressing the reasons behind Trump, Brexit and all the far-right nationalist movements we’re seeing, they’re all linked to one another. If we just elect someone that is another centrist, we will pave the way for another populist figure like Trump, who might be even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People equate the social darwinism of the regressive left (which, I think, is pretty far to the left of center) with economic socialism. The backlash to the former often co-opts the latter. In America, at least, the economic policies of the parties that promote comparatively farther-left social ideologies aren't that socialist at all.

I grew up in rural Canada, not the Rust Belt in the United States, so my perspective might be different. But I've always felt that the uneducated "deplorables" who vote overwhelmingly for right-wing parties do so on the basis of their disgust at the liberal stance on social issues, not economic ones; these people don't necessarily benefit from the corporate-focused economic policies of the parties they elect. The success of conservatives then depends on how they can set themselves apart when it comes to gay rights, immigration, etc. and while the indoctrinated will try their hardest to believe that right-wing economic policy benefits them, it often doesn't and doesn't even need to (as that isn't their fundamental motive for voting that way).

Again, this is probably distinct from the situation in the Midwest as a lot of these Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba farmers aren't even necessitous as a result of heavy dairy and otherwise agricultural tariff protection that all of the federal Canadian parties keep in place. 

Edited by Don'tMakeA١٠١س

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All eyes on Tulsi Gabbard 

 

Jacob Wohl says that he and the rest of his colleagues within an Israeli Lobbying group are doing "everything in their power" to shut Tulsi down before her campaign gets started. This raises serious foreign interference questions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Republican Party has a primary, I'm planning to vote for Weld. Of the Democratic Party candidates, Sanders is my favorite, though any of them would be an improvement over the current situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think out of the current crop of candidates, the only one who has a realistic chance of winning who I wouldn't mind is Sanders. Yang is okay, but he doesn't have much of a chance in my view. Warren has some good progressive policies, but I don't know if is really that viable. Tulsi is good on some factors, but she has a problematic past, in light of her contradictory views on torture, her support of Hindu nationalists etc. 

I think the establishment's pick apart from Biden is Pete Buttigieg. You guys should check him out, his platform seems to be a whole lot of nothing. Every candidate has a major policy platform, his platform seems to be all about himself. Sanders platform is campaigning to fight income inequality,. push aggressive climate reform, etc. Tulsi is running on ending regime change wars. Andrew Yang is running on pushing Universal Based Income. Elizabeth Warren is running on financial reform and going after wallstreet. Buttigieg seems to be running on I'm gay, I went to harvard and oxford, I am an Afghanistan veteran and I can speak 7 different languages and that everyone is somehow not philosophical enough and too policy oriented. I can't stand how the media is just giving him all this attention and he doesn't even have clear policy positions. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Yang is okay, but he doesn't have much of a chance in my view.

I agree, I doubt he survives the early Primaries.

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Warren has some good progressive policies, but I don't know if is really that viable.

She's overshadowed by Bernie right now. She's not getting the right amount of Press. She's a longshot to begin with.

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Tulsi is good on some factors, but she has a problematic past, in light of her contradictory views on torture, her support of Hindu nationalists etc.

She actually came to our Masjid in Chicago a few months ago. People were livid why she came. Her speech was before the majlis of the Shahdath of Bibi Fatima (عليه السلام). The community was beyond annoyed as to why a Hindu was allowed to speak before the Azadari of the Ahle Bayt (عليه السلام). There were a total of maybe 12 people sitting there while she spoke. Also, people questioned the motive behind the group of people that invited her to speak. They invited her without the permission of the Alim, nor of the Committee of the masjid. It was all a malicious affair and the community saw her for what it was. Apparently, even her Security Detail told her to speak on a night like that wouldn't do her any good.

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I think the establishment's pick apart from Biden is Pete Buttigieg. You guys should check him out, his platform seems to be a whole lot of nothing.

