PDA

View Full Version : 11/08/2022, The Midterms, aka build on 2020 aka The Election Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

GulDukat
07-15-2018, 02:14 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/democratic-presidential-candidates-2020.html

It's coming up sooner than you think. The Iowa caucus is a mere year and half away and a lot can happen.

Some questions to ask:

1. Will Trump still be president in 2020? Will he serve out his term or possibly resign because of Mueller's conclusions?
2. Will Trump be the Republican nominee in 2020? He has a 90% or so approval rating with Republican voters, but that can change.
3. Who will the Democrats nominate? Biden? Sanders? Warren? Someone we haven't thought of?

Discuss.

GulDukat
07-15-2018, 02:17 PM
My guess...

1. No.
2. Trump will be the nominee, although he might be challenged if his numbers erode.
3. Biden.

GulDukat
07-15-2018, 02:21 PM
1 - 6 more years
2 - yes. 6 more years
3 - Chelsea/Zuckerberg 2020I'm guessing (hoping) he won't win reelection (although who actually thought he would have won in 2016?). In 2016 you had two historically unpopular canidates running, someone had to win. But a more likeable, less divisive canidate should be able to beat Trump next time.

GulDukat
07-28-2018, 08:12 AM
How Trump Won Reelection:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html

Scary!

theimage13
07-28-2018, 02:13 PM
I hate how plausible that story is.

GulDukat
07-28-2018, 02:52 PM
I hate how plausible that story is.Absolutely. People underestimate Trump at their own peril. Look, I like Warren (will be voting for her this November in MA) but she would be a terrible choice for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

Jinsai
07-28-2018, 02:57 PM
the answer to this will be easier to predict after the mid term elections

loopcloses
07-28-2018, 07:25 PM
the answer to this will be easier to predict after the mid term elections

I think herein lies the answer. If the "blue wave" actually comes to pass, as long as the foot can stay on the gas for the next two years it shouldn't be difficult to get him out unless the candidate is a total fucking disaster (like a Zuckerberg, or a third Hillary run). If there's no blue wave... well, God help us.

I have a hard time even fathoming what a second term would even look like though. The mass protests would probably escalate to riots a lot more frequently, yeah? If the Trump train can't be stopped diplomatically (be it because he legitimately gets more votes or because of an unfair election), what else do people turn to? For my part, the half-hearted emigration threat would become much more serious. Donald Trump becoming president wasn't enough to force such a hugely dramatic course of action, but Donald Trump winning a re-election following a term of even greater incompentency and fascistic bullshit then I could have foreseen? It becomes time to accept that the shit is getting far, far worse before it gets better and reconsider whatever plans I have for life in what would be a very frightening America.

theimage13
07-29-2018, 02:43 AM
Here's the biggest problem I see: I have yet to find a Democratic potential candidate who I'm actually even remotely enthusiastic about. And without any enthusiasm, actual swing voters are either going to sit out or be persuaded to go to the guy who's already in charge. Bad news either way.

M1ke
07-29-2018, 08:17 AM
There are a few I'd be excited about, but the basic qualifier would be:

1) Not Trump.

I can think of a few who meet that criteria. I'm excited for many to run.

richardp
07-29-2018, 10:58 AM
Here's the biggest problem I see: I have yet to find a Democratic potential candidate who I'm actually even remotely enthusiastic about. And without any enthusiasm, actual swing voters are either going to sit out or be persuaded to go to the guy who's already in charge. Bad news either way.

I was really hoping that Jason Kander would run, as he is really amazing and was responsible for the push for voting fraud last year. But he chose to make a bid for Mayor of KC instead, which I'm fine with. In a dream world, Occasio-Cortez would be fantastic to see run but I don't think this country is ready for that yet unfortunately.

theimage13
07-29-2018, 12:40 PM
In a dream world, Occasio-Cortez would be fantastic to see run but I don't think this country is ready for that yet unfortunately.

Uh...she's not constitutionally qualified to run anyway, so thankfully we don't have to blame the country not being ready.

Space Suicide
07-29-2018, 01:56 PM
Trump will run but I am confident he will not win this time.

Democratic nominee stands a chance if it isn't Hillary Clinton.

GulDukat
07-29-2018, 10:41 PM
How Trump Lost Reelection:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/opinion/columnists/trump-loss-re-election-2020.html

Jinsai
07-30-2018, 05:36 AM
How Trump Lost Reelection:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/opinion/columnists/trump-loss-re-election-2020.html

While it feels like a strange and refreshing relief to read this, it's still a smutty (and potentially harmful) fantasy scenario, played out in what borders on masturbatory detail and desperate wish-fulfillment.

GulDukat
07-30-2018, 05:44 AM
While it feels like a strange and refreshing relief to read this, it's still a smutty (and potentially harmful) fantasy scenario, played out in what borders on masturbatory detail and desperate wish-fulfillment.I feel that this article and the other posted (how Trump won reelection) sort of balance each other out.

Jinsai
07-30-2018, 05:51 AM
I feel that this article and the other posted (how Trump won reelection) sort of balance each other out.

Sure, but if both sides just keep jacking off about fantasy scenarios... well, only one side loses: the REAL FUCKING NEWS. We are seriously losing perspective, seeing how this masturbatory fantasy is playing so well (respectively) to their readers.

We are falling into a trap.

ltrandazzo
07-30-2018, 08:41 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/democratic-presidential-candidates-2020.html

It's coming up sooner than you think. The Iowa caucus is a mere year and half away and a lot can happen.

Some questions to ask:

1. Will Trump still be president in 2020? Will he serve out his term or possibly resign because of Mueller's conclusions?
2. Will Trump be the Republican nominee in 2020? He has a 90% or so approval rating with Republican voters, but that can change.
3. Who will the Democrats nominate? Biden? Sanders? Warren? Someone we haven't thought of?

Discuss.

I will answer these questions after the midterms. Everything else is a thought exercise that will make me nauseous.

Louie_Cypher
07-30-2018, 10:31 AM
a tiny bit biased but still interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=din-lb1jGyU
-louie

Boots
07-31-2018, 07:37 AM
All the comments Trump makes about other politicians and journalists are so unprofessional. He sounds so juvenile. It's like he's in high school or something. If he were a doctor or a lawyer, then he would get removed from his profession.

Louie_Cypher
07-31-2018, 10:03 AM
All the comments Trump makes about other politicians and journalists are so unprofessional. He sounds so juvenile. It's like he's in high school or something. If he were a doctor or a lawyer, then he would get removed from his some of profession.some of his supporters actually consider this a positive being an outsider and not part of the political "eleet" this form of logic eludes me would you see a doctor that had nothing to do with the medical profession? look i get the distrust of rich life time politicians like fientsien it stinks of western feudalism which if history is to be believed is the antithesis of US democracy this is one of the many reasons i did not vote for hillary. look she was "anointed" the heir apparent because she lost to Obama and was a woman, she was far from a democrat and a progressive which is were I sit in the spectrum, look when she was in the senate she voted for the Iraq war and nowhere to be seen or heard during the ACA debate both of which are deal breakers for me i try, try to vote with my head and not my heart. her is my simple criteria for president put the county interests as a whole above your own to have enough moral fortitude as to not be compromised or provide scandals that would serve as a distraction for the before mentioned interests of the nation. I don't feel those are to hard to reach trump fails these every day
-Louie

theimage13
07-31-2018, 10:18 AM
All these tweets now about "I didn't do it, but even if I did, it's not a crime" are getting my hopes up that there's about to be some publicly released evidence of conspiracy (remember: "collusion" is not a crime; it's just the tag that's been used to describe a number of other illegal things).

ltrandazzo
07-31-2018, 10:27 AM
All these tweets now about "I didn't do it, but even if I did, it's not a crime" are getting my hopes up that there's about to be some publicly released evidence of conspiracy (remember: "collusion" is not a crime; it's just the tag that's been used to describe a number of other illegal things).

This congress still won't do anything about it except send out sad tweets and give sad speeches on both chamber floors. We have to get more Dems in there to start holding these assholes accountable.

theimage13
07-31-2018, 11:31 AM
This congress still won't do anything about it except send out sad tweets and give sad speeches on both chamber floors. We have to get more Dems in there to start holding these assholes accountable.

You're absolutely right. My hope is that if more concrete evidence comes out, it might help with voting in the fall. I mean, it probably wouldn't. But at this point, I can use all the hope I can get.

Louie_Cypher
07-31-2018, 11:33 AM
he getting bad information from idiots who think it sounds good hanity that can be debunk by anyone with any knowledge of law so while collusion may not be a crime but conspiracy is but if i rob a bank any individuals i plan said bank robbery with can be guilty of a crime this includes any emails or phone conversations of a crime so maybe collusion cannot be easily defined as a crime hacking by definition is a crime by international definition so it's clear that breaking into the dnc server is a crime any planing or meeting with others is a crime one could even the idea of hacking could be considered intent to commit conspiracy this only show how stupid and dense trump actually is hearing something that on the surface sounds good and putting zero effort in to see if a statement holds water my belief is trump's own stupidity and narcissism will be his down fall he i think he never considers consequences.
-louie

ryanmcfly
08-01-2018, 02:24 PM
1. At this rate, yes.
2. See above answer
3. Mark Cuban.

Cookster426
08-07-2018, 03:23 PM
2020 isn't going to be Trump vs. The Democratic Nominee.

It's going to be Trump vs. The Media.

Voters are going to decide do they hate Trump or do they hate the media.

That's how I see it playing out.

Patrick_Nicholas
10-10-2018, 12:23 PM
Former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg has officially re-registered as a Democrat to possibly run in 2020, after spending six years as a Republican then eleven years as an independent. Because the only thing that stops a bad NYC Republican businessman is a GOOD(ish) NYC (ex)Republican businessman!
https://apnews.com/141f52e588e5479d998230123df70fab?utm_campaign
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/politics/michael-bloomberg-2020-democrat/index.html

I have been thinking of finding out which possible candidates have the least amount of dirt on them. I think his infamous proposal to limit soft drinks to 16 ounces may not sit well with some Americans. That being said, I'd probably accept sugar taxes if they actually contribute to expanding our healthcare and education. Oh, and there's also him changing his party to Republican for political reasons. He's probably not the best option, but there aren't many Democrats aiming for 2020 at the moment.

aggroculture
10-10-2018, 12:46 PM
I think Kamala Harris has a good chance, and her being a "cop" could work to her advantage.
I like Chris Murphy, he should run.

NO to Bidens, Kerrys, and any other old bland middle of the road boring af career Dems. Surely everyone hates them at this point: conservatives, progressives, and I'm pretty sure liberals are damn tired of them too. Gore, Kerry, H. Clinton = all lost. It's time to try something else.

Mantra
10-10-2018, 04:04 PM
Maybe I'm way off on all this but...For a while now I've had this theory that whoever comes after Trump will represent, in some form or another, a sort of "return to order."

I've just been thinking about the way that this exact scenario has played out in the past, albeit usually on the Republican side of things. For example, Nixon was chosen as a kind of "law and order" candidate (which is ironic in retrospect) because people were bothered by all the crazy shit that was going on through the '60s, all the protesting, the race riots, etc. He was, at least in the minds of his supporters, meant to come in and calm that shit down and restore order.

So I've just kind of been wondering if something like that will play out, only this time the "chaos" will be on the Republican side, with Trump's insanity, the Nazi marches, the Russia shit, the constant turn over rate of the WH staff, etc. There is this general sense that our government has gone crazy, so I just wonder if our next candidate will win by selling themselves as the antidote to all the insanity.

I could be wrong of course. It's just a thought I had, and not necessarily something I'm happy about, as I suspect that such a dynamic would favor the less radical candidates.

Demogorgon
10-10-2018, 04:13 PM
So it's Palpatine/Vader 2020, is what you're saying. "For the duration of the emergency".

Louie_Cypher
10-15-2018, 11:46 AM
warren releases her DNA. tells trump release your returns. god the guy is a bafoon the 60 minutes interview was a train wreck the only positive from his time in office is the SNL skits are funnier
-louie

Demogorgon
10-15-2018, 03:54 PM
I really don't think the DNA report helps her any. Having one person somewhere in your tree that was Native American doesn't make you Native American, or give you special rights and privileges thereof. Like, if i checked my DNA and found someone of African descent in my tree, it doesn't make me black. I'm not saying she shouldn't or can't be proud of her ancestors, but she should probably not claim to be Native American herself.

ltrandazzo
10-15-2018, 04:45 PM
warren releases her DNA. tells trump release your returns. god the guy is a bafoon the 60 minutes interview was a train wreck the only positive from his time in office is the SNL skits are funnier
-louie
Demogorgon - I went ahead and moved this to the 2020 thread because this is totally an obvious sign that Warren is running for president.

zecho
10-15-2018, 06:41 PM
So, in today's news, a Washington Post journalist was kidnapped in Turkey and taken to the Saudi Arabian embassy where he was tortured to death. He managed to record evidence of his own murder on his smart watch, which the Turkish government was able to obtain, along with video of his murder, which they announce to the US government. SA then released a statement threatening retaliation against America if there are any consequences to the murder. Trump tweeted this morning that he has spoken to the president of SA who told him that they were not involved in the murder. Trump then suggested that the killers were "rogue" and unrelated to the SA government.

Background information on Saudi Arabia: they were the ones behind the 9/11 attacks, they trained and funded Al-Qaeda, and trained and funded ISIS. They are also on the receiving end of the largest arms deal in human history, made with Trump's administration last year and still ongoing. The reporter they murdered had been previously banned from SA for criticizing Trump.

All of that said, the important news of the day on all the news stations is that Elizabeth Warren has native American heritage and Trump is refusing to donate the money he promised to women's shelters. That's the important thing.

Wretchedest
10-16-2018, 12:32 AM
Kamala Harris is my horse in the race right now, I think based on a hollistic "stands for everything Trump stands against" and also because of the way she talks about income inequality. She's not Bernie, she's not Hilary, she doesn't come with any of the baggage held by either.

Warren was dumb to do what she did, to assume that GoP especially Trump plays by any rules, will honor any commitment... Any time you do anything on their terms, have their argument, use their vocabulary, have the conversation they ask you to have, you're fucking up, and she should know better.

aggroculture
10-16-2018, 07:38 AM
I think Warren has demonstrated she doesn't really have the grit or stamina to get into this dirty fight: I feel she has pulled a "Hillary" - capitulate to Trump's bullying whilst still trying to seem tough - and failing.
I agree about Harris - I think her past as a "cop" (progressives hate her carceral prosecutor record) - is her ace in the hole. I think if she plays her cards right she can appeal to the BLM crowd and the "law and order" crowd. She's badass. Warren is not.
Not really a fan of Corey Booker running - I think his reputation as a career politician in the hands of lobbyists will hurt him.
I'd love a Kamala Harris/Chris Murphy ticket.

Joe Biden vs Trump means four more years of Trump, no question about it. Any Democrat who has been in the WH or ran for president before should be disqualified. Hillary should never have ran in 2016: she already lost her primary in 2008, she should have taken the hint. Her ego has had catastrophic consequences.

october_midnight
10-16-2018, 10:14 AM
https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1052214766146600960

GulDukat
10-16-2018, 10:14 AM
I'm voting for Warren next month for another term in the Senate and I like her, but I'd rather her not run for President. I see a 2016 redux.

bobbie solo
10-16-2018, 01:39 PM
Hillary was hated all over the country by people of all stripes. She won the popular vote nonetheless by 3 million votes, and only lost the 3 swing states she didn't campaign nearly enough in by 70-something thousand votes combined. That's it. Warren is much, much more popular...many more people absolutely hate Trump now...and MANY more people will be energized to vote against him than the record low depressed vote of 2016. As long as she actually campaigns & excites people in the swing states she needs to, she will win handily against the pig, don't worry.

M1ke
10-16-2018, 01:50 PM
don't worry.

I've heard that before.

bobbie solo
10-16-2018, 01:55 PM
I've heard that before.

If her campaign (or whoever the candidate is) makes the same mistakes and is unlikeable to the vast majority of people like Hillary was, then yes...worry. Worry alot. But as long as someone who actually excites lefty voters is picked, and that person puts in the work, they will win. The numbers are not there for a Trump re-election if those things are done.

The other thing is to monitor and try to eliminate as much of the right wing's voter suppression and polling place/voting machine fuckery after the fact. That is another thing that will come into play. Are the Dems strong enough to counteract? That remains to be seen.

