JOE MANCHIN 2020!

[Lord Admirale]

So you'd rather have a conservative Republican than a moderate Democrat?

If the Democrat is bad enough, I don't want them to win.

That didn't answer my question. Conservative Republican or moderate Democrat?

3rd party obviously.

A third party candidate cannot win in the United States due to FPTP.

Bernie Sanders, Agnus King, and Jesse Ventura say hi.

It was obvious I meant in presidential elections, fam

[Tancred]

I think John Bel Edwards would be a better pick as a Blue Dog who could unite progressives and moderates in the Democratic Party. JBE is more charismatic and doesn't have the taint of voting for Sessions and Gorsuch. Also there is the EpiPen price hike controversy involving Manchin's daughter.

The above issues don't bother me (I am especially puzzled by the attempt to punish Manchin for something his daughter supposedly did. Is that fair?) but they would badly hurt Manchin in the primary on top of his conservative views on guns, the environment and abortion.

As far as I know JBE doesn't have the baggage that Manchin has so he would be a better choice as far as being a Blue Dog POTUS candidate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you'd rather have a conservative Republican than a moderate Democrat?

If the Democrat is bad enough, I don't want them to win.

That didn't answer my question. Conservative Republican or moderate Democrat?

3rd party obviously.

A third party candidate cannot win in the United States due to FPTP.

Bernie Sanders, Agnus King, and Jesse Ventura say hi.

It was obvious I meant in presidential elections, fam

Well, everyone who has won a Presidential election has been a Christian male with a white mother, so I guess we'd better stick with that.

/sarcasm

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why do people talk about SJWs like they're electorally relevant on this site? All they do is post rants on Tumblr and put out whiny newsletters at stupid private colleges. And they make a statistically irrelevant portion of the electorate and voters, what percentage of Democratic primary voters do you believe cares at all about "cultural appropriation" or has made a huge fuss about pronouns or how people who won't have sex with trans people are transphobic? It honestly reminds me of anti-Sharia law rallies.

[SATW]

Look, I like Joe Manchin, but he won't ever run and he won't ever win.

[White Trash]

Look, I like Joe Manchin, but he won't ever run and he won't ever win.

[Shadows]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

[TheSaint250]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-responds-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change

He believes climate change is real.

[Lechasseur]

I think John Bel Edwards would be a better pick as a Blue Dog who could unite progressives and moderates in the Democratic Party. JBE is more charismatic and doesn't have the taint of voting for Sessions and Gorsuch. Also there is the EpiPen price hike controversy involving Manchin's daughter.

The above issues don't bother me (I am especially puzzled by the attempt to punish Manchin for something his daughter supposedly did. Is that fair?) but they would badly hurt Manchin in the primary on top of his conservative views on guns, the environment and abortion.

As far as I know JBE doesn't have the baggage that Manchin has so he would be a better choice as far as being a Blue Dog POTUS candidate.

I agree. Plus, I'd happily vote for JBE, he's the best Democrat around

[Shadows]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-responds-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change

He believes climate change is real.

Every Climate Change Denier including Pruitt say they believe Climate Change is real. It is new "In thing". This is the same guy cheered withdrawal from Paris Agreement. Anyways, people are free to support who they want, but what does it say of the values of the party if Manchin is the nominee.

[Lord Admirale]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-responds-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change

He believes climate change is real.

Every Climate Change Denier including Pruitt say they believe Climate Change is real. It is new "In thing". This is the same guy cheered withdrawal from Paris Agreement. Anyways, people are free to support who they want, but what does it say of the values of the party if Manchin is the nominee.

It says we're being rational again, like we were in 1992, 96, and 2000.

[Lechasseur]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-responds-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change

He believes climate change is real.

Every Climate Change Denier including Pruitt say they believe Climate Change is real. It is new "In thing". This is the same guy cheered withdrawal from Paris Agreement. Anyways, people are free to support who they want, but what does it say of the values of the party if Manchin is the nominee.

It says we're being rational again, like we were in 1992, 96, and 2000.

This

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I like Joe Manchin.

However, progressives have been gaining a lot of traction in the Democratic party, and after Hillary losing, they feel vindicated. The next candidate is definitely going to be someone more progressive than Manchin. Normally, they would get punished by a more moderate voter like me, but vs Trump (or Cruz, or another one of the many radical tea partiers that infiltrated the Republican party), I'm not going to think twice pulling the lever for a progressive, even though I wouldn't be super happy about it. Kasich's the farthest right I would consider, and it appears as if he will be destroyed in the 2020 primaries if he even tries.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let me try to respond this with a more detailed response than "I'm not racist, but minorities are not American."

