Official 2020 Democratic Primary Debate Thread

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

In regards to the nuke conversation...warren would have a lot of problems in a general election with that policy

Even if that is her policy..thats something you dont want to really publicize much imo

Ive been a skeptic of her foreign policy and this really isnt what i wanted to hear out of her

 

[#1 pick]

In a general election

90% of blacks are voting for the nominee

The trick is getting black folk in WI, MI to turn out in good numbers. It’s gotta be 55-60% turnout to win those states and vote Pennsylvania.

Black turnout dropped in the Midwest in 2016. Some of it is voter ID. But a lot of it is enthusiasm.

People have to vote for something but Trump is SO polarizing and unpopular, the Dem establishment thinks his awfulness will drive turnout. It might but you can’t just make that assumption.

Democrats overrate how much Blacks hate Trump. Most hate his white supremacy but if a Democrat had balls and stood for what they believed in and didn't flip and lie as soon as they got elected, blacks would feel the same way about Trump.

Whites always talk about the undecided. People need to talk about the unsatisfied of the Black community. Those are the voters who usually don't show for elections

I don't believe as many Blacks v. His immigration stance.

I think where it differs is abortion. Most bm dgaf but Bw seem to care a lot about it.

 

[FukkaPaidEmail]

There's no real change in the behavioural logic for Iran in this circumstance. They would still get blown to smithereens if they dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran. Again, y'all are confusing first (preemptive) strike for second (retaliatory) strike.

People just geeked up to blow shyt up and kill people for no reason.

I don’t want to blow shyt up . I just don’t think it’s a good idea to put a strategy like that out there in the open . Because some nations will take that risk and pull your card .

Warren says it will close the racial wealth gap more, because white people are overrepresented in high wage earners, which is true.

Warrens plan leaves people in limbo between 50-100k loan debt though which are mostly people who went to school from low income households who didn’t have ANYTHING to put towards school.Theres a ton of non whites that fall into that category .They’re just screwed ? Is it really closing the gap in that case ?

That’s why I’m in favor of Bernie’s model because everyone gets a lifeboat ,not just some people that fall between some arbitrary number

 

[Json]

Williamson has the best chance. Dynamic. Anti Trump. Love v. War. No political experience like Trump which helps with those who hates the establishment. I believe if she won, she would be a movement like Obama and Trump. I just don't see that with Warren who gets my vote or others.

You’re reading the room wrong.

This isn’t an anti-establishment wave. People don’t see Trump as the typical government stooge administration. It’s an anti-corruption wave. Stability/sensibility is the key.

That’s why Warren and Bernie are riding Biden so closely.

The problem is that parts of the country hear anything progressive and it becomes easy for Republicans to pick apart with liberal labels.

 

[FukkaPaidEmail]

What percentage of black people go to college?

I don’t have a number but it’s universally accepted that the numbers are going up .
And loans aren’t just college

Trade schools are included in that

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

"All politics is performance"-chris hayes

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Moderates gonna have to know their time is up. Get them the fukk out the paint

 

[Hood Critic]

What percentage of black people go to college?

WIPING OUT STUDENT LOAN DEBT IS NOT GOING TO SINGLE HANDILY CLOSE THE WEALTH GAP!
WIPING OUT STUDENT LOAN DEBT IS NOT GOING TO SINGLE HANDILY CLOSE THE WEALTH GAP!
WIPING OUT STUDENT LOAN DEBT IS NOT GOING TO SINGLE HANDILY CLOSE THE WEALTH GAP!

So your point is completely irrelevant to the percentage of black college enrollment.

 

[thatrapsfan]

a forced stalemate IS peace this peace love and harmony shyt is not real. never was, never will be. the only people who think otherwise either got shortchanged in history classes or are not trying to acknowledge the inherent violence, opportunism, and overall ambivalence the world as a whole has for prolonged conflicts between leading militaries

"if you attack our neighbor, we will nuke you" this is called peace whether people want to admit it or not. overwhelming threat of force is the greatest deterrent in history and the nuclear threat is the greatest ever made

because of nuclear weapons, every standing military in the world is held hostage by the possibility of nuclear annihilation of all parties. that's not some beautiful hand holding shyt, but it is what's kept the world away from conventional warfare from the nation heavyweights

people have no idea how good they got it living in this era...

:cmon:

You can’t call people naive or misinformed, then write a post that makes clear you aren’t familiar with the debate at hand.

It is well established that a first strike capability would lead to extreme losses for the striking party. For that reason, it’s not viewed as an effective deterrent as the opposing actor also knows the same thing.

As for the idea that nuclear weapons and their proliferation on their own lead to an increase instability, there’s even more research on literature on the subject. It’s not controversial at all and part of the reason why so many states have had incentive to cooperate on arms control.

The post-war drop in state conflict has less to do with nuclear weapons and way more to do with increased economic and institutional interdependence of the countries that fought the world wars. Just look at the European Union.

There was no upstick in conflict after the US
and Soviet Union signed the INF treaty, to reduce nuclear stockpiles: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty - Wikipedia

There is nothing naive or far fetched about the argument that a) first strike capability is objectively bad both strategically and morally and b) nuclear nonproliferation is good

 

[#1 pick]

You’re reading the room wrong.

This isn’t an anti-establishment wave. People don’t see Trump as the typical government stooge administration. It’s an anti-corruption wave. Stability/sensibility is the key.

That’s why Warren and Bernie are riding Biden so closely.

The problem is that parts of the country hear anything progressive and it becomes easy for Republicans to pick apart with liberal labels.

The bigger issue is does the party establishment want someone so liberal?

 

[42 Monks]

second strike is a critical idea behind Mutually Assured Destruction...

Negotiations around disarmament become far more realistic and logical when unilateral first strikes are taken off the table. You're right that there are other geopolitical hot zones in this, but for the US to lead on this issue and become a broker for disarmament, it cannot have a preemptive strike policy in the books. Y'all thinking on some roided-up super aggressive shyt unnecessarily

you're taking this entire era of *not* having standing militaries of the strongest nations destroying whole countries as they please for granted imo

is 'peace' preferable, sure. but i'm not gonna pretend humanity as a whole is gonna do a uturn on their entire history just because we decide to be nice - which wouldn't even be 'being nice', it'd be allowing another country to fill the voids we suddenly no longer occupy...

as much as people can't stand the US taking the lead on certain shyt, consider for a moment China or Russia being the one driving that sort of tempo instead

you dont want it.

 

[FAH1223]

 

[dtownreppin214]

warren holding court on the cnn postgame.

she's not letting these clown ass pundits breath. they are scared to death of M4A.

 

[thatrapsfan]

In regards to the nuke conversation...warren would have a lot of problems in a general election with that policy

Even if that is her policy..thats something you dont want to really publicize much imo

Ive been a skeptic of her foreign policy and this really isnt what i wanted to hear out of her

If it is a problem ( and I am deeply skeptical it will be) it is would be because voters have become completely unfamiliar with nuclear strategy/policy. There is nothing controversial or naive about her position.

 

[acri1]

I never knew Higher Learning loved nuclear weapons so much

You would think they were humanity's greatest invention and shyt. Personally I think they're overrated as a deterrent, and the US military is easily more than powerful enough that we're not going to be invaded just because we admitted that we'd rather avoid using them if possible.