Louie_Cypher
10-16-2018, 03:17 PM
i think warren would do well there are some young that are getting involved Alexandra has some good interesting approaches like the new green deal. i think the youth are well informed
-louie

Patrick_Nicholas
10-20-2018, 09:28 PM
DONALD TRUMP WILL 'CASH OUT' AND WON'T RUN IN 2020, JOE SCARBOROUGH PREDICTS
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-scarborough-predicts-trump-wont-seek-re-election-2020-1179907

Extremely unlikely. Trump's ego is waaaay too big for him to step down on his own.

Aladdinsanity
10-20-2018, 09:55 PM
I love Elizabeth Warren and would definitely vote for her if she does a 2020 run, but I'll be extremely disappointed if she doesn't meet with the Cherokee Nation or at least do something to address the legitimate grievances about blood quantum/DNA "purity" as a topic among Native Americans and the damage it causes.

Patrick_Nicholas
10-20-2018, 11:08 PM
That whole Native American thing is my only real issue with Warren as a candidate, as Fox News and the GOP have been giving her endless flak over it. A bunch of racist idiots believing that they have any say in who counts as a Native American will likely help the GOP, in addition to any other "scandal" involving any Democrat. If the right actually cared about any of Trump's scandals, it would be highly unlikely that he would be anywhere near the White House.

Jinsai
10-23-2018, 10:21 AM
Warren never claimed to be a member of a Native American tribe, she clarified this. The solipsistic objection from the Cherokee rep is coming at the issue singularly concerned about tribal sovereignty, not the larger point which is a response to the racist Pocahontas jab. Trump owes her charity choice money, and anyone who wants to go anywhere else with this issue can fuuuuuuuuuck off right now

ThinkIcouldburn
10-23-2018, 02:06 PM
Extremely unlikely. Trump's ego is waaaay too big for him to step down on his own.
We need to convince him he needs to step down to be eligible for the Greatest World Emperor With Big Hands, Lots of Money, And Other Good Stuff Election which is happening in February 2021.

Louie_Cypher
10-23-2018, 03:48 PM
the amount of dirty lawless tricks the republicans are pulling is mind numbing between voter roll purges gerrymandering and of course kav makes his first decision get which side he sided on? we have a president that lost the popular vote. democracy you were nice while you lasted. next stop revolution
-louie

ltrandazzo
11-07-2018, 12:56 PM
Alright - here's my top 5 along with my super way too early pick to go up against Trump. I am not beholden to this list and can change it any time I want to.

1. Kamala Harris
2. Joe Biden
3. Elizabeth Warren
4. Eric Holder
5. Beto O'Rourke

For me, Kamala is the female Barack Obama. People will cite her inexperience or her lack of time in national politics after her AG stints throughout California. I love her and want her to A) run and B) lead her ticket. She has to defend her criminal justice history, but I don't think this will harm her in the long run. She would shrink Trump to nothing. I will get behind Joe Biden as well because even though people REALLY feel strongly about him one way or the other, I do think that he could be approaching this field with a mentor's approach and would declare his intention to almost raise the level and quality of his primary opponents.

bobbie solo
11-08-2018, 02:22 AM
Eric Holder lol

theimage13
11-08-2018, 06:01 AM
Biden will be 77 on election day. Hard pass. I love him to death, but this is a job unlike any in the world when it comes to stresses, and I legitimately worry about electing someone that old.

ltrandazzo
11-08-2018, 07:20 AM
Eric Holder lol

He's been working on voting rights since he left the AG's office and was also responsible for reducing the sentences for thousands of non-violent offenders. He's been positioning himself for a run for over a year and has a lot of knowledge around the inner workings of politics and law enforcement that could send him rocketing upward quickly. I wouldn't laugh him off this early.

ltrandazzo
11-08-2018, 07:22 AM
Biden will be 77 on election day. Hard pass. I love him to death, but this is a job unlike any in the world when it comes to stresses, and I legitimately worry about electing someone that old.

Joe could challenge you to a fist fight if someone hits him with the "too old" argument. He's been visiting early caucus states and putting out feelers. Of the overall potential field, he has the white house experience and the knowledge of working in Washington DC while also retaining simple American values. It'd be hard to discount him, even with his age as a factor.

Swykk
11-08-2018, 07:51 AM
He takes that big pharma money, but I think I’d put Cory Booker on the list even still.

ltrandazzo
11-08-2018, 08:29 AM
He takes that big pharma money, but I think I’d put Cory Booker on the list even still.

I'm keeping him off of my list right now because A) liberals like to shit on Cory from time to time and B) I secretly think he becomes the best VP candidate available for any of the other 5 I've added when it's all said and done.

ltrandazzo
11-08-2018, 08:52 AM
Nate Silver started looking at 2020 after 2018's map looks similar to 2012's map. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2018-map-looked-a-lot-like-2012-and-that-got-me-thinking-about-2020/)

I will not be excited about this yet. I also know that even if conditions still stay the same, a LOT of work is going to have to go into statewide races as well to continue the grassroots growth by Dems... but this is still VERY encouraging.

elevenism
11-08-2018, 10:46 AM
Beto for the win, although it would have been a lot more cooler if he'd won the Senate race.
Maybe Beto 2024 if trump stays.

ryanmcfly
11-08-2018, 10:47 AM
1a. Beto
1b. Kamala


After Beto lost the other night, I've been in a fuck it, lets go all the way in 2020. But at the same time, Beto could also try to run against Cornyn for his senate seat in 2020. I've never been so excited for a campaign ever, so it's hard for me to jump off the wagon now. But I would be perfectly happy with Kamala Harris.

Jinsai
11-08-2018, 10:56 AM
a ticket w/ Beto and Kamala Harris would be amazing, and if that ticket fails to Trump in 2020, we can empirically prove that there is no god.

bobbie solo
11-08-2018, 12:20 PM
He's been working on voting rights since he left the AG's office and was also responsible for reducing the sentences for thousands of non-violent offenders. He's been positioning himself for a run for over a year and has a lot of knowledge around the inner workings of politics and law enforcement that could send him rocketing upward quickly. I wouldn't laugh him off this early.

He also has the charisma of a snail, and nobody knows who he is. He would get slaughtered by the bigger names that are running, both the corporate Dems like Booker & Harris, as well as the progressives.

GulDukat
11-08-2018, 12:32 PM
I'd like to see a Biden/O'Rourke ticket.

People should read this piece from the NYT. It should give Democrats pause.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/midterm-results-2020-democrats.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage&fbclid=IwAR3pqCYaw6WPUzQ9lhF00BiCMe6vGyTqkbJpPupK6 65589MpP1q2lFpZCps

ltrandazzo
11-08-2018, 02:57 PM
I'd like to see a Biden/O'Rourke ticket.

People should read this piece from the NYT. It should give Democrats pause.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/midterm-results-2020-democrats.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage&fbclid=IwAR3pqCYaw6WPUzQ9lhF00BiCMe6vGyTqkbJpPupK6 65589MpP1q2lFpZCps

I don't take Bret Stephens seriously and neither should anyone else. We also don't have FINAL turnout numbers, so this is premature to start learning definitive lessons from midterm election night.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/opinion/bannon-new-yorker-festival-remnick.html

GulDukat
11-08-2018, 05:58 PM
I don't take Bret Stephens seriously and neither should anyone else. We also don't have FINAL turnout numbers, so this is premature to start learning definitive lessons from midterm election night.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/opinion/bannon-new-yorker-festival-remnick.htmlLet's see what happens in Florida as more numbers come in with a possible recount.

Aladdinsanity
11-08-2018, 08:23 PM
I really feel like any woman of color at least somewhat left of establishment Dems would stand a really good chance. They fucking cleaned house just this midterm.

ltrandazzo
11-09-2018, 08:30 AM
Let's see what happens in Florida as more numbers come in with a possible recount.

Also, regarding Bret Stephens -
1060758866982563847

GulDukat
11-09-2018, 05:33 PM
Also, regarding Bret Stephens -
1060758866982563847I enjoy reading Stephens' articles, but calling Silver a troll was totally uncalled for.

theimage13
11-12-2018, 10:49 AM
Please don't.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/416164-ex-clinton-aide-hillary-will-run-again-in-2020

Jinsai
11-12-2018, 11:50 AM
Please don't.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/416164-ex-clinton-aide-hillary-will-run-again-in-2020

At this point, she'll only make it through the primaries if there's nobody better to get excited about, and if that's the case, that's a bigger problem than Clinton giving it another shot.

Deepvoid
11-12-2018, 01:59 PM
Richard Ojeda will run for President in 2020. Long shot but I liked his most recent campaign. He's passionate that's for sure.

Patrick_Nicholas
11-12-2018, 03:40 PM
Here's why Hillary Clinton 4.0 is a terrible idea
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/hillary-clinton-2020-donald-trump/index.html?

Yes, even CNN thinks Hillary running again is a bad idea.


As you may remember, Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race to Trump. You might have missed it, it wasn't that big a story.
She lost that race despite these facts:
1. She was seeking to follow a popular Democratic president in office.
2. She drastically outraised and outspent Trump in all key battleground states.
3. A tape emerged just weeks before the end of the race where Trump made a laundry list of misogynistic comments.
4. Her opponent was Donald Trump.

Yes, there were mitigating factors -- most notably James Comey's decision to announce that he was re-opening the FBI investigation into her use of a private email server just days before the election. And WikiLeaks' strategic release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee designed to embarrass the Clinton team and distract them from the task at hand.
BUT, but, but. The 2016 race was still a VERY winnable one for Clinton -- and one that most experts, polls and people expected her to win, and win easily.

...

And, remember this: Beating Trump is harder than it might look from the outside. For all of his abnormalities in office, he has demonstrated an ability to rally the Republican base like few GOP politicians before him. And he will do absolutely anything -- literally -- to win.

Democrats would do well to try a different approach than Clinton used in 2016, which, when boiled down, amounted to this: I'm running against Donald Trump, and you're certainly not going to vote for him, are you?

And they'd be well served to try a different candidate to deliver that different message -- not someone who was rejected by voters in the last presidential election even though she was running against the weakest Republican nominee in modern memory.

The third time is rarely the charm in presidential politics. Especially when you're talking about a candidate as divisive as Hillary Clinton.

theimage13
11-12-2018, 04:13 PM
-I am very much left-leaning
-I am very much waiting for a woman to sit in the Oval Office
-I voted for Hillary first and foremost because she is not Donald Trump

And that, I can promise you, the same reason that a LOT of people voted for her. It's not to say that she's the worst person in the world or something, but she really struggled to relate to a lot of people. Where the previous Democrat in office was charismatic and had a way of seeming as though he understood (or sincerely wanted to understand) people from basically every walk of life, Clinton just has this very "elitist" feel to her that makes it hard for many to believe she's truly passionate about fighting for them. We need a candidate who can not only fire up the base, but also connect with truly independent / swing voters.

M1ke
11-12-2018, 04:57 PM
Agreed on Hillary not running again. We need a candidate that Trump can't accuse of being Hillary Clinton.

Deepvoid
11-12-2018, 07:32 PM
WSJ is saying that Clinton will run in 2020 so better get used to see the Clinton name in the news for the next 2 years.

theimage13
11-12-2018, 07:37 PM
Agreed on Hillary not running again. We need a candidate that Trump can't accuse of being Hillary Clinton.

To be fair, he's probably going to accuse EVERY opponent of being Hillary Clinton. And why not? His fans will believe him.

richardp
11-12-2018, 11:27 PM
How does she even remotely think people will WANT her to run again? She's doing this shit purely for her own ego at this point. I sincerely doubt that if Hillary tried to run again she wouldn't make it past the primaries. She's lost her goddamn mind if she thinks she can beat Trump in 2020.

bobbie solo
11-12-2018, 11:57 PM
Richard Ojeda will run for President in 2020. Long shot but I liked his most recent campaign. He's passionate that's for sure.

Ojeda is THE MAN, but I really wish he didn't do this. He is the PERFECT person to run either again for that House seat in 2020, or for WV Senate. Sure I'd love a guy like him as president, but he's putting the cart before the horse here. I think he has the wrong people firing him up. Win a congressional or statewide seat first, then let's talk President down the line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofh_QHho_qA&ab_channel=RichardOjeda

HOW DARE SHE!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jes9of0S4uM&ab_channel=RichardOjeda


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lLvh0Y0TTY&ab_channel=RichardOjeda

If you aren't fired up after watching those...

Demogorgon
11-13-2018, 12:08 AM
If Hillary Clinton runs, and further actually takes the primary, they may as well just hand Trump a victory and wait til he's out in 4 more years. She has no chance at all, and that's not saying Trump is the better choice by any means. Her time is over.

theimage13
11-13-2018, 05:48 AM
I'm gonna be honest: I'm tired of a violently angry temperament in the White House. Listening to him sounds like a more articulate and intelligent Donald Trump...he makes good points, but the anger is just grating. He strikes me as the kind of guy who would be quick to start a war we don't need to start.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pissed off. I'd probably sound like him if I ran, too. But I wouldn't want ME in office. I would want someone who has that fire, but with a more even keel.

aggroculture
11-13-2018, 08:23 AM
yeah we need an alternative to anger. anger is too easily manipulated and weaponized to bad ends. we need a politics of care. we need to care for people - especially those who are vulnerable and in need - rather than keep getting angry.

ltrandazzo
11-13-2018, 08:42 AM
Please don't.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/416164-ex-clinton-aide-hillary-will-run-again-in-2020

2020 thread over here - https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/5099-11-3-2020-U-S-Presidential-Election-Let-me-know-will-Trump-stay-or-will-he-go

bobbie solo
11-13-2018, 12:34 PM
Populism on both sides of the aisle is the trend worldwide the last few years. An actual, real person like Ojeda that can speak to that populism from the left could be really powerful. I just think it's too early b/c he hasn't won something big enough yet.

Unfortunately the GOP has made our politics even more ruthless, corrupt and zero sum than ever before. They are not just going to stop once Trump is out of office, b/c their tactics were disgusting prior to him. So we need more fighters like Ojeda with some balls and willingness to stand up to the GOP, not less. If his anger (an anger that is palpable all over the country, and for sincere things) is part of the package, so be it. Cuz here's your current alternative:

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/15/15-nancy-pelosi.w700.h700.jpg

https://greatamericandaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Chuck-Schumer-Was-Blindsided-By-These-Polls-And-It%E2%80%99s-Bad-News-For-Democrats-770x513.jpg

richardp
11-13-2018, 12:48 PM
There needs to be a middle though. I'd rather not have Schumer and Pelosi be the face of the Democratic party, but I also DEFINITELY don't want that Ojeda dude either. I don't care if he's a democrat or not. That type of anger is partially what got us to this point in the first place. We need level headed leadership, not just some beefy dude who's pissed off.

ltrandazzo
11-13-2018, 12:51 PM
@bobbie solo (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=753) - I'm glad you brought this up because I've been wanting to discuss this. I'm calling my rep, Steve Cohen, today to tell him to consider ALL candidates for speaker and that if someone new is ready to go, to please vote for them because he would have my support. I don't have any Dem senators here in TN, so I can't call any of them about Chuck Schumer.

Honestly, I'd be fine with keeping Pelosi because she has almost made it clear that she sees a possible speakership as a transitional position for her and not something she's planning on holding onto for long. I respect that she has read the room and understands that the future of the party is with someone younger than her who is ready to keep making progress on the work she has done. Say what you want about Pelosi and how she's been made toxic by the right; she was the driving force on climate change bills and with getting the ACA through the House and mostly through the Senate. I will always admire her for that. If someone isn't ready now, Pelosi could get them ready for two years from now.

Schumer - Jon Favreau said this on a recent Pod Save America and I agree with him 100% that it seems like Chuck Schumer moreso wants to be liked by everyone instead of being the Democratic party's leader in the Senate, and that it's a horrible quality to have since Harry Reid always made it a point to know that your likability goes downward when you achieve that position. I think Chuck did a great job with corralling his senators during the attempted ACA repeal last year, but I think he sacrificed way too much with judicial appointments just to get red-state Dems home to campaign in October. Those campaigns lasted less than a month - the judicial appointments last a lifetime and will have damaging effects in the long-term.