Yeah, Cora was being very blunt with his response, to put it lightly. But think about it; your response does imply that the interests of minorities are in direct opposition in the interest of America. Was that what you meant? If that was what you meant, is that really so?

Let's take an example you cite: Is reducing police brutality also in the best interest of America? To me, the answer is an unequivocal YES, and furthermore it does not conflict with having strong and effective police departments. If anything, excessive police brutality hurts the police and helps the criminals, since it destroys the police-community bonds that are needed for effective crime-fighting. Furthermore, while police brutality has been framed as a black issue, for legitimate reasons, we must not forget that other races - white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc. - are also victims of police brutality.

That's just one example. There are a myriad of other issues that uniquely affect X group, whether it's employment discrimination, educational injustice, housing segregation, or environmental racism. Is fighting against them somehow "un-American," or against the interests of America? Of course not. It is the issues themselves that are against the interests of America, for they weaken it and make lie of the principles of equality and justice for all.

And likewise, fighting these issues has a long and storied history in America. You surely heard of Federick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, who risked their lives to escape and later end slavery. You heard of the Radical Republicans who came into power wanting a more just America. You heard of MLK and Rosa Parks, maybe not of the many other leaders who defined the Civil Rights Movement. You've heard of Selma and Stonewall. Today's activists are simply heirs to that great American tradition of finding justice and shaping our society for the better.

You clearly know of the oppression many Americans have faced over the course of our history. But imagine having to experience that kind of oppression. Our schools and culture have taught us from childhood that we live in a colorblind society that has transcended our tribal instincts. This is a laudable future, but this is not our present reality, and when children come home and see the oppression they and their families face, they know that they have been taught a lie. So they distrust the system, and they get angry.

You've said that some of these people should have a "change of mind" in your other post. But maybe take a few minutes to understand the point of view of other people; it goes both ways, after all. Talk to people; understand their motivations, and if you find them to be a bit too "angry" for you, give them reasons to have hope, not more anger. If you can't do that for whatever reason, just meditate on what I said for a few minutes, hours, or days. You have love in your heart; search it, and maybe you'll find something new.

There are several things I'd point out here.

One is that I'm not opposed to sanctioning improper use of force by law enforcement.  There are civil and criminal sanctions for doing so, and the job is such that some folks do cross lines and use improper force on criminal suspects.  I get that.  What I oppose is the narrative that young black males in America are dying because of the actions of police.  Young black males in America are dying primarily at the hands of violent criminals, mostly young and black, often members of criminal gangs or drug rings.  There are many relevant issues in criminal injustice that deserve the attention of serious people (disparity in sentencing, using enforcement of misdemeanors and local ordinances as revenue enhancement, the corrupt privatization of prisons and the impact this industry has on lawmaking), but the "Cops are killing young black males!" narrative is just not true.  Young, mostly black, criminals are killing young black males, and this is in no small measure because young black males, in disproportionate numbers, are engaging in drug crimes and violent crimes.  That blacks commit violent crimes at rates significantly higher than their percentage of the population is a difficult topic, and one that should make everyone on all sides of the issue uncomfortable.  But it is also a fact, statistically, and there seems to be no serious discussion of why this is so, let along what can be done about this.

The real oppressors of the black community these days are these criminal oppressors.  They are the ones that inject fear into the lives of folks in many predominantly black communities with their violent  criminal actions and with their coercive behaviors, coercing silence and non-cooperation with law enforcement.  And, yes, people in these communities have reason to be afraid; they often either know who perpetrated a crime, have knowledge of what others are saying about a crime, or have been inadvertantly made a witness to a crime, and all of that brings criminal coercion down on them.

The 1960s was about black folks demanding that their Civil Rights, the ones that they already had in theory, actually be protected and enforced.  The fear they experienced, to paraphrase Mike Royko, came from the actions of the worst elements of Southern beer-belly manhood that were allowed to provide the response to those reasonable demands being made.  Bull Connor, Jim Clark, Willis McCall; these were law enforcement officers that law abiding blacks needed to fear.  But that's not who's responsible for the carnage (and, no, that's not overly dramatic) that's occurring in Chicago now.  (74 murders in Chicago in July, 2017; is that not carnage?)  And that's not the police doing it.

Compassion, I have.  But the false narrative isn't compassionate at all.  I'm asking you to do what the Democrats demand the GOP do; confront your party's base on this issue.   And to get this on topic, Joe Manchin may be the only Democrat willing to do so.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

There are several things I'd point out here.