If he wasn't gay, then he would've gotten some more legit exposure. He's more of a foil to attack the conservative Christian base of the GOP more than anything else. Perfect example is how he said that if Christians have a problem with him being gay, then they should take it up with his creator. He serves a purpose strategically to attack Evangelicals. Other than that he's dead in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Akbar673 said:

She actually came to our Masjid in Chicago a few months ago. People were livid why she came. Her speech was before the majlis of the Shahdath of Bibi Fatima (عليه السلام). The community was beyond annoyed as to why a Hindu was allowed to speak before the Azadari of the Ahle Bayt (عليه السلام). There were a total of maybe 12 people sitting there while she spoke. Also, people questioned the motive behind the group of people that invited her to speak. They invited her without the permission of the Alim, nor of the Committee of the masjid. It was all a malicious affair and the community saw her for what it was. Apparently, even her Security Detail told her to speak on a night like that wouldn't do her any good.

Hmm, but that's the community's fault right not hers? They shouldn't have invited her on such a day? She has been very vocal about Saudi Arabia, which is excellent, and she has publicly spoken about Netanyahu, Trump and Saudi Arabia plotting regime change in Iran. So I agree with her on those issues. However, she has some very contradictory positions. She was conflicted about torture in the past, she has some ties to some very right-wing zionists. I'm not sure if she's changing her position because she's now running and being more critical of Israel. I find it difficult to trust her in light of her past. Maybe I'm just a skeptic and cynic. She has also said, when it comes to regime change wars I'm a dove, but when it comes to drone wars against terror, I'm a hawk. However, even Bernie supports drone strikes so I can't hold that fully against her, while Bernie does not have a radically different position there.

9 minutes ago, Akbar673 said:

If he wasn't gay, then he would've gotten some more legit exposure. He's more of a foil to attack the conservative Christian base of the GOP more than anything else. Perfect example is how he said that if Christians have a problem with him being gay, then they should take it up with his creator. He serves a purpose strategically to attack Evangelicals. Other than that he's dead in the water.

There's a very good article about him, his elitism and I thought he was very pretentious and phony, and this article kind of confirms it; https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete. It's very long but well worth a read. In many ways, having gone to a super elitist undergrad school, I think of the prevailing atmosphere surrounding me and in some ways, it got me to reflect on my own privilege etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

She has been very vocal about Saudi Arabia, which is excellent, and she has publicly spoken about Netanyahu, Trump and Saudi Arabia plotting regime change in Iran.

She's been vocal on those because they aren't a concern of hers. The biggest concern for Muslims from India (like my family) is the support for Modi. His Hindu nationalist policies in India are wreaking havoc in certain parts of India against Muslims. If she supports his actions, which in the past she has then she's not a viable candidate in my opinion. In fact, if she doesn't renounce her past support then she needs to be hammered on Modi, asking why she hasn't backed off what she said previously.

38 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

In many ways, having gone to a super elitist undergrad school, I think of the prevailing atmosphere surrounding me and in some ways, it got me to reflect on my own privilege etc. 

What's wrong with having Elitist views? I'm not attacking them, nor am I defending them, I'm just saying that its an opinion held by equal members of the society we exist in. Privelege has its uses, otherwise Allah wouldn't have blessed you with it. Would you rather be an Egalitarian? There's flaws in that as well. The main thing is to be cognizant of what your personal beliefs are, to explore why you hold that belief, to realize the validity or invalidity of those beliefs based on what you deem as important and then to find a common ground with what works with the greater populace. The latter part being key.

Where did you go to school, if you don't mind my asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Akbar673 said:

What's wrong with having Elitist views? I'm not attacking them, nor am I defending them, I'm just saying that its an opinion held by equal members of the society we exist in. Privelege has its uses, otherwise Allah wouldn't have blessed you with it. Would you rather be an Egalitarian? There's flaws in that as well. The main thing is to be cognizant of what your personal beliefs are, to explore why you hold that belief, to realize the validity or invalidity of those beliefs based on what you deem as important and then to find a common ground with what works with the greater populace. The latter part being key.

 Where did you go to school, if you don't mind my asking?

Upenn. I believe people deserve equal opportunity, not necessarily that everyone should be equal regardless of how much effort they put in. The problem with Pete is he doesn't seem to recognize his privilege as much. We are blessed with privilege to do something positive with it right? With Pete, if you look at his critiques of the Iraq war, Vietnam war, they are mostly strategic, not moral. And he only focuses on the loss of US troops, not the civilians killed. When asked about Mckinsey and their shady practices, he defends it by saying the people there are naive and are well meaning. Well that may be some, but is he really that naive to not know a consulting company driven by profit will overlook things that are immoral to make an extra buck? I understand that we live in an economic system where we can't be completely morally upright, but I think if you're running for public office, if these moral dilemmas don't bother you, then what reason do I have to believe they will bother you in office? Introspection is important in my view. Bernie unlike Pete marched with working class folks to demand higher wages, better working conditions etc. Pete seems to mostly talk about himself and not much about others. 