If ANY of you have a Dem senator, call them and tell them to consider someone else for leadership in the Senate, if only to send a message to Chuck that he needs to get tougher now. It's less about spending time in the Hamptons with Javanka and more about representing the people who elected him and his caucus to office.

ltrandazzo
11-13-2018, 12:52 PM
There needs to be a middle though. I'd rather not have Schumer and Pelosi be the face of the Democratic party, but I also DEFINITELY don't want that Ojeda dude either. I don't care if he's a democrat or not. That type of anger is partially what got us to this point in the first place. We need level headed leadership, not just some beefy dude who's pissed off.

This is not the most important point about Ojeda and is 100% petty - but have any of you ever googled that t-shirt store? They print some truly horrendous shirts that way too many hoosiers in rural MO and TN LOVE to wear.

WorzelG
11-13-2018, 05:58 PM
At this point, she'll only make it through the primaries if there's nobody better to get excited about, and if that's the case, that's a bigger problem than Clinton giving it another shot.
that article with its ‘stunning defeat’ line seems to make out she lost hideously to Trump when she won the popular vote by 2-3 million with him only winning by the electoral college going his way (which is what instigated the endless ‘voter fraud’ nonsense spouted by Trump

bobbie solo
11-14-2018, 10:10 AM
She would win the popular vote again I'm sure, but she is really, really unliked by alot of people, even some that voted for her. She excites no one. And after she failed to campaign properly in the swing states needed to over that 77,000 vote differential in 2016, I certainly wouldn't trust her to do the work to get over the hump again. People are so tired of the Clintons. It would be really hard to make the case AGAIN in those purple states. Similar to Ojeda, she just has the wrong people in her ear (think about all the sycophants that are in the Clinton orbit, and how little interaction she has with real people).

bobbie solo
11-14-2018, 10:19 AM
There needs to be a middle though.

I don't agree. That's how we've gotten into the mess we're in: passive neo-liberalism/centrism from Obama & Dem leadership overall since 1992, while the Republicans drifted farther and farther right. Now the "center" is what used to be the moderate right. How about we try some unabashed progressive, "far left" policies with no compromise, and see what happens? We never try that. Haven't imo since the New Deal. If progressive policies fail like the fearmongers on the right proclaim (they won't though), then our POV on proper governance can be jettisoned to the dustbins of time. But let's actually try some first....b/c we try far right policies all the time and they almost always fuck the country, but then they get to still come to the table with more of their bullshit.

theimage13
11-14-2018, 11:10 AM
I don't agree. That's how we've gotten into the mess we're in: passive neo-liberalism/centrism from Obama & Dem leadership overall since 1992, while the Republicans drifted farther and farther right. Now the "center" is what used to be the moderate right. How about we try some unabashed progressive, "far left" policies with no compromise, and see what happens? We never try that. Haven't imo since the New Deal. If progressive policies fail like the fearmongers on the right proclaim (they won't though), then our POV on proper governance can be jettisoned to the dustbins of time. But let's actually try some first....b/c we try far right policies all the time and they almost always fuck the country, but then they get to still come to the table with more of their bullshit.

I don't know, I feel like things such as "universal health care" and "free college tuition" are considered pretty "far left", and they haven't really done anything.

ltrandazzo
11-14-2018, 12:36 PM
I don't know, I feel like things such as "universal health care" and "free college tuition" are considered pretty "far left", and they haven't really done anything.

The most recent polls I can find about paid college tuition and Medicare-For-All are from August 2018 and show that a majority of Americans favor it - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

A majority of Americans support these "far left" policies, so it's time that politicians figure out how to implement them. If they can't, we start replacing them with politicians who want to, and it looks like that's what happened last Tuesday. It won't fix itself overnight or in two years, but Dems now have a majority in the house who can start debating and researching these plans and working on how we can pay them. Then they can pass legislation in the house and kick it over to the senate. They'll likely reject it, but it puts Senators on the record about policies a majority of Americans support and helps voters decide who they need to replace in 2020.

You can have moderate Dems but I watched them get beaten in MO and TN while watching liberal Dems come SUPER close in red states and make up margins that are building the foundation for successful 2020 and 2022 runs on these same policies. This is something the next Dem candidate for president can do, too - speak up healthcare while pointing out that Trump and Republicans have done nothing to improve it.

theimage13
11-14-2018, 01:15 PM
The majority of Americans voted for a president who didn't win the election.
The majority of Americans voted for Democrats in the US Senate, but it's controlled by Republicans. (In total, there were 14 million more votes (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-senate-elections.html) for Democrats than Republicans in the Senate this year)
What a poll says the majority wants doesn't mean that much given the way our system works. (By the way, that "majority" was 85% of Democrats but barely half of Republicans - meaning it's still not something that's all that important to them.)

Where I live, tuition to state colleges was recently made free to students of parents who earned a combined income of $125k or less.
I live in a blue state, with a Democratic governor and Democrat-controlled House.
And yet, the overwhelming number of comments on all news articles about this program were 'WAKE UP SHEEPLE WHAT DO YOU THINK 'FREE' MEANS ITS NOT REALLY FREE YOUR ALL PAYING FOR IT I DONT WANT MY MONEY TO GO TO THOSE FREELOADERS"

As for what the next Democratic candidate can do - no amount of facts and evidence in the world will convince most Republican voters that Trump and the Republican-held Senate have done nothing to improve health care. Partisan politics is just THAT deep. Trump will stand up, lie to their faces in response, and they'll believe him and every "news" outlet that plays the soundbite on repeat for the next week.

ltrandazzo
11-14-2018, 01:54 PM
The majority of Americans voted for a president who didn't win the election.

Because of about 80,000 votes that went the wrong way in three states.


The majority of Americans voted for Democrats in the US Senate, but it's controlled by Republicans. (In total, there were 14 million more votes (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-senate-elections.html) for Democrats than Republicans in the Senate this year)

Democrats had to defend over 20 Senate seats while Republicans defended 9 and Republicans are walking away with only a net gain of 1-2 seats.


What a poll says the majority wants doesn't mean that much given the way our system works. (By the way, that "majority" was 85% of Democrats but barely half of Republicans - meaning it's still not something that's all that important to them.)

Those polls break down by states so it's not just a simple majority poll with a sampling from one big Dem state i.e. California, they're averaged by each state and that's what a majority of Americans want. It also tells me that there are more potential Dems out there than there are Republicans.


Where I live, tuition to state colleges was recently made free to students of parents who earned a combined income of $125k or less.
I live in a blue state, with a Democratic governor and Democrat-controlled House.
And yet, the overwhelming number of comments on all news articles about this program were 'WAKE UP SHEEPLE WHAT DO YOU THINK 'FREE' MEANS ITS NOT REALLY FREE YOUR ALL PAYING FOR IT I DONT WANT MY MONEY TO GO TO THOSE FREELOADERS"

Bots and commenters from potentially anywhere don't represent how people vote. Online comments on local news articles are not a good way to gauge public support for something.


As for what the next Democratic candidate can do - no amount of facts and evidence in the world will convince most Republican voters that Trump and the Republican-held Senate have done nothing to improve health care. Partisan politics is just THAT deep. Trump will stand up, lie to their faces in response, and they'll believe him and every "news" outlet that plays the soundbite on repeat for the next week.

Republican turnout was high for the 2018 midterms, but Democrat turnout was higher. The effective plan for most of these races was to pivot from whatever madness Trump said and change the topic to healthcare, and that energized enough first time and lapsed voters to get back out there and vote. Don't worry about changing Republicans minds, energize liberals and progressives to get out there and vote.

Exocet
11-14-2018, 02:16 PM
Trump has a 40 percent approval rating...he is way more popular than any of the European leaders, like Angela Merkel, Emmanuelle Macron or Theresa May.
all have approval ratings in the low 20's

every news organisation is against him every news organisation is for the lame ass European leaders who have no support...

I know its sad but its just a reality, he is more popular than any European leader at the moment why is this?

SchwarzerAbt
11-15-2018, 05:50 AM
Trump has a 40 percent approval rating...he is way more popular than any of the European leaders, like Angela Merkel, Emmanuelle Macron or Theresa May.
all have approval ratings in the low 20's

every news organisation is against him every news organisation is for the lame ass European leaders who have no support...

I know its sad but its just a reality, he is more popular than any European leader at the moment why is this?

According to recent surveys for Germany this is not true. ZDF Politbarometer says 56% think Merkel does her job "rather good". Der Spiegel says 36% are at least "rather satisfied" with Merkel. Where do you get your stats from?

ryanmcfly
11-27-2018, 08:42 AM
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/beto-orourke-2020-election-1015830

GulDukat
11-30-2018, 06:15 PM
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/beto-orourke-2020-election-1015830
I'd love to see a Biden/O'Rourke ticket--an old lion with fresh voice. On his own, he's a little too green.

Jinsai
11-30-2018, 06:41 PM
he's a little too green.

Well... we did just elect a reality television star, so it wouldn't be due to him being an implausible or unelectable option

GulDukat
11-30-2018, 07:17 PM
Well... we did just elect a reality television star, so it wouldn't be due to him being an implausible or unelectable optionBeto (or virtually anyone) would of course be preferable to Trump.

ltrandazzo
12-01-2018, 10:45 AM
I'm on the "everyone should run" train, except for Hillary and Bernie. Past that, fair game for anyone else. Let's bring some ideas and start fixing this shit.

GulDukat
12-01-2018, 10:47 AM
I'm on the "everyone should run" train, except for Hillary and Bernie. Past that, fair game for anyone else. Let's bring some ideas and start fixing this shit.I voted for Hillary in both the primary and general election in 2016, but please, no, don't run.

bobbie solo
12-01-2018, 02:06 PM
Every progressive idea that is now gaining steam was basically Bernie's idea first. He started alot of this fervor, and is the most tried and true one we can count on to not give in b/c of typical Dem corruption or for some insane, weak attempt at bi-partisanship. He will fight the hardest to keep the big ideas as progressive and NON-CENTRIST as possible. He's got my vote, b/c it seems to me he is def. running. Just need the right woman, preferably woman of color, to join his ticket if he wins.

bobbie solo
12-01-2018, 02:54 PM
You know what I mean when I say "his idea first". Ugh. :rolleyes:

theimage13
12-02-2018, 07:42 AM
Do you think someone could beat Trump largely by just campaigning on the federal legalization of recreational marijuana? It's winning ballot after ballot at the state level. It seems to be gaining traction. Do you think it would be to a Democratic candidate's advantage to make it a very clear part of his or her message that this would be a priority? (I'm not saying THE priority...let's keep talking about things like universal health care and erasing the massive debt that Trump just inflicted on us.)

Note: this is a question from someone who has literally never imbibed in the Devil's Lettuce in any of its forms - so no skin in the game here. Just a honest strategy question.

allegro
12-02-2018, 11:16 AM
Devil’s Lettuce, lol. :D

Personally, I think so, yeah.

It’s tied to prison reform, too. Which is important to both parties, oddly enough.

Jinsai
12-02-2018, 12:43 PM
If dems push for National decriminalization, so will Trump in an election cycle... he’s hinted as much

botley
12-02-2018, 01:47 PM
If dems push for National decriminalization, so will Trump in an election cycle... he’s hinted as much

In that case Dems should push for amnesty on all prior convictions for cannabis possession.

theimage13
12-02-2018, 04:21 PM
In that case Dems should push for amnesty on all prior convictions for cannabis possession.

And then his crazy fan base will immediately scream "soft on crime!!" and get all scared that we're letting a bunch of scary colored people out of prison to make our streets unsafe for the childrens to be out on.

allegro
12-02-2018, 05:51 PM
There’s already a Trump-backed Kushner / Booker / Grassley / Durbin bipartisan bill in the Senate that has an estimated 80 Senate votes behind it for prison reform, including modifying the unfair crack cocaine sentences of the 90s and the three strikes laws, but McConnell is refusing to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote.

See First Step Act (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/trump-finally-backs-kushners-criminal-justice-reform-bill.html).

Newt Gingrich wrote an OpEd about it in the WaPo the other day: ”This bill could help begin to fix the federal prison system. It must pass” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-bill-could-help-begin-to-fix-the-federal-prison-system-it-must-pass/2018/11/29/cdbf995e-f3fb-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html?noredirect=on).

theimage13
12-02-2018, 07:15 PM
Honest question: has Mitch McConnell ever done anything that could be reasonably argued as "good", or has he always been the massive piece of breathing excrement he is now?

allegro
12-02-2018, 07:43 PM
See also: ”Something rare and wondrous is happening in Congress (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-miracle-may-happen-in-congress-will-mitch-mcconnell-stand-in-its-way/2018/11/28/000661b2-f326-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html?utm_term=.03aecd6d9481), Nov. 28, 2018.

Also: Mitch McConnell faces tough choice on criminal justice proposal (https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/02/politics/mitch-mcconnell-criminal-justice-plan/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)


Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, told CNN that there's a generational divide within the party on the issue.

"I think there are people who were teenagers in 1937 watching 'Reefer Madness' and they're still concerned that Reefer Madness is going to take over and everybody is going to become zombies, hacking and killing everyone if they smoke pot," said Paul, a supporter of the bill. "And then there are a couple of generations after 1937 of people who don't see it with the same degree of evil."

"We had one of the senators in the lunch saying, 'You know how you get no recidivism? Don't ever let him out of jail. Zero recidivism!'" added Paul, referring to a closed-door meeting GOP senators held this week.

Paul did note that there were exceptions to his theory, including 85-year-old Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, a sponsor of the bill.

In response, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, one of the fiercest opponents of the bill, said he didn't think any mandatory minimums should be reduced since "we're in the middle of a drug epidemic."

Of the generational gap, Cotton, who at 41 is the youngest current member of the US Senate, said that "older senators like Rand Paul" — the Kentucky senator is 55 — "take for granted all the gains that we've made because of the tough on crime policies of the 1980s and are willing to abandon those in misguided efforts to have compassionate understanding for depraved felons."

ryanmcfly
12-03-2018, 08:06 AM
I firmly believe that if Congress passed a cannabis legalization bill right now, that Trump would sign it.

elevenism
12-03-2018, 09:54 AM
I see a white house run in Beto's future, no doubt. RhettButler MAY be right, though. Beto may be too green to win THIS time. theimage13 , I honestly seem to remember Mitch doing SOMETHING good, but I can't remember what it was :p
Seriously.

theimage13
12-03-2018, 12:48 PM
I firmly believe that if Congress passed a cannabis legalization bill right now, that Trump would sign it.

And soon TrumPot stores would be on every street corner.

theimage13
12-03-2018, 12:56 PM
I see a white house run in Beto's future, no doubt. @RhettButler (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3921) MAY be right, though. Beto may be too green to win THIS time. @theimage13 (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=809) , I honestly seem to remember Mitch doing SOMETHING good, but I can't remember what it was :p
Seriously.

Obama aides say Beto O'Rourke reminds them of the ex-president. Obama agrees. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/obama-aides-say-beto-o-rourke-reminds-them-ex-president-n942576)

I'm on the fence about the too-green thing. They both had roughly the same number of years in office, although Obama's were in higher positions. But I think that could actually be an advantage. We just accidentally elected a guy with ZERO years in office. People liked him BECAUSE of that. I think both sides are growing increasingly disenfranchised with career politicians. They don't want a complete imbecile (on second thought....), but they want someone who isn't seen as your typical deal-breaking, lobby-owned DC suit. Trump *could* use the inexperience card against him, but you'd have to be an idiot not to see the blatant hypocrisy in that. Thankfully (for him), since that describes most of his supporters, that wouldn't be a problem.

allegro
12-03-2018, 11:07 PM
Beto was a member of the El Paso City Council (8th district) from 2005 - 2011. (6 years.)

Beto has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives (U.S. Congress) 2012 through today. (6 years.)


Obama was an Illinois State Senator (Illinois State Congress) from 1997–2004. (7 years.)

Obama was the Junior U.S. Senator from Illinois (U.S. Congress) from 2005 - 2008 (3 years).

So Beto actually has more years of experience in the U.S. Congress than Obama.


The biggest difference between them: Beto isn’t a lawyer.

After having the current idiot in office who seems to know NOTHING about the Constitution, I’m leaning toward a J.D. being a requirement of running for President.

But, I still like Beto.

I also like Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio. (Also not a lawyer.)