One is that I'm not opposed to sanctioning improper use of force by law enforcement.  There are civil and criminal sanctions for doing so, and the job is such that some folks do cross lines and use improper force on criminal suspects.  I get that.  What I oppose is the narrative that young black males in America are dying because of the actions of police.  Young black males in America are dying primarily at the hands of violent criminals, mostly young and black, often members of criminal gangs or drug rings.  There are many relevant issues in criminal injustice that deserve the attention of serious people (disparity in sentencing, using enforcement of misdemeanors and local ordinances as revenue enhancement, the corrupt privatization of prisons and the impact this industry has on lawmaking), but the "Cops are killing young black males!" narrative is just not true.  Young, mostly black, criminals are killing young black males, and this is in no small measure because young black males, in disproportionate numbers, are engaging in drug crimes and violent crimes.  That blacks commit violent crimes at rates significantly higher than their percentage of the population is a difficult topic, and one that should make everyone on all sides of the issue uncomfortable.  But it is also a fact, statistically, and there seems to be no serious discussion of why this is so, let along what can be done about this.

The real oppressors of the black community these days are these criminal oppressors.  They are the ones that inject fear into the lives of folks in many predominantly black communities with their violent  criminal actions and with their coercive behaviors, coercing silence and non-cooperation with law enforcement.  And, yes, people in these communities have reason to be afraid; they often either know who perpetrated a crime, have knowledge of what others are saying about a crime, or have been inadvertantly made a witness to a crime, and all of that brings criminal coercion down on them.

The 1960s was about black folks demanding that their Civil Rights, the ones that they already had in theory, actually be protected and enforced.  The fear they experienced, to paraphrase Mike Royko, came from the actions of the worst elements of Southern beer-belly manhood that were allowed to provide the response to those reasonable demands being made.  Bull Connor, Jim Clark, Willis McCall; these were law enforcement officers that law abiding blacks needed to fear.  But that's not who's responsible for the carnage (and, no, that's not overly dramatic) that's occurring in Chicago now.  (74 murders in Chicago in July, 2017; is that not carnage?)  And that's not the police doing it.

Compassion, I have.  But the false narrative isn't compassionate at all.  I'm asking you to do what the Democrats demand the GOP do; confront your party's base on this issue.   And to get this on topic, Joe Manchin may be the only Democrat willing to do so.

First, you do make a point in that statistically speaking, the vast majority of young blacks won't die from fatal interactions with the police. But to say to a black guy "your fears of being shot by police are largely unfounded because statistically speaking you're more likely to die of a heart attack or even shot by another black criminal" is like saying "your fears of dying from a terrorist attack are unfounded because you're more likely to die from falling out of bed." That doesn't eliminate the root problem of police brutality, nor does it assuage the psychological effects that police brutality had on the black community for years.

You say that coercion by criminal elements lead to the non-reporting of crime, which may be true. But have you considered how mistrust of police also leads to the non-reporting of crime? Even if the actual risk of dying from police is overhyped, the psychological effects of police brutality are pretty huge. And it will take more to address that issue than just saying "reconsider what you're afraid of."

Also, have you ever thought of why black on black crime is a big problem in and of itself? It's (also) because of racism. Specifically, historical and current patterns of residential segregation have led to the creation of large, poor communities of Blacks that make really good breeding grounds for crime. In such an environment, of course you have these largely-black gangs popping up, black people killing other black people, because who else is there to kill? While the black criminal in that situation may be the proximate oppressor, racism in the form of residential segregation, income inequality, and other systemic factors are the ultimate oppressor.

That's not to put black-on-black crime off the hook; rather, it's to say that there are many complex factors that lead to that problem. And these problems need to be addressed holistically - yes, we need to ensure that violent black people (and violent white people, violent Hispanic people, violent Asians, etc.) are taken care of, but we also need to chip away at the racism and inequality that spawns said violent people. That involves improving communities economically, ensuring equity in housing, and yes, addressing police brutality and mistrust of police. I'm sure you agree we need to fix these issues mentioned, regardless of whatever narrative is swirling around in our society.

As for how this connects to the thread topic, I definitely don't think Manchin is the best for addressing these issues. Even if he studies them intensely and adopts more progressive stances (and I am of the school that modern progressivism and social justice are intimately intertwined), there will always be optics to consider. How can a West Virginia Senator connect with black Baltimoreans, for example? Also, climate change disproportionately impacts poor and minority communities (especially in the South and Southwest), so having a pro-fossil-fuel Democrat as President would be pretty daft with respect to this.

