In order to win the next election the Dems will probably have to peel off some of those who voted for Trump. Liberal candidates like Elizabeth Warren would seem to have no chance of doing that. — Jake
Many people who voted for Trump are liberals or centrists, and some even progressives, and they voted for him because they were dissatisfied with establishment politicians and/or neo-liberals and hence couldn't vote for Hillary. — Pierre-Normand
Imho, far too few of such folks to matter. — Jake
Before the primaries were over there frequently were heads up polls between possible nominee matchups. Trump against Hillary were usually evenly matched but Bernie against Trump typically showed Bernie having a 10% lead over Trump. You may be underestimating how much the electorate was fed up with the establishment, and not only the Republican electorate: The Bernie or Bust movement was quite intense too. — Pierre-Normand
Yes, I am a Bernie fan, and agree with what you just said above. I agree that the disenchantment with the establishment was strong, but how does a Bernie voter become a Trump voter?? — Jake
What happened isn't mainly that potential Bernie voters voted for Trump but rather that, after Hillary won the primaries, they didn't bother to vote at all. — Pierre-Normand
Forget about Trump and think of contributing the best candidate for all the country. — DiegoT
As you probably know, General Mattis just resigned as Secretary of Defense. I don't know a lot about him, but it popped in to my head that he might make a good presidential candidate on the Democratic Party ticket. Let's explore that together. — Jake
There is some precedent for ex-generals becoming President, and pretty good ones at that. I can in fact think of 3 off the top of my head (viz. Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower). Presumably, one must resign one's military commission (or already be out of the service) before becoming President, so they are technically civilians when elected.I'd just as soon generals stayed on base. Civilians are supposed to be in charge of the government. — Bitter Crank
Good and bad presidents prove that it is the character and ability of the individual in the office that counts. — Bitter Crank
Why? I don't.I would be very concerned about his foreign policy. I can envisage escalated tensions between the US and countries such as Russia, China, and Iran. — S
And what on Earth is wrong with those views? First of all, He's the secretary of defence of the Trump administration. It's his job to talk about possible security threats.Did you read the Wikipedia page? Look at his political views regarding Iran and Middle Eastern allies, Japan, Russia, and China. — S
And what on Earth is wrong with those views? — ssu
I'm against it. I would be very concerned about his foreign policy. I can envisage escalated tensions between the US and countries such as Russia, China, and Iran. I'd rather another Bernie-type, although I'm not sure who would best match that criteria or what their chances would be. — S
Right, that's the thing, what are their chances? Having a particular philosophy doesn't matter if one doesn't get elected, such as the last Bernie type. — Jake
There is nothing escalatory or basically different as those views do not differ from past administrations. It's you that is in denial here or simply ignorant about US foreign policy, of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Just look at the following quote:They risk escalating tensions, as I said. You seem to be in denial here. — S
We share the concerns expressed by many of our friends in the Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf States, about Iran’s support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize the region. Meanwhile, we will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran’s support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, and its human rights violations. We will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen Israel’s security — efforts that go beyond what any American administration has done before.
Except that he, just like the military leaders in your country, think that attacking Iran is a really bad move. And "jumping" on the other two countries is the last thing the US military wants to do. First of all, is it so difficult to understand deterrence? That you have a firm stance and that decreases the chance of escalation? And having a firm stance doesn't mean you want war. Si vis pacem, para bellumI would be concerned about someone like Mattis jumping on a situation in the Middle East, especially to get at Iran, or in the South China Sea regarding disputed islands, or with Russia — S
Right, but you're going to vote Dem no matter what, right? — Jake
So we don't count. — Jake
A better tactic might be to embrace a more radical position and capture momentum, like Bernie did and like Trump did - and the latter was successful. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.