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/419331-orourke-brown-shake-up-volatile-democratic-horse-race

theimage13
12-04-2018, 06:14 AM
I also like Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/419331-orourke-brown-shake-up-volatile-democratic-horse-race


The Texan isn’t not the only potential candidate with new momentum after the midterms, either.

Goddamnit, this is why you pay copy editors.

But on topic, I'd certainly look more into Brown. Maybe Casey from PA, as well. People who can win in swing states are a good sign. They also made a point about how Biden, who, as nervous as he makes me (age), would probably be able to get a lot of the older, blue collar white male votes that often go red.

chuckrh
12-04-2018, 06:48 AM
terrified that he will win again. imagine him going senile like reagan. you think it's bad now. there's an interview with springsteen out where he says he thinks trump will get a second term. scary. btw, i live in politically correctville (seattle). i'm pretty liberal but that is out of control here. i think that sort of thing is part of the problem. its pushing some to the dark side. surprisingly i work with a bunch gun toting trump fans. i'm a ghost in the machine....

elevenism
12-04-2018, 09:09 PM
Beto reminds me of Obama, too, and his momentum DEFINITELY reminds me of obama. Also, how about this? Am I right in saying that beto had more visibility in his Congress run than Obama did, even though he lost to the Zodiac? Because I didn't know who Obama was until people were talking about a presidential run. Hell, conspiracy theorists talked about him like being inserted into the race by, uh, the illuminati or whatever.
Granted, I'm from Texas and not Illinois, but still.

So it's POSSIBLE that Beto, in a presidential run, could have MORE momentum than Obama did, if I'm correct in my assessment.

The question is, can Beto WIN this time? I'll eat my hat if he doesn't run this time or next though.

Can ANYONE win?

Also, chuckrh , I think you might be right about people being pushed to the dark side

theimage13
12-04-2018, 09:36 PM
I still think the fact that Beto was only three points off of winning TEXAS is a pretty good sign. If you can get that close to a win in that state, there's no telling what you can do in the so called "purple" states.

allegro
12-05-2018, 03:37 PM
Am I right in saying that beto had more visibility in his Congress run than Obama did

Obama delivered the Keynote Speech at the DNC in 2004, which is where he got THE most attention and which is where the predictions that he should run for President started.

SEE THIS (https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2016/07/the-story-behind-obamas-keynote-address-at-the-2004-democratic-national-convention.html).


Obama was interrupted with applause thirty-three times. The reviews were unanimous: it was a barnburner. People immediately compared his oratorical skills to those of John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Martin Luther King Jr. He was mobbed by crowds, not just that evening, but also every day thereafter. The throngs at his senate campaign events regularly shot up from hundreds to thousands. His political future would be forever changed. As Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois put it, “Without that Boston speech, there is a question whether Barack would be...[president] today. His public image changed because of that speech.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueMNqdB1QIE

theimage13
12-05-2018, 04:05 PM
Obama delivered the Keynote Speech at the DNC in 2004, which is where he got THE most attention and which is where the predictions that he should run for President started.

SEE THIS (https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2016/07/the-story-behind-obamas-keynote-address-at-the-2004-democratic-national-convention.html).




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueMNqdB1QIE


By comparison: in the Facebook / Youtube era, O'Rourke has arguably reached viral status. The town hall response about kneeling during the anthem? Millions of views. Bill Maher interview? 1.6 million views. Colbert interview? 1.5 million. And that's just on Youtube; that's not counting original airings.

Admittedly, I don't recall the Boston speech. I don't recall exactly when I first started noticing Obama myself. But I can say this much: I have friends in almost every state, and I have seen many of them talk about O'Rourke both during and after the election. I don't recall what (if any) mainstream media attention there was for the town hall video. But I feel like the amount of national and international coverage that his race received was beaten only by elections where rampant voter suppression was being reported. He's got everyone's attention. It might be wise to use that momentum.

allegro
12-10-2018, 04:20 PM
Mike Bloomberg on The View today:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEDacBzbLk


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PLmpWRPYLq0

Jinsai
12-14-2018, 02:47 PM
Fuck you Scott Walker, you awful craven shitbag (https://splinternews.com/scott-walker-performs-final-despicable-act-can-fuck-of-1831106634)

How is this kind of shit legal...
I know this isn't directly related to Trump, but it ties into this cowardly desperate Republican agenda to say "fuck you" to people who voted for anything other than them.

theimage13
12-14-2018, 07:43 PM
Fuck you Scott Walker, you awful craven shitbag (https://splinternews.com/scott-walker-performs-final-despicable-act-can-fuck-of-1831106634)

How is this kind of shit legal...
I know this isn't directly related to Trump, but it ties into this cowardly desperate Republican agenda to say "fuck you" to people who voted for anything other than them.

This is what I struggle with. I have ALWAYS wanted to say "take the high road". But when you take the high road and WIN and they can STILL fucking cut you off at the knees after you've beaten them, then what are you supposed to do - just keep trying to take the high road and expect them not to keep on chopping? I feel like at this point, the GOP is 100% responsible for creating the hyper partisan us vs them culture of today's politics, because it feels to me like Democrats are out there trying to win on policy while Republicans are out there just trying to destroy Democrats, regardless of what that even means.

I think the Democrats need to start playing dirty. But I don't want to see this partisan bullshit get even worse. I just don't know how anyone even creates a path forward in this climate.

theimage13
12-30-2018, 04:28 PM
Just curious: anyone think that regardless of the winner, there will be crowds in streets on election night 2020? I feel like we could see some big celebratory gatherings or some angry rioting either way...just feels like this election will be way more charged than any I've lived for so far. Am I crazy? Or does that seem likely?

onthewall2983
12-30-2018, 08:25 PM
I personally feel like Trump is going to win, unless someone on the other side single-handedly captivates the other side within the next year like he did in 2016. And even as someone who is not as well-versed in these affairs like a lot of people here, I can tell that's very likely not going to happen. The shine on Bernie has grown very dim for me, and the fact that he still has Bernie Bros backing him up like it's 2 years ago is troublesome. I like Beto a lot, for a Texas Democrat. Whether or not he's the answer is elusive to me.

allegro
12-30-2018, 10:18 PM
I personally feel like Trump is going to win, unless someone on the other side single-handedly captivates the other side within the next year like he did in 2016. And even as someone who is not as well-versed in these affairs like a lot of people here, I can tell that's very likely not going to happen. The shine on Bernie has grown very dim for me, and the fact that he still has Bernie Bros backing him up like it's 2 years ago is troublesome. I like Beto a lot, for a Texas Democrat. Whether or not he's the answer is elusive to me.

There’s also likely to be a LOT of other candidates, like maybe even more than 25 of them.

Like Julian Castro: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/us/politics/julian-castro-president-democrat-texas.html

GulDukat
12-31-2018, 08:13 AM
And Warren is in:
https://www.apnews.com/c9f36d36633c43d0bee74859a010850a

allegro
12-31-2018, 10:20 AM
And Warren is in:
https://www.apnews.com/c9f36d36633c43d0bee74859a010850a

Exploratory Committee. I hope she officially runs, she’s got the stuff. Even with that B.S. Native American controversy that Trump keeps throwing at her (which is NOTHING compared to the hundreds of his actual controversies). She champions the working class and REALLY know economics. This isn’t a surprise, everyone has been predicting this.

ltrandazzo
12-31-2018, 11:02 AM
IMO - 2020 candidates that were pegged as 2020 candidates back in 2017 who announce that they are running or "forming committees" or whatever isn't really news, even if new publications are covering it like it's actual news.

Also, let them all run. I don't care about age anymore. Voters will weed out the best from the field, but I think the larger the field with ideas that bring all of the candidates into more progressive ideas and thinking, the better. Also, avoid the Twitter arguments this time around because man, that's some crazy shit right there.

allegro
12-31-2018, 11:07 AM
IMO - 2020 candidates that were pegged as 2020 candidates back in 2017 who announce that they are running or "forming committees" or whatever isn't really news, even if new publications are covering it like it's actual news.

Also, let them all run. I don't care about age anymore. Voters will weed out the best from the field, but I think the larger the field with ideas that bring all of the candidates into more progressive ideas and thinking, the better. Also, avoid the Twitter arguments this time around because man, that's some crazy shit right there.

Totally.

I think the truly "progressive" ideas this time are going to have to include ones that focus on the working class, and blue collar, and getting folks into trade schools and filling millions of blue collar jobs, including jobs in clean energy.

Like, per this article: https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university

See also this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/education/learning/white-collar-to-blue-collar.html

And this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/us/west-virginia-vocational-education.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer


The Federal Government college loan program now using Navient to manage loans (https://www.studentloanplanner.com/navient-student-loans/) has turned into what amounts to a Ponzi scheme.

ltrandazzo
01-02-2019, 08:36 AM
Washington Governor Jay Inslee announces he's running. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/washington-governor-jay-inslee-running-president/579217/)

bobbie solo
01-03-2019, 03:05 AM
washington governor jay inslee announces he's running. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/washington-governor-jay-inslee-running-president/579217/)

lol sit down sir.

Sarah K
01-03-2019, 11:14 AM
Warren is fine, I just hope that we get some legitimate options that are EXCITING and not old enough to have parented my parents.

Jinsai
01-03-2019, 11:29 AM
Warren is fine, I just hope that we get some legitimate options that are EXCITING and not old enough to have parented my parents.


I dont mean mean to imply that it’s what you’re suggesting, but Warren is being prepped for attack, and her age and gender are fast targets. It’s more subversive than “Pocahontas” but it’s the same thing. That recent Politico article was called out for its headline framing her as “cold and aloof.” That’s all a small jump from having to defend her for being “shrill.”

As an antidote to Trump she’d be incredible. It’s not the safest bet, mostly because you ARE NOT WRONG, but I’m stubborn against toying with the objections they’ll throw in her way. I guess there’s no way to handle the inevitable ugliness

M1ke
01-03-2019, 11:41 AM
I dont mean mean to imply that it’s what you’re suggesting, but Warren is being prepped for attack, and her age and gender are fast targets. It’s more subversive than “Pocahontas” but it’s the same thing. That recent Politico article was called out for its headline framing her as “cold and aloof.” That’s all a small jump from having to defend her for being “shrill.”

As an antidote to Trump she’d be incredible. It’s not the safest bet, mostly because you ARE NOT WRONG, but I’m stubborn against toying with the objections they’ll throw in her way. I guess there’s no way to handle the inevitable ugliness

No, Trump will throw insults and horseshit at anyone, and his insults really shouldn't be taken into account when selecting a candidate. I say a candidate is picked based on their policies rather than their personality.

Trump is going to do his damnedest to make this election a referendum on the alpha male persona he tries to play up. A candidate who can talk about the issues and not give his narrative credibility would be ideal. Otherwise the option is to try and out alpha-male him.

Jinsai
01-03-2019, 11:53 AM
I’m not saying Trump, more the people and outlets that enabled him. Trump on his own actually sucks at the insult game.

Sarah K
01-03-2019, 12:11 PM
Yeah, I definitely know that the sexism we saw in the election will be ramped up to an even higher degree this time around. I agree with Warren on a lot of things, and would happily vote for her if she is the chosen one. I think she has a lot of good qualities and stances that I agree with and believe with.

IDGAF about being ageist, though. I will openly say I don't want to vote for someone 70+. I will if I have to, but I don't want to do it.

Jinsai
01-03-2019, 12:17 PM
Maybe I’m just having a hard time staying consistent, but if Warren picks a great running mate, her age doesn’t matter so much to me. I might be blinded by the fact that I like her though, and I feel like if she won, it would “correct” a lot of things that have gone wrong...

on that same note though, it will straight up crush my soul if she loses. Seriously, I might just go mad

ltrandazzo
01-03-2019, 12:27 PM
Elizabeth Warren would be a great president. Don't let dumb takes from Chris Cillizza about her age or her dumb genealogy video dilute that fact.

Sarah K
01-03-2019, 12:35 PM
I have never even heard that name before.

ltrandazzo
01-03-2019, 12:59 PM
I have never even heard that name before.

I wish I never had either, honestly.

onthewall2983
01-03-2019, 02:34 PM
IDGAF about being ageist, though. I will openly say I don't want to vote for someone 70+. I will if I have to, but I don't want to do it.

I'm iffy about anyone over 50 at this point.

Sarah K
01-03-2019, 07:31 PM
Fucking Cuomo and this L train shit. He should just announce that he is running and get it over. This fuckin' guy.

elevenism
01-03-2019, 11:48 PM
I'm sorry, y'all. I like Warren's PLATFORM, but there's just something OFF about her, and it ain't her age or sex. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Like it or not, PART of politicking IS about being, you know, AFFABLE.
And Warren, God love her, isn't that (imho.)
And, therefore, I just don't think she could win in the general.
Don't get me wrong: I think she'd do a GREAT job. I'm worried, though, about her chances of WINNING.

Everyone is praying Biden will run, and I hate to say it, but I don't think he would win, either.

What we need is JFK 2.0, male or female. Or, you know, 3.0, if you consider Obama 2.0

allegro
01-04-2019, 12:29 AM
I think Warren is really likable.

“Relatable?”

Probably not.

SHE’S A REALLY NERDY LAWYER.

But I don’t think friendable is an important quality for running the country.

JFK wasn’t, either. He was wealthy, elite, old money upper class, his wife spoke perfect French ... no, they were NOT relatable to the average working class person in 1960.

TRUMP was elected because his fans like him. It didn’t matter that he wasn’t qualified, did not have the right experience, is stupid, etc., they LIKE him; they think he’s funny, he “tells it like it is, etc.” He’s not really relatable, even when he’s sitting at his desk in the Trump Tower behind a “taco bowl” pretending to be interested in “Mexican food” for Cinco de Mayo.

Bill Clinton played saxophone on Arsenio, but he also signed into law some of the most oppressive shit in history: DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the 1994 crime bill.

Warren taught bankruptcy law at Harvard. She specializes in bankruptcy, contract and commercial law.

She spearheaded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau) while she was a law professor and a private citizen.

Here she is in 2007 speaking to Congress as a Harvard professor talking about credit card debt:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q8we7JKhjNM

She’s HIGHLY qualified for the position of President. She’s WAYYY smarter than our current President. She’s more educated, is a talented lawyer, knows the law and Constitution, and ESPECIALLY knows finance laws. He is TERRIFIED of her.

Jinsai
01-04-2019, 01:20 AM
I don't WANT a "relatable" politician!!!! I don't have weird fantasies about watching a football game with the president while we drink shitty American beer together. I want a fucking professional who knows what they're doing! I don't want an exciting, inspiring, motivational whatever. If that's what it takes to get kids to vote, then cool, make it exciting, but give me someone boring who knows what they're doing and I'm happy.

I think we've had the "let's see what crazy is like!" experience. It sucks.

allegro
01-04-2019, 02:03 AM
Yeah I don’t get all the nasty sniping over the live Instagram thing.

Pretty much ALL live Instagram things are awkward and weird.

My MOM drinks Mich Ultra. It’s the King of Low Carb beer for Atkins freaks.

So people are expecting Warren to be a Chardonnay drinker and are saying she was “inauthentic.” Wtf.

If she wanted a glass of wine, she’d drink a fucking glass of wine!! Inauthentic would be knocking back shots of Jaeger and pole dancing.

At least her kitchen isn’t GOLD PLATED like Trump’s.

Jackie Kennedy loved drinking Veuve Clicquot. So if Jackie was running for President today, that’d be SOOOOOO relatable for the average person on Instagram ... Jackie swilling Veuve Clicquot La Grand Dame and toasting everyone on NY Eve and nibbling on Osetra caviar.

ltrandazzo
01-04-2019, 07:20 AM
They're doing the streaming thing because they're feeling out what worked for Beto and AOC during the midterms. If it's a bomb or not well-received enough, they'll drop it and do something else. I appreciate that Warren is doing this herself and that we're seeing her be herself instead of having her social media intern do it all for her.

elevenism
01-04-2019, 07:49 AM
I'm talking about who could WIN, though. Hell yes, Warren is highly qualified.

But "exciting, inspiring, motivational," I think we need that to WIN this time. Like, desperately .

That shit is a big part of what brings casual voters to the polls.

Bottom line: Warren would make a GREAT president, and I agree with her ideas. But there's no way she's unseating The OrAnge Menace, so,.sadly, it doesn't matter.

We need another Obama phenomenon. I think it's the only way we win, barring something like indisputable evidence that Red Don is a RussiAn operative or a Pedophile or something.