[TheSaint250]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-responds-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change

He believes climate change is real.

Every Climate Change Denier including Pruitt say they believe Climate Change is real. It is new "In thing". This is the same guy cheered withdrawal from Paris Agreement. Anyways, people are free to support who they want, but what does it say of the values of the party if Manchin is the nominee.

Not supporting Paris doesn't mean not believing climate change is real. It means that they aren't supporting something necessary to stop it imo, but that doesn't mean they think climate change is fake.

There's a difference between believing something is real and not doing something to support that.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-responds-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change

He believes climate change is real.

Every Climate Change Denier including Pruitt say they believe Climate Change is real. It is new "In thing". This is the same guy cheered withdrawal from Paris Agreement. Anyways, people are free to support who they want, but what does it say of the values of the party if Manchin is the nominee.

Not supporting Paris doesn't mean not believing climate change is real. It means that they aren't supporting something necessary to stop it imo, but that doesn't mean they think climate change is fake.

There's a difference between believing something is real and not doing something to support that.

Honestly, not doing anything about climate change with the knowledge that is happening is even worse.

[TheSaint250]

Manchin will never win the nomination but if he does, it is the biggest chance for a 3rd party in many decades. Not only is he conservative & has not supported gay marriage (Don't Ask Don't tell vote opposition), spoke out for defunding Planned Parenthood once, but he is also a climate change denier.

Also, when a Democratic President is a climate changer denier, there is no hope left. The fate of the world is at stake here & there is no bigger issue than Climate Change. You can think of compromises in other areas but not on Climate Change.

What kind of terrible human being are you if you believe in Climate Change & would support Manchin in a primary over other Democrats?

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-responds-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change

He believes climate change is real.

Every Climate Change Denier including Pruitt say they believe Climate Change is real. It is new "In thing". This is the same guy cheered withdrawal from Paris Agreement. Anyways, people are free to support who they want, but what does it say of the values of the party if Manchin is the nominee.

Not supporting Paris doesn't mean not believing climate change is real. It means that they aren't supporting something necessary to stop it imo, but that doesn't mean they think climate change is fake.

There's a difference between believing something is real and not doing something to support that.

Honestly, not doing anything about climate change with the knowledge that is happening is even worse.

It is bad. I agree there.

[Beet]

BLM aren't disputing the statistics that non-police homicide is the number one cause of death for young black males. The difference is that no one endorses gang violence. Your, my, NJ's salaries (or future salary once he gets out of college) aren't going to hire more gang members and give them pensions. The gang members aren't killing people in the name of the public. Similar to cancer, heart disease, and other violent criminals, violent gang members are properly seen as a threat to mainstream society. When a gang member is caught in a killing, they don't get union representation in addition to legal; and they aren't sent back out to rejoin the gang. Rather they are arrested, charged, and very often sentenced to long terms. Treat illegally violent cops the same way and I guarantee things would settle down quick. What BLM is saying is that just because you are charged with enforcing the law, it doesn't make you above the law.

As far as why this issue generates so much anger, it's because when young boys are murdered by the cops and the government either doesn't charge them, or keeps them on the force, or tries to cover it up, the implication is that your own government doesn't consider the lives of your own children worth protecting. Hence, the rather plaintive slogan "Black Lives Matter." You've said you have a son, Fuzzy. How would you feel if our United States government acted as if his life was nothing? Would you be pleased?

[History505]

Who? If you said that name to the general public, I bet you no one would have a clue who that is, unless you are a political junkie. Going to have to raise the name recognition up big time.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

When "progressives" say you'd lose in a landslide but in reality you'd unite the Democratic Party and win in a landslide.

Word dude, word!

[PoliticalJunkie23]

It won't happen. The Democratic Party will soon be run by the progressives, and they want to "purify" the party of moderates and even center left members. They will suffer badly from this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We need a fiscally moderate, socially liberal globalist, who can win....the Philadelphia suburbs.

Already ran that candidate last year.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

We need a fiscally moderate, socially liberal globalist, who can win....the Philadelphia suburbs.

Already ran that candidate last year.

Clinton might have been that candidate, but she certainly didn't run as one.

[Lord Admirale]

It won't happen. The Democratic Party will soon be run by the progressives, and they want to "purify" the party of moderates and even center left members. They will suffer badly from this.

There's a growing belief that every Democrat should be ultra-left wing, and if you aren't, you should be primaried. This will undoubtedly hinder our chances for a House or Senate majority in 2018 or even 2020.