22 hours ago, Akbar673 said:

She's been vocal on those because they aren't a concern of hers. The biggest concern for Muslims from India (like my family) is the support for Modi. His Hindu nationalist policies in India are wreaking havoc in certain parts of India against Muslims. If she supports his actions, which in the past she has then she's not a viable candidate in my opinion. In fact, if she doesn't renounce her past support then she needs to be hammered on Modi, asking why she hasn't backed off what she said previously.

23 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I agree 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty ironic that in the age of massive campaign donations, the one candidate that made it fashionable to not get any is in the limelight more than all of his billionaire-backed rivals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2019 at 7:41 PM, Akbar673 said:

She's been vocal on those because they aren't a concern of hers. The biggest concern for Muslims from India (like my family) is the support for Modi. His Hindu nationalist policies in India are wreaking havoc in certain parts of India against Muslims. If she supports his actions, which in the past she has then she's not a viable candidate in my opinion. In fact, if she doesn't renounce her past support then she needs to be hammered on Modi, asking why she hasn't backed off what she said previously.

What's wrong with having Elitist views? I'm not attacking them, nor am I defending them, I'm just saying that its an opinion held by equal members of the society we exist in. Privelege has its uses, otherwise Allah wouldn't have blessed you with it. Would you rather be an Egalitarian? There's flaws in that as well. The main thing is to be cognizant of what your personal beliefs are, to explore why you hold that belief, to realize the validity or invalidity of those beliefs based on what you deem as important and then to find a common ground with what works with the greater populace. The latter part being key.

Where did you go to school, if you don't mind my asking?

What has Modi done towards Muslims in India?  Please explain, I don't know what is happening there.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laayla said:

What has Modi done towards Muslims in India?  Please explain, I don't know what is happening there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/06/modis-India-is-living-nightmare-Muslims/?utm_term=.e6e2a9deee5d

India is quickly becoming a living nightmare for Muslims. Modi is the Indian version of Trump. Same mindset, same agenda. Hindu nationalism is becoming extremely problematic for Muslims in India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi Gabbard recently co-sponsored a Slavery Reparations bill (HR 40)

By doing that, she eliminated herself from any chance of winning the general election. 76% of Americans are strongly opposed to monetary reparations for slavery, especially if it means special taxes on white people. Even Bernie Sanders came out a few years ago and said it was a terrible idea that was divisive (now he too supports it).

She is now getting like 1-2% in the polls. As I mentioned earlier, if she maintained a moderate foreign policy, she had a chance. Instead, she went radical left.

Of all the Democrats, Yang probably impresses me the most. I disagree with him on a number of issues, but he is intelligent and honest, and doesn't practice identity politics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Silas said:

Tulsi Gabbard recently co-sponsored a Slavery Reparations bill (HR 40)

By doing that, she eliminated herself from any chance of winning the general election. 76% of Americans are strongly opposed to monetary reparations for slavery, especially if it means special taxes on white people. Even Bernie Sanders came out a few years ago and said it was a terrible idea that was divisive (now he too supports it).

She is now getting like 1-2% in the polls. As I mentioned earlier, if she maintained a moderate foreign policy, she had a chance. Instead, she went radical left.

Of all the Democrats, Yang probably impresses me the most. I disagree with him on a number of issues, but he is intelligent and honest, and doesn't practice identity politics.

 

Biden or Sanders will get the nomination. If Biden wins the primary, the Dems will lose again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Biden or Sanders will get the nomination. If Biden wins the primary, the Dems will lose again. 

Many people who usually vote Republican would vote for Biden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 3:39 PM, notme said:

Many people who usually vote Republican would vote for Biden. 

Biden will be 78 years old just after election night. If he is even in good enough physical condition to remain in the race, I don't see Americans putting a guy that old into the Whitehouse.

Likewise, Sanders will be 79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...