And I feel like, from what I've seen so far, Beto is our best hope.

ltrandazzo
01-04-2019, 08:35 AM
I'm talking about who could WIN, though. Hell yes, Warren is highly qualified.

But "exciting, inspiring, motivational," I think we need that to WIN this time. Like, desperately .

That shit is a big part of what brings casual voters to the polls.

Bottom line: Warren would make a GREAT president, and I agree with her ideas. But there's no way she's unseating The OrAnge Menace, so,.sadly, it doesn't matter.

We need another Obama phenomenon. I think it's the only way we win, barring something like indisputable evidence that Red Don is a RussiAn operative or a Pedophile or something.

And I feel like, from what I've seen so far, Beto is our best hope.

Howard Dean was the early front runner in 2003. John Edwards was the early front runner in 2007. It's too early for takes like this. There will be anywhere from 1-15 or so additional folks who declare running for President in 2020 so I think it's more productive if folks start looking at their records, their proposed legislation, etc. as a barometer on what you'd like to see from them as they campaign over the next 22 months.

cdm
01-04-2019, 09:16 AM
Howard Dean was the early front runner in 2003.

To think "YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH <fistpump>" was once the line of demarcation between electable and not is....really something.

allegro
01-04-2019, 12:16 PM
I’m still not 100% convinced that Trump will be in the 2020 race.

I’m old enough to remember LBJ.

Talking heads on MSNBC are saying that what people AREN’T thinking about is if the Democratic front runners are suddenly running against Romney or Flake or Kasich.

IMO, Beto isn’t anywhere near Obama.

Stats show that black women elected Obama.

I am not seeing black women getting as motivated by Beto.

Add to that the CRAZY level of voter suppression happening in the Sun Belt, which wasn’t there in 2012 (VRA was repealed in 2013).

Here’s the thing that kinda pisses me off: Warren is pretty progressive. A LOT of Sanders’ ideas were FROM WARREN. She has been tirelessly working on behalf of the working class and students for nearly her entire life. She’s from a working class family, her dad was a janitor, her mom worked at Sears.

But what have I been seeing a lot of on Twitter? #STILLBERNIE people telling Warren to fuck off and go away.

Bernie Sanders was a NOBODY to most people in this country before he threw his hat into the ring. I’d known about him because I watch political shows on Sunday mornings, but until he started really getting his campaign going, he was relatively unknown. “Likable? Relatable? Charismatic?” He’s an old Jewish guy from New England, stodgy, harsh, abrasive, yells a lot, he’s not warm and fuzzy. NOAM CHOMSKY has more personality. Bernie Sanders is the Independent version of John Kasich; same personality, same temperament, same stodgy stiffness.

But here we are in 2019, with people telling Warren to go away, because Bernie is more relatable. Bernie isn’t an attorney. Bernie has never been a law professor. But, Warren? Go away.

Mantra
01-04-2019, 12:23 PM
To think "YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH <fistpump>" was once the line of demarcation between electable and not is....really something.

I think about this all the time.

ltrandazzo
01-04-2019, 12:27 PM
I’m still not 100% convinced that Trump will be in the 2020 race.

I see this point raised a lot, but the only thing that prevents me from getting too invested in the idea of anyone primarying Trump is that while Democratic turnout increased in the 2018 midterms, Republican turnout also increased. Dems just had more come out for them. Trump is still immensely popular in the GOP and candidates that he endorsed won more than they lost in 2017 and 2018.

I think that if Jeff Flake or Kasich or Romney decide to run against Trump, they'll get some traction, but not enough to stop him.

Mantra
01-04-2019, 12:35 PM
Is the theory that Trump will be impeached/resigned by 2020, and that's why he won't be the Republican candidate? Or just that he'll be so unpopular by then (even among conservatives) that it'll be viable to run another Republican against him?

Not sure what to say about the first theory, but I can't imagine the second theory playing out. The right still loves Trump for the most part.

allegro
01-04-2019, 12:47 PM
The theory is that Trump’s children will be facing indictment and Trump will step down, OR the fact that Trump’s net worth has been consistently sliding since he took office and he is just plain old unhappy being President and misses his privacy and the business world and not being under the criminal microscope all the time.

It’s possible that Congress will pass a law (between now and the next Presidential election) that all Presidential nominees must release their tax returns (specifying the form), and in that case he’d also face having to do that to get elected.

He could surprise everyone and step down as (in his mind, anyway) a “winner” before any more shit hits the fan. He STILL has not kept many of his campaign promises (get rid of Obamacare, overturn Roe v Wade) and that Wall will take DECADES to build and his IDIOT followers want it built by 2020.

Conservatives do NOT love Trump. The GOP doesn’t love Trump.

Trump has commandeered the GOP, just like the Tea Party did, and now anyone who ISN’T a Trump devotee with his same pseudo Libertarian ideals is labeled a RINO.

His followers are on Twitter calling pretty much all Republicans except Trump RINOs.

(Republican In Name Only)

There are also a few other predictions:

April, first tax returns under this new tax plan. Many should have changed their withholding but didn’t. The IRS didn’t really do an aggressive campaign to inform people. The standard deduction will increase, but there are no longer any exemptions. If you’ve been claiming 5 kids ...

Economists are also still predicting that things are going to get REALLY rough by 2020.

Many of you may recall that SEPTEMBER before the 2008 election, with AIG.

allegro
01-04-2019, 01:07 PM
Ugh, God, watching his press statement right now, Trump taking credit FOR GAS PRICES.

He is such a fucking liar, he spews lies CONSTANTLY, and the fact that his sycophants believe him is beyond pathetic.

I was sitting on my couch last night, alone, Christmas tree and candles lit, listening to Frank Sinatra’s Christmas album, wondering why it had been so hard for me to get “into” Christmas this year.

AND THEN IT HIT ME:

FUCKING TRUMP.

TRUMP RUINED CHRISTMAS.

That rat bastard.

I hope a popular Republican runs in 2020 as an Independent and splits the GOP vote.

Mantra
01-04-2019, 03:12 PM
AND THEN IT HIT ME:

FUCKING TRUMP.

TRUMP RUINED CHRISTMAS.

That rat bastard.

LOL

I made a concerted effort to avoid all Trump stuff for a few days during Christmas, which essentially meant that I had to avoid the internet as a whole given that Trump is fucking everywhere online. He's like some malignant political tumor that's infected our entire society. It was nice not having to think about him so directly for a few days, but always in the back of my mind there's this thought of "Who knows what sort of nightmares could be happening while I'm tuned out."

M1ke
01-04-2019, 04:45 PM
LOL

I made a concerted effort to avoid all Trump stuff for a few days during Christmas, which essentially meant that I had to avoid the internet as a whole given that Trump is fucking everywhere online. He's like some malignant political tumor that's infected our entire society. It was nice not having to think about him so directly for a few days, but always in the back of my mind there's this thought of "Who knows what sort of nightmares could be happening while I'm tuned out."

He's addictive, in a way, even though he's so horrible.

He's been in office for 2 years, and he hasn't blown the whole world up yet.

I mean, he's fucking up, but if we tune out, it's not going to change anything, besides to make us a bit happier for a little while. Because seriously, what the fuck are we going to do about anything Trump is going to do? He might blow the whole world sky high, but honestly, there is nothing we could do to stop that, even if we knew about it.

It might be best to stop paying attention. Might even be healthier even.

allegro
01-04-2019, 09:37 PM
A whole bunch of our friends are critical Government employees (Air Traffic Controllers) who have to work without pay. Sunday starts their new pay period and they’re paid two weeks in arrears, so this coming Tuesday they will get zero pay and they’re still working.

People have bills, mortgages, tuitions, day care, they are afraid about how long this will last. It especially sucks when you’re working overtime with no pay.

Some of them had to cancel their vacation between Christmas and New Year’s, too, per management.

A ton of inspectors and aviation support have been furloughed.

If you don’t HAVE to fly right now, DON’T.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/aviation-system-begins-to-feel-stress-from-the-shutdown-union-leaders-say/2019/01/03/468d86ea-0f7f-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html?utm_term=.b9084e2cc4ac

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/air-travel-safety-amid-government-shutdown_us_5c2f8070e4b0407e908b059c

Many are speculating that what Trump is doing right now isn’t about a “Wall,” at all.

https://twitter.com/michellemms/status/1081336436543021056?s=21


This shutdown is
-- A Way To Try & Abolish The Civil Service Part Of Government.
--To Privatize A Number Of Government Agencies Under The Guise Of National Security.
--To Take The Economic Control Away From The Legislative Branch Is Being Spoken About As Treason By Some Of The GOP

Jinsai
01-04-2019, 10:45 PM
Many are speculating that what Trump is doing right now isn’t about a “Wall,” at all.

https://twitter.com/michellemms/status/1081336436543021056?s=21

Trump is a puppet, and he's been used by libertarian influence groups since before he declared his intentions to run for president. I can't say with certainty, but I sure as hell suspect that for Trump, there is no long con or deeper strategy here. He wants the wall. Whether that's the end goal of the people pulling his strings is something else entirely.

So much of Trump's agenda was laid out by Bannon... and while he's an evil bastard, he's definitely a smart guy and a great strategist... so in that amount at least, Bannon knew/knows the Wall isn't going to achieve anything ultimately other than send a message that at best is isolationist, at worst flagrantly xenophobic, and ultimately sets the groundwork for an isolationist privatized agenda...

I think all Trump wants is to hear people chanting his name.

Star
01-04-2019, 11:12 PM
Can they apply for an unemployment benefits since they are not getting paid? Or just the furloughed workers can do that?

allegro
01-05-2019, 11:47 AM
Can they apply for an unemployment benefits since they are not getting paid? Or just the furloughed workers can do that?

None of them can do that. They MAY eventually get back pay. Eventually. But the people who could verify their employment etc. for Federal unemployment? Not currently WORKING.

allegro
01-05-2019, 11:49 AM
My FAVORITE Tweet right now:

“We have a Republican president talking about martial law to seize private property for use best deemed by state. And he’s a conservative?”

- @stuartpstevens

Star
01-05-2019, 12:02 PM
None of them can do that. They MAY eventually get back pay. Eventually. But the people who could verify their employment etc. for Federal unemployment? Not currently WORKING. So, if they are furloughed they can collect unemployment but if they are working with no pay they cannot, is that what you are saying? And people who are working will get back pay when the shutdown ends but the furloughed will not because they were not working. That is my understanding.

allegro
01-05-2019, 12:43 PM
So, if they are furloughed they can collect unemployment but if they are working with no pay they cannot, is that what you are saying? And people who are working will get back pay when the shutdown ends but the furloughed will not because they were not working. That is my understanding.

Currently, furloughed employees are applying for unemployment benefits and each state is different as to how that works. See this: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-shutdown/2019/01/a-furloughed-federal-employees-guide-to-filing-for-unemployment-during-the-shutdown/


Policies vary based on individual states, but most states won’t allow unemployment beneficiaries to simply cancel their claims if the shutdown ends and their claim was uphold and benefits were issued.

Whenever the partial government shutdown ends, federal employees will be required to repay unemployment benefits they received whenever they get back pay for the time spent during the lapse in appropriations.

This scenario is highly likely. Congress has, in fact, passed legislation that grants employees retroactive pay for the time they spent on furlough during past government shutdowns, and lawmakers will likely clear similar legislation again. The Senate has already passed such legislation for this current partial shutdown, but the House has yet to act.

“The state [unemployment insurance] agency determines whether or not an overpayment exists and, generally, the recovery of the overpayment is a matter for state action under its law,” OPM guidance reads. “However, some state UI laws require the employer to recover such overpayment.”

If they are working without pay, NO, they cannot apply for unemployment, because they are not furloughed. They are working and will eventually get paid. It’s like working for an IOU.

Mantra
01-05-2019, 12:59 PM
He's addictive, in a way, even though he's so horrible.

He's been in office for 2 years, and he hasn't blown the whole world up yet.

I mean, he's fucking up, but if we tune out, it's not going to change anything, besides to make us a bit happier for a little while. Because seriously, what the fuck are we going to do about anything Trump is going to do? He might blow the whole world sky high, but honestly, there is nothing we could do to stop that, even if we knew about it.

It might be best to stop paying attention. Might even be healthier even.

Yeah, part of me strongly relates to what you're saying, especially because I want to do more things in life than just work and follow politics. But ultimately I don't think I could really bring myself to stop paying attention. It's one thing to intentionally focus on something else during the holidays so that I can enjoy time with my family or whatever. But I could never just tune out completely. I guess I feel like there's something kind of strange about the idea of living in a country and not being aware of what's going on. It just seems kind of normal to follow what's happening. Obviously we can't always "do" anything about it in some direct sense, but still, I think there's a cumulative benefit to regularly following politics over time.

That said, I do think there are people who just consume the news in a mindless sort of way that isn't particularly beneficial, like people who just zone out on Fox News or CNN in the same way that someone else might get their fix from TMZ or reality television. I feel like we need a mix of following higher caliber news sources, studying history, reading political theory, etc. If you steadily do that for years, I think it sharpens your understanding of politics and shapes you into a more ideological person. People who are not consciously ideological are, in my opinion, easily swayed by bullshit. They get yanked around in this or that direction because their political thinking is based on nothing but their vibes and their fuzzy notions of "common sense." You need to have an anchor, a strong sense of how things work and what you believe in, and I just don't see how you can develop that without observing and studying things on a somewhat regular basis.

That said, I guess it comes down to a question of balancing things in your life. That's the trick I haven't mastered. I constantly feel like I don't have enough time for all the things I care about.

elevenism
01-06-2019, 10:21 AM
Howard Dean was the early front runner in 2003. John Edwards was the early front runner in 2007. It's too early for takes like this.
Good GOD, I loved Edwards, and he wound up being a terrible bastard.

ANYWAY, while you're right about my putting forth a candidate being too early, I still stand by the rest of it.

Without someone youngish and exciting, I don't think we have a chance.

Sarah K
01-07-2019, 10:33 AM
Idk where this goes, but RBG is missing oral arguments for the first time ever today.

This makes me sad and scared.

ltrandazzo
01-07-2019, 10:43 AM
Idk where this goes, but RBG is missing oral arguments for the first time ever today.

This makes me sad and scared.

I'd say Trump thread. This thread is more for way-too-early speculation about 2020.

Sarah K
01-10-2019, 11:33 AM
I keep reading speculation that de Blasio is considering a run. I did not think much of it, because I thought jumping from mayor to president is too much, but then I remember where we are. And then he announced a plan to cover every person in NYC with insurance, regardless of immigration status, and then the next day announced a plan for every NYC employee to be entitled to two weeks of paid leave. So maybe he is considering at least running this term just to get his name out there more before seriously running in the next one?

ltrandazzo
01-10-2019, 12:54 PM
Mayor Bill De Bear does not excite me at all and given his overall track record and pointless pissing contests with Cuomo, he makes me think he doesn't do well with accepting responsibility for many things.

bobbie solo
01-10-2019, 04:05 PM
I love his policies and his spirit but the dude is not meant for nat'l office. Keeo fighting for strong progressivre ideas here at home. His track record there has been pretty good so far.

ltrandazzo
01-12-2019, 11:16 AM
Tulsi Gabbard, congresswoman from Hawaii, is running for President in 2020. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics/tulsi-gabbard-van-jones/index.html)

Tulsi was Vice Chair of the DNC who resigned so she could support Bernie in the 2016 primary. However, this has masked how anti-Progressive she really is.

Below is an important Twitter thread with links on each claim about how Tulsi would be a horrible choice for Democrats to nominate. I actually forgot about her and have now added her to my list of candidates who shouldn't run (the other two are Hillary and Bernie) -

830210812119744512

allegro
01-13-2019, 10:45 AM
This clip plus the thread made my Sunday morning great:

https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1083911868438192129?s=21

Demogorgon
01-13-2019, 11:35 AM
Julian Castro is entering the race for 2020 now. Is the strategy now "throw as many bodies at Trump as we possibly can until somebody makes it happen"?

allegro
01-13-2019, 01:05 PM
Julian Castro is entering the race for 2020 now. Is the strategy now "throw as many bodies at Trump as we possibly can until somebody makes it happen"?

I like him. His (and Joaquin's) mom is a pretty famous activist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Castro). Also, he's vowed to not accept any PAC money.

https://twitter.com/adamcbest/status/1084150826032132102

Demogorgon
01-13-2019, 01:21 PM
For clarity, i really don't know much about him, so i can't really comment on whether it's a good idea he run or not. I'm just wondering how in the world the DNC is going to narrow the field to a single worthwhile candidate when there are so many hats being thrown in and potentially dividing the voting base even further.

allegro
01-13-2019, 01:27 PM
For clarity, i really don't know much about him, so i can't really comment on whether it's a good idea he run or not. I'm just wondering how in the world the DNC is going to narrow the field to a single worthwhile candidate when there are so many hats being thrown in and potentially dividing the voting base even further.

The Iowa caucuses will narrow the field, then the primary process will narrow it again.

Remember, there were SIXTEEN Republican candidates for President in 2016 in the primaries.

The field will narrow via debates, social media campaigns, TV ads, etc.

bobbie solo
01-13-2019, 04:25 PM
This clip plus the thread made my Sunday morning great:

https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1083911868438192129?s=21

I really don't want to go back and forth with you, as I imagine a multi-page diatribe coming my way filled with about two dozen links & quotes inside. But I'll give you mine first.

What I will say is that as of this fall, Bernie was the most popular senator & one of the top, most popular politicians in the country, with enormous name recognition. People have no idea who alot of these newer candidates are, and name recognition sadly goes along way with a disaffected electorate.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/10/10/senator-approval-ratings-morning-consult/1590329002/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243539/americans-maintain-positive-view-bernie-sanders.aspx

As a candidate/president, I trust him alot more than these other Johnny Come Lately's as far as progressive values. His track record is long & consistent. You know you can trust Bernie to not waiver on what he will fight for once he gets in office. I really don't care what the race and gender of the Dem candidate ends up being. I care about policy. That's why I'd be just as happy with Elizabeth Warren. With someone like Gillibrand or Harris, we'd always be waiting for the other shoe to drop when it's time to come to the table with the right or the big money interests that still infest the Dem party. People make it like b/c he's old & white that he won't care about women and minorities. It's absurd. Bernie's the biggest bleeding heart lib you can ask for!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/19/why-bernie-sanders-is-still-the-most-progressive-choice-for-president

As far as his demeanor, alot of people including myself find his grumpy old man thing endearing. You would be grumpy too if you had his views and worked in a Congress for as long as he has that is diamtetrically opposed to those same policies.

In the end, I'm glad establishment people like that seemingly lovely woman are saying things like this. Means they're still scared of him and the enormous following he still has. If they weren't worried about him winning, they wouldn't talk shit all the time. It's not like anyone was telling Martin O'Malley to drop out.

ltrandazzo
01-14-2019, 12:24 PM
Mazie knows what's up.

1084875309932072962

bobbie solo
01-14-2019, 02:33 PM
Tulsi Gabbard has no shot. She's simply trying to elevate her profile.

allegro
01-14-2019, 06:38 PM
bobbie solo, her grumpy old man etc. comments were deliberate retorts against the obviously sexist comments people are making about Elizabeth Warren; her not being “likable,” her appearance, etc. There is a WAR right now on Twitter with the Bernie fans going after people in the Warren Twitter feed, like “THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE, AND THAT CANDIDATE IS BERNIE, SO GTFO ELIZABETH WARREN.” I’m not kidding.

None of their ideas are original. People are crediting Bernie with Medicare for All, except Ted Kennedy and John Dingell wrote that legislation in 2007 (https://www.politico.com/story/2007/04/the-time-is-now-medicare-for-all-003676). Bill Clinton had a universal healthcare plan in 1993 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993).

Ultimately, Biden is probably going to cancel both of Warren and Sanders out.

The powerful candidate is the one who will be able to get Barack Obama levels of black voters to the polls, particularly black women. Black people elected Barack Obama, in the primaries, and in the elections. Twice, in record numbers.

Bernie didn’t do that, Hillary didn’t do that, Biden didn’t do that.

Lol what’s fun: go back and read this thread:
https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election/page2

allegro
01-14-2019, 09:27 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, Kamala Harris’ Mood Mix :)

https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1085009675744145408?s=21

bobbie solo
01-15-2019, 12:51 AM
Ugh. Gross. I feel like I need a shower after watching that. Douche chills. I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE MY FUCKING FRIEND I WANT YOU TO KICK THE SHIT OUT OF REPUBLICANS. This shit isn't a game. Fucking act like it...at least act like it first before trying to pull the "i have hot sauce in my purse/watch me a do a dab on Ellen" schtick.

allegro
01-15-2019, 08:34 AM
That’s funny, because Black Twitter totally LOVES that Harris video; people are volunteering to campaign for her and she hasn’t even said she’s running.

“Douche” chills? Wtf is a douche chill? Have you ever douched? It involves WARM water. That’s one dumb oxymoron.

Swykk
01-15-2019, 08:56 AM
I’m still forming my opinions on 2020 candidates so it’s early and I very well could change my mind, but I like a Harris/O’Rourke ticket at this time.

I think it covers a lot of bases.

That said, this video wasn’t for me.

I think Bernie’s time has passed, sadly, because I H A T E what was done to him by the DNC. I also think Biden’s time has passed though he probably is the early frontrunner. Warren lost me when she refused to back Bernie (only to back him now; too little too late) and allowed Trump to play his troll game with her. Cory Booker has some juice but is too far into big pharma’s pocket for my tastes.

You could almost forget I said any of this because let’s all remember the lesson of 2016 (which I tried to convey then)-There is no perfect candidate and yet any of them will be better than Trump. HRC was so much better than Trump. I was one of the biggest Bernie supporters here and I voted for HRC because I knew it would be worse if we didn’t.

So fucking swallow your pride and vote this time. We lost two Supreme Court seats and have gone through a massively damaging last 2 years. Do not fuck this up again. Please remember this time!

allegro
01-15-2019, 09:19 AM
As a candidate/president, I trust him alot more than these other Johnny Come Lately's as far as progressive values. His track record is long & consistent. You know you can trust Bernie to not waiver on what he will fight for once he gets in office. I really don't care what the race and gender of the Dem candidate ends up being. I care about policy. That's why I'd be just as happy with Elizabeth Warren. With someone like Gillibrand or Harris, we'd always be waiting for the other shoe to drop when it's time to come to the table with the right or the big money interests that still infest the Dem party. People make it like b/c he's old & white that he won't care about women and minorities. It's absurd. Bernie's the biggest bleeding heart lib you can ask for!.

The Executive Branch doesn’t legislate.

The Legislative Branch legislates.

The Executive Branch executes (existing) laws, handles foreign policy, oversees the state department, etc.

That’s why Trump’s “I’ll Bulld a Wall!” promise was a lie; Presidents can’t do that. They lack the authority and the money. Congress alone holds the “Power of the Purse.” Congress can override a Presidential veto. Presidential promises of “Medicare for All” are bullshit. Presidents can’t do that. The ACA was passed by CONGRESS. (It was largely written by insurance lobbyists, but let’s not digress.) Congress actually has EQUAL POWER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Sometimes Congress has MORE power.

So, it will likely come down to: Who can beat Trump?

And THAT will be dependent on whether or not minorities - specifically BLACK voters - will show up in huge numbers to vote for the Democratic candidate AND if the voting process isn’t stimied by voter suppression.

People defending Bernie and accusing the DNC for 2016 are forgetting something:

THE FUCKING RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION PROCESS.

They planted propaganda everywhere. Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, provided the Russians with highly valuable POLLING data, enabling the Russians to target their propaganda. Trump’s campaign was involved with Putin and Wikileaks.

And, BERNIE WASN’T EVEN A FUCKING DEMOCRAT.

Plus, he STILL has a problem with black voters: https://apnews.com/6a937194f7ff4ed2a74635257a19db90

I think Warren is BETTER OFF in the Senate; she’s more valuable there.

The right wing is already spreading Birther shit about Harris.

Mantra
01-15-2019, 09:52 AM
I honestly don't even care who the Dem candidate is. I guess Warren would probably be my first choice, but if it's not her, oh well. Ultimately, the Dem candidate is getting my vote no matter what.

Jinsai
01-15-2019, 09:53 AM
"A song that makes me think of my birth place, Oakland? Anything by Too $hort."

I can't be the only one who immediately thought of the song "Blowjob Betty" there... I think Kamala is a great choice to run, but come on with the "watch me humanize myself in a list" thing.

Swykk
01-15-2019, 09:53 AM
Stop pushing that nonsense; almost none of that excuses the DNC’s actions. Yes, Russia interfered but the DNC also conspired and stole superdelegate votes Bernie earned in multiple states. They decided HRC was the one and fucked him. Both things happened.

Who fucking cares if “HE WASNT EVEN A DEMOCRAT?” What you’re seeing now is establishment (read also: old centrist) vs these younger upstart Democrats (AOC) that are pushing many of Bernie’s ideas aka “The Correct Ideas.” The tide is turning and the future of the Democratic Party is becoming brighter but that’s a fight I’ll return to AFTER 2020.

You have a point with the black vote. I don’t completely get how that was a thing in 2016 but suspect most Dems not backing him might’ve had a hand in this thought process. Bernie did say that truly moronic thing recently (“Some voters aren’t comfortable with women and people of color”) but that was well after 2016.

His time is done but what happened was WRONG.

allegro
01-15-2019, 10:45 AM
Re blacks not supporting Sanders in 2016: It was his own optics. He kept tripping up. Example: He was asked if there should be slave reparations.

See Ta-Nehisi Coates: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/

He ran as a Democrat solely because he knew that third parties tank under the Electoral College.

The superdelegates ultimately ALWAYS go with candidate who got the most delegates at the convention, that’s the way it works.

The same thing happened with Obama v Clinton in the primary (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008).

HRC won the popular vote in the 2008 Democratic Primary, but Obama knew how to game the delegates (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries).

Democrats on Twitter are demanding that Sanders not be allowed to run under the Democratic ticket if he runs again, since he just splits the ticket then leaves the Party.



Anyway: The country is HUGELY divided. The Democratic Party is splintered between the liberal centrists and the far left progressives, and the Republican Party has been commandeered by Trump, which is a kind of hybrid white nationalist tea party, while the far right is still there, plus the Evangelicals, and a large group of moderates. Worse, the GOP has taken over a huge number of Governor and Secretary of State positions; with VRA protections gone, this means way more voter suppression.

This whole WALL “crisis” is fear-based because the right is terrified that Latino Catholics will have more Democratic babies. Yet, California Latinos are largely going Independent.

There's zero compromise, way too much drama over stupid shit. The GOP has crowned AOC the DNC's new Jesus, except she's just arrived, then they crucify her with a college dance video from 2011. The Trumpsters are losing their minds over Rashida Tlaib saying "Let's impeach the motherfucker." Never mind that Trump said he grabs women by the pussy.

We are approaching civil war, here. I’m not kidding.

It's throw-a-dart chaos as far as elections go.

Jinsai
01-15-2019, 11:01 AM
We are approaching civil war, here. I’m not kidding.

We've been fighting a proxy civil war for a while now. I don't know how this partisan divide will finally start to de-escalate, but I don't see this turning to violence in the streets in a real sort of way.

allegro
01-15-2019, 11:07 AM
We've been fighting a proxy civil war for a while now. I don't know how this partisan divide will finally start to de-escalate, but I don't see this turning to violence in the streets in a real sort of way.

It turned to riots in the 60s unexpectedly. I don’t know why we’d be immune to it, now.

Jinsai
01-15-2019, 11:20 AM
It turned to riots in the 60s unexpectedly. I don’t know why we’d be immune to it, now.

suppressive technology really... there's a difference between riots and civil war. Though I have been thinking about it since my initial post, and really... I don't know. I actually could see it getting to that point, but it would require Trump to fully place his support behind a "side" in the fight. Maybe he will resort to something that fucking irresponsible when cornered.

I would have called that sort of speculation pure fantasy ten years ago, but things have changed. This is a crazy time we're living in.

allegro
01-15-2019, 11:43 AM
but it would require Trump to fully place his support behind a "side" in the fight. Maybe he will resort to something that fucking irresponsible when cornered.
BINGO!

Russian investigation + 2020 election + whatever other shit and he could pull a lot when totally cornered, which could incite his sycophants into rioting or whatever and if Cheeto defends it, then ... maybe not “fire on Fort Sumter.”

More like “Fire in Fort Dumpster.”

ltrandazzo
01-15-2019, 12:10 PM
Two things -

I am not interested in rehashing the 2016 election. It happened. The DNC fucked up. The Russians interfered. The Electoral College failed us. Americans showed their sexism loud and clear. Hillary Clinton wasn't popular enough to beat a real estate, pussy grabbing con artist. Said con artist's campaign tried to conspire with Russia. Facebook and Twitter downplayed their involvement in unverified news sources affecting the national discourse while still begging for ad dollars. Hopefully we know better now...?

The DNC has made changes since 2016 and many of them have been for the better. Is the DNC perfect now? Fuck no. They're still making mistakes. However, other organizations are picking up the slack for the DNC's shortfalls and I would encourage everyone who is annoyed with the DNC to throw money and support towards their Indivisible group, Swing Left, etc. and not waste any more time with the DNC (ESPECIALLY the DCCC, because they suck hard). I am, however, happy with the debate schedule the DNC has put forward for their field and believe it gives all candidates a fair shot in their campaigns.

Bonus rant - I haven't watched the Kamala video for her playlist but I will say this - I listened to her interview on NPR for her book and... woof. She was guarded, cagey, and didn't answer any of the questions directly, including questions about her prosecuting record. I am a huge fan of Kamala as she is my personal frontrunner for 2020, but I need more of 2017 and 2018 Kamala than this weird 2019 version who sounds like she's lived in Washington DC for 40 years.

Bonus bonus rant - Julian Castro needs to add some personal reasons why he supports what he's calling for in his campaign strategy because right now, he's coming off as very cookie cutter.

Bonus bonus bonus rant - Still, fuck Tulsi Gabbard.

allegro
01-15-2019, 02:08 PM
Bonus rant - I haven't watched the Kamala video for her playlist but I will say this - I listened to her interview on NPR for her book and... woof. She was guarded, cagey, and didn't answer any of the questions directly, including questions about her prosecuting record. I am a huge fan of Kamala as she is my personal frontrunner for 2020, but I need more of 2017 and 2018 Kamala than this weird 2019 version who sounds like she's lived in Washington DC for 40 years.

I personally have several problems with Kamala Harris:

1) She took campaign money from Steven Mnuchin, and she didn't prosecute his bank (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/). She has several other strange and shitty things in her past that don't add up.

2) When she's talking while on the Senate Judiciary, she often makes little sense; she often asks questions that are just - well - useless. Like when she spent nearly 5 minutes grilling Kavanaugh about whether or not he talked to any partner at Trump's attorney's law firm about Mueller. Kavanaugh, not wanting to get into a "lying under oath because I didn't remember" trick bag, said he didn't know who the partners or firm members are at that firm - which is a good answer, because a large D.C. firm could have over 200 attorneys and you could be at a pub with a bunch of attorneys and chatting with one and not even know that he/she is at the same firm where Trump's lawyer was now working. But, Harris persisted, and Kavanaugh asked for hints, and she says hmmm, now it seems like you KNOW and you're not saying, and meanwhile SHE'S USING UP ALL HER SENATE TIME ON THIS USELESS QUESTION. Okay, so what if he did? What is the next question? Go to THAT question. This isn't a TRIAL. It's a JOB INTERVIEW. She's always in "prosecutor" mode, except it's this weird drawn-out grandstanding like she has some secret hidden upcoming Perry Mason moment, but that never arrives.

3) Her voice always sounds like she's standing outside in 20-below weather without a coat. Shivering ugh. Edit: Yes, nitpicking, but P.R. optics are important.

But, as far as "woman of color who might get a lot of support from minorities" then she might be it. I look at who has the best chance of getting large numbers of minority voters to the polls.

Barring all that, I follow Amy Klobuchar on Twitter. SHE did really well at the Kavanaugh hearings. She does really well in the Senate. I really really like her. https://www.vogue.com/article/amy-klobuchar-minnesota-senator-interview

theimage13
01-15-2019, 02:13 PM
Two things -

I am not interested in rehashing the 2016 election. It happened. The DNC fucked up. The Russians interfered. The Electoral College failed us. Americans showed their sexism loud and clear. Hillary Clinton wasn't popular enough to beat a real estate, pussy grabbing con artist. Said con artist's campaign tried to conspire with Russia. Facebook and Twitter downplayed their involvement in unverified news sources affecting the national discourse while still begging for ad dollars. Hopefully we know better now...?=

Point of semantics: Clinton was popular enough to beat a real estate, pussy grabbing con artist. She beat him by three million votes. It's not the voters' fault that the EC is an outdated system that failed on a massive scale. My point here is to try to have some hope. America voted for the first female president; the system just didn't allow her to take her rightful victory.

As for the 2020 general: I will literally vote for a wilting head of iceberg lettuce as long as it's got a (D) next to its name on the ballot. (This is subject to change if, somehow, Donald is off the ballot and I have a civic duty to actually learn the platform and beliefs of whoever takes the nomination. I just don't see a scenario in which Don doesn't run.)

ltrandazzo
01-15-2019, 02:40 PM
Point of semantics: Clinton was popular enough to beat a real estate, pussy grabbing con artist. She beat him by three million votes.

Let me be clearer - Hillary was not popular enough to win 80,000 votes she needed in the rust belt. There's a reason I put that point and the point about the Electoral College close together. And again, I don't want to re-litigate 2016, those were two of several dozen reasons why she lost.

Anyway.

Swykk
01-15-2019, 03:06 PM
I personally have several problems with Kamala Harris:

1) She took campaign money from Steven Mnuchin, and she didn't prosecute his bank (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/). She has several other strange and shitty things in her past that don't add up.

2) When she's talking while on the Senate Judiciary, she often makes little sense; she often asks questions that are just - well - useless. Like when she spent nearly 5 minutes grilling Kavanaugh about whether or not he talked to any partner at Trump's attorney's law firm about Mueller. Kavanaugh, not wanting to get into a "lying under oath because I didn't remember" trick bag, said he didn't know who the partners or firm members are at that firm - which is a good answer, because a large D.C. firm could have over 200 attorneys and you could be at a pub with a bunch of attorneys and chatting with one and not even know that he/she is at the same firm where Trump's lawyer was now working. But, Harris persisted, and Kavanaugh asked for hints, and she says hmmm, now it seems like you KNOW and you're not saying, and meanwhile SHE'S USING UP ALL HER SENATE TIME ON THIS USELESS QUESTION. Okay, so what if he did? What is the next question? Go to THAT question. This isn't a TRIAL. It's a JOB INTERVIEW. She's always in "prosecutor" mode, except it's this weird drawn-out grandstanding like she has some secret hidden upcoming Perry Mason moment, but that never arrives.

3) Her voice always sounds like she's standing outside in 20-below weather without a coat. Shivering ugh.


1. Yeah, not good. I was not aware of that.

2. I disagree. I loved her toasting his drunken rapey nuts and treating him like the lying little turd he is.

3. Nitpicky

allegro
01-15-2019, 05:22 PM
1. Yeah, not good. I was not aware of that.

2. I disagree. I loved her toasting his drunken rapey nuts and treating him like the lying little turd he is.

3. Nitpicky

2. From a legal perspective, she wasted all of her 5 minutes, he never answered, nobody else cared or followed up, and he was confirmed. I would have MUCH rather seen her grill him ON THIS BADLY BOTCHED ABORTION DECISION (https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/brett-kavanaughs-one-abortion-case). The dissent is BLISTERING (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4114096/Millett-Dissent-HHS-20171020.pdf).

ltrandazzo
01-16-2019, 09:54 AM
Kirsten Gillibrand is in (https://www.thedailybeast.com/kirsten-gillibrand-announces-presidential-exploratory-committee?ref=home) - Another non-surprise, especially since she's the member of the "Hell-No" caucus in the Senate who voted with Trump the least out of the rest of her colleagues (other members are Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders). My main concern about her is the report from a few weeks ago that she was speaking with Wall Street about running, which gives me a little bit of heartburn. But, she's someone who can say she once had an A rating from the NRA until she had a change of heart (she was a Blue Dog in 2008 and moved to liberal policies in 2010 when appointed to replace Hillary Clinton's Senate seat).

She's someone I would have zero problem voting for.

bobbie solo
01-16-2019, 02:08 PM
She's fine...now. Says all the right things. Don't fully trust her because of everything you said. Could be alot of bullshit to get past the primaries, then tacts hard to the middle later on. She was a Republican before she was a Democrat. Wouldn't mind voting for her either if she gathered any real steam next year (doubtful), but would always be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

ltrandazzo
01-21-2019, 07:15 AM
Kamala Harris is officially in.

1087327804163682304

Jinsai
01-21-2019, 01:12 PM
I actually love that every realistic candidate at this point is female... just hoping we fix that optimistic blindspot to how that plays right into firing up the misogyny in Trump’s rararara base. I’m down to change the world, but right now I’m most concerned with not flushing it down the toilet. This goes double if we’re nominating a woman of color.

So far, Trump’s way of “handling Elizabeth Warren” is “Pocahontas.” The fact that THAT APPROACH has ANY traction with adults is alarming, but it’s way worse if we make that appeal into an elephant in the room that we don’t want to directly address.

theimage13
01-21-2019, 08:52 PM
Ugh, fuck KQED and NPR for this horrible attempt at an article.

Five Things to Know About Kamala Harris (https://www.kqed.org/news/11718659/5-things-to-know-about-kamala-harris?fbclid=IwAR0Gzs64qc8xvye_8pkxJiLEPBfBxwFIdV q1A5Tf6amOdH0oLvMoD4E2xtU)

Five things. Five things about a candidate for the presidency. And 40% of that list is who she's married to and that she likes to cook.

Jesus. I can't tell whether this is sexist or just stupid, but either way...it's bad.

Jinsai
01-21-2019, 11:32 PM
Five things. Five things about a candidate for the presidency. And 40% of that list is who she's married to and that she likes to cook.

Jesus. I can't tell whether this is sexist or just stupid, but either way...it's bad.

It's both.

This is what I'm saying though... to a lot of people out there, a staggeringly large number of people, this is cutting to the chase and giving them the answers they want in the order they want them. In the end, both sides are desperate for fluff. None of these people who joined the Trump cult really looked into whether or not he was actually a good businessman. They bought into a cult of personality lifestyle brand.

And the left is responding in kind, and sadly, they have to. America elected a Twitter president. You can't fight that with someone who doesn't engage on social media, that sticks to issues, that is really all about policy more than telegraphing and messaging. It feels like this next election will be a lot about optics and identity politics. It feels inevitable though.

Really, I just want things to feel moderately sane again. That's really enough for me. Promise me that, and I'll be champing at the bit to vote for you.

binaryhermit
01-23-2019, 08:22 PM
I know this isn't exactly on-topic, but look at IL-3. D+6 district, D candidate hasn't ever gotten less than 65% in a general election in his career. Blue wave. R candidate was too nazi for Ted Cruz, really. R got 26% in the general election. Trump getting reelected is plausible.

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1012784418304471041?lang=en

EDITED TO ADD: I mean, the electoral college is affirmative action for retards, the environment's probably not going to be as blue, and Trump's national socialism is more subtle, he's never publicly said that the holocaust is the biggest blackest lie ever.

GulDukat
01-26-2019, 12:51 PM
I'm starting to think Trump won't run for another term. His numbers are terrible and he just looks miserable. He could say:

I've spoken with Melania and after some real thinking, I've decided not to seek another term as your president. Although I've done great things--strongest economy ever, peace in the Middle East, lowest unemployment ever, I've decided to spend more time with my family. And although I'm sure I would be reelected in a landslide, I have done what I set out to do, four years ago, I've made America great again!

Wretchedest
01-26-2019, 01:30 PM
The information campaign against Kamal Harris just indicates to me that Republicans are afraid of her viability compared to the other current options.


I wonder, though if liberals are just seeking the ultimate flawless human being, idk

sweeterthan
01-27-2019, 06:42 PM
I loved Kamala Harris’s speech today. I am hoping she can take it all the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

allegro
01-27-2019, 09:53 PM
I'm starting to think Trump won't run for another term. His numbers are terrible and he just looks miserable. He could say:

I've spoken with Melania and after some real thinking, I've decided not to seek another term as your president. Although I've done great things--strongest economy ever, peace in the Middle East, lowest unemployment ever, I've decided to spend more time with my family. And although I'm sure I would be reelected in a landslide, I have done what I set out to do, four years ago, I've made America great again!
I fantasize about this nearly every day.

ltrandazzo
01-28-2019, 10:58 AM
Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame is considering a run as a centrist Independent nominee for President. I'll let you all find them yourself, but his first three tweets have all been ratio'ed with replies in the vein of DON'T DO IT.

That's all the attention I care to give to him. He already said something about cutting "entitlements," so he can fuck the fuck off.

allegro
01-28-2019, 11:45 AM
^ Now there’s also talk that he could be the Ralph Nader of the 2020 election if he runs Independent. Although, I think he’d split the Republican ticket more than the Democratic. He’s another dick wanting to jump into running a country with no experience.

ltrandazzo
01-28-2019, 12:37 PM
Dumb thought exercise time - below is my Top 3 of who I would vote for in the Democratic Primary if I had to vote today with all of the current information that we all have -

1. Elizabeth Warren - my current front-runner. She has experience with financial matters that hit VERY close to me and have usually always been the right thing to do. I also like that she's making DC statehood a thing (https://splinternews.com/make-dc-a-state-already-1831742061). Wealth Tax? Check (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/24/18196275/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax).
2. Kamala Harris - I love Kamala and think that she would win outright right now. I need some more specific things for her to endorse and introduce. Her criminal justice record can be a strength; she will have to answer for her record with conviction.
3. Kirsten Gillibrand - Kirsten could move up the ranks and end up competing for the presidency based on several factors that folks often forget - she has endorsed postal banking (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kirsten-gillibrand-postal-banking-bill_us_5ae07f9fe4b07be4d4c6feae), which would end payday loans and give low-income people a bank with reasonable fees and also potentially save the post office system. She has called on addressing sexual harassment in the military with a bill (https://thehill.com/policy/defense/349672-dem-senator-military-sexual-assault-as-pervasive-as-ever), which is an extension of her efforts in 2009 to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. She wants to start digging into a federal jobs guarantee (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/federal-job-guarantee-explained_us_5b363f4ae4b007aa2f7f59fc). She has a lot of great ideas so if she can expand her platform, she could end up being a serious contender.

ryanmcfly
01-28-2019, 04:40 PM
I would vote for Kamala before anyone not named Beto O'Rourke. But I'm not sure if he's going to run for president at this rate. Wouldn't be shocked he went for Cornyn's senate seat next year.
1. Beto
2. Kamala
3. Bernie
4. Warren
5. Gillibrand
6. Dwayne Johnson
7. Clinton

Sarah K
01-29-2019, 10:31 AM
The thought of having to vote for someone who spent time as a prosecutor makes my skin crawl.

Gillibrand is probably my top pick so far.

allegro
01-29-2019, 12:27 PM
The thought of having to vote for someone who spent time as a prosecutor makes my skin crawl.

I know what you mean by that, except the Executive Branch “executes” laws; so, in effect, the Executive is the highest level of prosecutor, hence why the Attorney General reports to the Executive (and the DoJ is part of the Executive Department).

The Legislative creates laws, the Executive enforces laws, the Judicial interprets laws.

allegro
01-29-2019, 01:09 PM
I think Elizabeth Warren is REALLY smart and has an awesome background. I *LOVE* her.

I really like Amy Klobuchar and her policies and I follow her on Twitter.

And, someday -- IN MY LIFETIME, HOPEFULLY -- I'd like to have President who happens to be female.

That being said ... This next election, to me, is ESPECIALLY about STRATEGY to BEAT TRUMP.

And, in my opinion, the strategic candidate who can beat Trump:

Joe Biden.

Many Republicans love him. Many Republicans who don't love him at least accept him as bipartisan and they respect him a lot.

Joe's a deal-maker. He gets things done. He's someone who can get fence-sitter votes.

If there are Republicans who can't bring themselves to hold their noses and vote for Trump, they could very well hold their noses and vote for Joe Biden without losing sleep at night. (Note that this is also true of Klobuchar, FWIW.)

I think if Biden selected Beto O'Rourke or Warren as V.P., then he'd especially be successful.

Biden's a bulldog. He takes no prisoners during campaigns and debates which has hurt him in the past; his vice presidential debates with Pence - with Pence calmly swatting away Biden's yelling - made Biden look angry and Pence look like he was tranquil. BUT THIS TIME, BIDEN WOULD BE AGAINST TRUMP. Trump: (a) is stupid; (b) can't debate; (c) is a RABID DUMB bulldog.

Biden is a brilliant attorney, is a really smart guy, he's just a strategic best option right now.

Ultimately, Presidents don't make laws; CONGRESS does that. The triple-win would be Biden in the Executive with a Democratic Congress.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHtm9x798wA&feature=youtu.be

theimage13
01-30-2019, 08:00 AM
I think Elizabeth Warren is REALLY smart and has an awesome background. I *LOVE* her.

I really like Amy Klobuchar and her policies and I follow her on Twitter.

And, someday -- IN MY LIFETIME, HOPEFULLY -- I'd like to have President who happens to be female.

That being said ... This next election, to me, is ESPECIALLY about STRATEGY to BEAT TRUMP.

And, in my opinion, the strategic candidate who can beat Trump:

Joe Biden.

Many Republicans love him. Many Republicans who don't love him at least accept him as bipartisan and they respect him a lot.

Joe's a deal-maker. He gets things done. He's someone who can get fence-sitter votes.

If there are Republicans who can't bring themselves to hold their noses and vote for Trump, they could very well hold their noses and vote for Joe Biden without losing sleep at night. (Note that this is also true of Klobuchar, FWIW.)

I think if Biden selected Beto O'Rourke or Warren as V.P., then he'd especially be successful.

Biden's a bulldog. He takes no prisoners during campaigns and debates which has hurt him in the past; his vice presidential debates with Pence - with Pence calmly swatting away Biden's yelling - made Biden look angry and Pence look like he was tranquil. BUT THIS TIME, BIDEN WOULD BE AGAINST TRUMP. Trump: (a) is stupid; (b) can't debate; (c) is a RABID DUMB bulldog.

Biden is a brilliant attorney, is a really smart guy, he's just a strategic best option right now.

Ultimately, Presidents don't make laws; CONGRESS does that. The triple-win would be Biden in the Executive with a Democratic Congress.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHtm9x798wA&feature=youtu.be

This is the take I needed to get behind him as a contender (that, and a headline the other day saying that apparently he's the only one Trump is actually afraid to take on). But the idea of someone drawing votes from both the true independents as well as Republican voters who just can't stand Trump...that's a very good notion. I've admitted before that I'm uneasy about continuously voting for people who are near the age of my grandfathers when they died, but if their running mate is someone who I also would have readily voted for as President, then that would calm those nerves.

ryanmcfly
02-01-2019, 08:18 AM
Cory Booker is running

ltrandazzo
02-01-2019, 08:28 AM
Here's the announcement video -
1091308916879884288

I remember the early days of Twitter and seeing this guy responding to people in Newark during snowstorms in 2010 - http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039945,00.html

I'm interested to see how he does and what his key issues will be. Regardless of the primary, I wouldn't be surprised to see him end up on a ticket as either President or VP.

ltrandazzo
02-01-2019, 09:06 AM
Elizabeth Warren has apologized to the Cherokee nation for her DNA video (https://splinternews.com/elizabeth-warren-apologized-to-cherokee-nation-for-her-1832259479)

Good on her for this. This was the right thing to do.

ltrandazzo
02-01-2019, 10:20 AM
Third post in a row, but it ties into the first - Kellyanne Conway suggests that Cory Booker is sexist for running against a growing field of Dem women in the primary (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/01/kellyanne-conway-booker-2020-sexist-1141736)

My take - she's softening the blow for when Trump calls Booker the n-word in public.

bobbie solo
02-01-2019, 02:08 PM
Cory Booker is running

DOA in my opinion. He's as slimy as they come (he's my senator), and will not be able to get past how he's in Wall Street & Big Pharma's pockets. Especially when Harris looks to have already carved out the biggest lane for "centrist that voters who traffic in identity politics over voting records/policy stances".

ltrandazzo
02-01-2019, 04:46 PM
DOA in my opinion. He's as slimy as they come (he's my senator), and will not be able to get past how he's in Wall Street & Big Pharma's pockets. Especially when Harris looks to have already carved out the biggest lane for "centrist that voters who traffic in identity politics over voting records/policy stances".

Wall Street's pockets - they influence him so much that he


also introduced bills to put more money in working Americans’ pockets; making sure workers get a share of stock buybacks (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/6/17083398/booker-buyback-populist) that normally go to company shareholders, and stopping banks from tacking overdraft fees (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/2/17640068/cory-booker-bank-overdraft-fees) on consumers’ debit card transactions and ATM withdrawals that are over their available balance — a move to protect low-income people who get hit with fees for being in debt.

Huh. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/1/18173263/cory-booker-running-for-president-2020-democrat

Big Pharma's pockets - they influence him so much that he


said (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424993-booker-tries-to-shake-doubts-about-pharmaceutical-ties-ahead-of-2020) in 2017 that he would put “a pause” on accepting money from the industry. This was after he received heavy progressive criticism for helping kill a bill sponsored by Sanders to lower drug prices.


New Jersey hosts the headquarters of many major pharmaceutical companies and they have long had good relations with the New Jersey delegations.

Huh. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/where-cory-booker-gets-his-2020-money/

bobbie solo
02-02-2019, 12:07 AM
I feel like the bottom two quotes only help prove my point. And his "pause" on taking the money (meaning, as I said, he takes money from them and therefore is bought & sold by them) was the most tepid response he could have had to the backlash he got after killing that bill. The "pause" was roundly laughed at when he announced it and showed how tone deaf he was/is.

As far as the first quote, those bills had no chance of passing iirc, and he knew it. Empty rhetoric to try and shore up the base. But the base has never believed him, and still doesn't. His attempts to push charter schools (and accept tons of money from shitty charter school backers) is terrible too. Problem Booker has is that the base and the more far left turn out more in primaries. And he does not appeal to us. Hillary had the name recognition and entire DNC behind her, so she won despite how unpopular alot of her stances were. No candidate is gonna have any of that this time.

I'm surprised you'd even defend him Randazzo. Seems pretty clear you're not gonna vote for him over some of the other candidates.

Anyway, I welcome more and more of these establishment people. Keep splitting that establishment/corporatist vote, hopefully making it easier for Bernie or Warren to win enough states where the progressive vote won't fracture as much. Amy Klobachar (loooool) come on down!

ltrandazzo
02-02-2019, 10:05 AM
bobbie solo - these hardcore takedowns of candidates who engage in daily political things, like working with large corporations who employ thousands of your constituents, shines the light away from other important issues like the candidate's support for medicare-for-all policies, immigration reform and better economic policies. Cory introducing legislation that won't pass in the current congress is no different from Bernie introducing medicare-for-all legislation that won't pass in the current congress - it's designed to put people on the record and start building support now so that it can be hashed out and passed in the future. Duh. I'm a banker and I would love for legislation to pass that limits NSF fees because they're horrible.

Cory got blowback for killing the pharmaceutical bill Bernie put forward, so he worked with Bernie to re-write it so it wouldn't hurt his constituents who work for pharmaceutical companies in his state. Then Bernie intro'd a new bill and Cory endorsed it.

It's a pissing contest similar to the one that consumed the 2016 Dem primary and it's not something that should be encouraged for this go-round. I often compare it to online cancel culture - we can't cancel these folks for their prior politics, but we can change their minds and show them that the prior path is untenable for the future. They're still Dems, they still need to be held accountable, and they still need us to do that so they can progress forward instead of backwards. We're not Republicans.

theimage13
02-02-2019, 12:25 PM
It's a pissing contest similar to the one that consumed the 2016 Dem primary and it's not something that should be encouraged for this go-round. I often compare it to online cancel culture - we can't cancel these folks for their prior politics, but we can change their minds and show them that the prior path is untenable for the future. They're still Dems, they still need to be held accountable, and they still need us to do that so they can progress forward instead of backwards. We're not Republicans.

I think this might be where we disagree a little. SOME people can change, but you never know. Especially in politics. People will SAY anything to get elected; what they DO once they get there is a whole different story. This is a general statement, not directed at any particular candidate(s): I care far, far more about what someone has already done than what they say they'll do in the future. Even if that means the things they've done are things they know won't pass - moonshot legislation for things they believe in even though it'll never get voted for, etc - I'd rather vote for that candidate than someone whose past behavior I dislike but who says they can change. Everyone says they can change. Most don't. I put more faith in the past than in promises. Maybe we can change their minds, but I would never cast my vote based largely on that possibility.

allegro
02-02-2019, 12:58 PM
^ Right on.

I admit to getting impressed by pathos and campaign rhetoric sometimes, and my immediate reaction is hope and emotion. But shortly thereafter, I come back to logos and basic civics.

These Presidential candidates CAN’T LEGISLATE once they’re in office, that’s reality. They can cheerlead or attempt to quarterback legislation, but legislation comes from Congress. So promises of healthcare or whatever else coming from a PRESIDENT should be taken as empty promises that cannot be delivered by the Executive; the ACA was delivered by CONGRESS, not by the Executive. The Executive signed it, but the Legislative has the power to override Executive veto.

What we can and should focus on is behavior from candidates’ past actions (not rhetoric). Yes, when Booker has been bipartisan, that can be good. However, bipartisan and shooting down legislation in the interest of protecting Big Pharma or Health Insurance, noooooo.

Note that MOST OF CONGRESS has a history of being in the pocket of Big Pharma and Health Insurance. THAT SHIT NEEDS TO STOP.

When AOC asked the below question, it was noted on the liberal Twitterverse not so much for her being “smart” but for her being BRAVE:

https://twitter.com/jordanuhl/status/1091121197876695041?s=21

theimage13
02-02-2019, 01:26 PM
After watching that, I'm waiting for someone to say "well if you just bought Big Pharma stocks then you'd be reaping all the rewards!" You know, somehow thinking that that statement is actually smart or accurate.

Also after watching that, I hope she has an extremely long career in politics.

ltrandazzo
02-04-2019, 08:59 AM
Maybe we can change their minds, but I would never cast my vote based largely on that possibility.

I agree with this. My main point is still this - we need to continue pushing candidates, and politicians overall, to be more progressive because regression gets us nowhere. Back to the larger point your post makes, I agree with you - we will have a large field of candidates to choose from that will still grow more in the coming months, so we will have a lot of records, promises and policy proposals to review to make the decision on who we want to run as the Dem for President.

Jinsai
02-04-2019, 12:08 PM
Also after watching that, I hope she has an extremely long career in politics.

She will, and the Republicans know it. The smear campaign against her is so inordinately aggressive and intentionally misrepresentative of what she's actually saying. Even James Woods is sharing memes that imply she wants to tax the average person 70% of their income, and the twitter responses all seem to be buying it.

binaryhermit
02-04-2019, 03:13 PM
I'm not a fan of Joe Biden, he was MBNA's personal senator before they got bought by Bank of America

Jinsai
02-06-2019, 11:19 AM
I think Trevor Noah was on to something when he blamed a large part of Trump’s ascension to the fact that he had a ton of primary competitors, and that limited messaging to quick, empty sound bites. I really hope the dems don’t fall into shit talking infighting in a bloated primary... let’s all get along, and stay on target: we need to defeat Trump in 2020, all other concerns are comparably of no importance.

if democrat infighting and this Starbucks motherfucker hand Trump a re-election... has anyone heard this Starbucks guy talk about how he wants to hear billionaires referred to as “people of means?!”

Really. https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/02/05/howard-schultz-were-not-billionaires-were-people-of-means/amp/

allegro
02-07-2019, 12:19 AM
Unfortunately, this Native American business has pissed off a LOT of Black Twitter. Black people just ain’t gonna vote for Warren after that mess. They’re like, “look in a mirror - you’re white, living with privilege, fuck you using this Native American shit to try to get anything.” I don’t know how she can undo it after that newest evidence came out, with her Texas Bar card from the 80s listing “American Indian” on it.

She’s supposedly announcing her candidacy this Saturday. Or not.

Amy Klobuchar is making an announcement on Saturday, as well.

Beto O’Rourke is weighing the Presidency run vs. a run for the other Texas Senate seat in 2020.

This Pete Buttigieg guy, the Mayor of South Bend, IN, and the first openly gay Democratic Presidential candidate, is great. According to Wikipedia, Pete is “a graduate of Harvard University, a Rhodes Scholar, and a veteran of the War in Afghanistan” (Naval Intelligence Officer). He’s also Phi Beta Kappa.


https://youtu.be/VsxFzIDezdM

elevenism
02-07-2019, 08:01 AM
I saw Julian Castro on Jimmy Kimmel; he seemed presidential.
Idk if I want to see Beto run for president or run for Senate again. As someone who's family has been here since before the civil war, who was raised by a yellow dog dem, I would LOVE to see a dem win Texas, if only to get people to understand that Texas isn't really what a lot of them think it is.
We're not all redneck trump supporters: Texas is a purple state, I think. Hell, before W, our governor was a Democrat, and a female at that.
We also had a democratic governor from like 71 to 79.

Good GOD, I'd like to see Beto take out the zodiac.

allegro
02-07-2019, 08:21 AM
elevenism, You’re stuck with Cruz until 2024.

elevenism
02-07-2019, 08:35 AM
@elevenism (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475), You’re stuck with Cruz until 2024.
true, but perhaps Beto could take out Cornyn in the meantime.

FUCK i hate Ted Cruz.

ltrandazzo
02-07-2019, 09:03 AM
This Pete Buttigieg guy, the Mayor of South Bend, IN, and the first openly gay Democratic Presidential candidate, is great. According to Wikipedia, Pete is “a graduate of Harvard University, a Rhodes Scholar, and a veteran of the War in Afghanistan” (Naval Intelligence Officer). He’s also Phi Beta Kappa.

My favorite line of his is along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I have more legislative experience than Donald Trump, I have more executive experience than Mike Pence, and I have more military experience than the both of them combined."

Mayor Pete knows what his message is and it shows.

I think Warren will be OK - there is an air of "but her emails" with this scandal about her Texas Bar application and she's already apologized to the Cherokee nation both for the video and for other claims she had made about her incorrect heritage.

botley
02-07-2019, 11:25 AM
I think Warren will be OK - there is an air of "but her emails" with this scandal about her Texas Bar application and she's already apologized to the Cherokee nation both for the video and for other claims she had made about her incorrect heritage.
Strong belief in a candidate's positive potential will colour one's interpretation of complaints about them; but, as I see it, Warren's and Clinton's two situations are not comparable. The private e-mail server stuff was vastly overblown by the Republicans into a manufactured outrage cycle, whereas BIPOC upset by Warren's minimization of ancestral heritage are not expressing anything remotely in the same category. She should listen, and respond to their concerns intelligently and graciously. Continuing to ignore that frustration and outrage (most of which is justifiable, given that "gaffes" like this one Warren made, apparently over and over, will bring up feelings of erasure that Indigenous Americans suffer again and again) will get her nowhere. Apologizing to a single band's representatives about that one video is not the same as owning your complicity and making amends for perpetuating that racist dynamic in public. This shouldn't be that hard to do, when you're running to replace the guy who is like, over-the-top 50s-cartoon racist.

Jinsai
02-08-2019, 10:00 AM
I think Warren will be OK - there is an air of "but her emails" with this scandal about her Texas Bar application and she's already apologized to the Cherokee nation both for the video and for other claims she had made about her incorrect heritage.

the problem is “but her emails” worked against Clinton significantly in the end. I love Warren, but her age and this “Pocahontas” bullshit makes her too risky. We need someone who can clearly knock this out of the park. In other circumstances let’s change the world and roll the dice, but not this time.

ltrandazzo
02-08-2019, 10:57 AM
I love Warren, but her age and this “Pocahontas” bullshit makes her too risky.

CNN pundit, is that you?

Please try and look at this less from the analysis view because I've seen too much of this lately that falls into the "politics as sports" category. Worrying about how Republicans and Trump will attack Elizabeth Warren is not the problem of progressives, especially when his hardline base makes up about 35% of the electorate. We're never winning them over so we shouldn't try to cater to them. We are a year away from primary voting and the only candidate I've disqualified so far is Tulsi Gabbard because of her prior hardline anti-LGBTQ views and actions and because she's super cozy with Al-Assad in Syria. Everyone else is still too early to dismiss, especially as this candidate field is still growing.

@botley (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=469) - the reason I mentioned Cherokee nation is because that's the tribe she specifically identified with and they pushed back hard against that so she 100% owed them her first apology for that. Spreading it out to the rest of BIPOC is something that she will have to take seriously and would be perilous to her in the long run if she chooses to ignore them. I hope she doesn't, but if she does, then I have approximately *checks notes* 13890723 other Dem presidential candidates to choose from.

allegro
02-08-2019, 11:41 AM
Please try and look at this less from the analysis view because I've seen too much of this lately that falls into the "politics as sports" category. Worrying about how Republicans and Trump will attack Elizabeth Warren is not the problem of progressives, especially when his hardline base makes up about 35% of the electorate. We're never winning them over so we shouldn't try to cater to them. .

I’m not thinking about the other side and I don’t think Jinsai is, either. I’m thinking about Democrat voters and perhaps Independent voters. Clinton did not get NEARLY the number of black votes that Obama did. Native Americans have never voted in significant numbers, and many tribes are attempting to change that but, until then, it’s difficult to determine how they’ll vote. Meanwhile, Black Twitter is largely - right now, anyway - leaning heavily toward Kamala Harris and they’re pissed off at Warren. Now, is this mostly due to identity politics more than issues? Possibly. I guess we will see, but fucking NEW HAMPSHIRE and IOWA sure as fuck ain’t ever gonna tell us (remembering Chris Rock covering the primaries and noting the obvious lack of black hair care products).

I totally agree that it’s way too early to dismiss candidates, but I’m disheartened that pretty much every candidate is going to have to have lived in a cloistered cave to escape any Opposition Research. Things get dirty real fast. Now, it’s going around that Senator Klobuchar has the highest staff turnover in the Senate and tells interns stuff like “this work is crap.” So, being hard to work for (with Trump being the biggest revolving door in Oval Office history) is valuable Opposition Research. “Oh, what a BITCH.”

The Republicans had 16 candidates in 2016, and the MEDIA had a lot to do with which ONE got the MOST attention. I suspect that might happen this time, too, even on the Democratic side.

And that’s why OPRAH needs to run for President LOL LOL.

ltrandazzo
02-08-2019, 11:52 AM
I totally agree that it’s way too early to dismiss candidates, but I’m disheartened that pretty much every candidate is going to have to have lived in a cloistered cave to escape any Opposition Research. Things get dirty real fast. Now, it’s going around that Senator Klobuchar has the highest staff turnover in the Senate and tells interns stuff like “this work is crap.” So, being hard to work for (with Trump being the biggest revolving door in Oval Office history) is valuable Opposition Research. “Oh, what a BITCH.”

It was intriguing to see that oppo dump happen after she tweeted she had an announcement for this weekend. I do think that it's fair to question if this is something that could be said about a male politician. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amy-klobuchar-abuse-staff-2020_us_5c5a1cb1e4b0871047588649

allegro
02-08-2019, 01:32 PM
It was intriguing to see that oppo dump happen after she tweeted she had an announcement for this weekend. I do think that it's fair to question if this is something that could be said about a male politician. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amy-klobuchar-abuse-staff-2020_us_5c5a1cb1e4b0871047588649

Fuck yes. She's a LAWYER. Law is BRUTAL with criticism. I can count on less than one hand the "constructive" criticism I've experienced in Law. You have to have a thick skin (and you have to be prepared to do all kinds of shit outside of your job description, or at least fight back against crazy corrupt shit people try to get you to do ... I could write a book).

As View Host Sunny Hostin pointed out the other day on the show, Hostin once clerked for an esteemed (male) Judge whom she really respected and she wrote a brief that she'd spent a lot of time on and she submitted the brief to him with a lot of pride, and he returned it to her with a giant red line through the first page; she was, like, is the first page bad? No, he hated the entire thing. She had to re-write it all, but said it was valuable experience. Now, that being said, we do have to remember that these D.C. interns make SHIT when we consider how much it costs to live in D.C., and perhaps Klobuchar isn't being realistic as to her expectations when compared to the caliber of staff that's being hired. That ain't the fucking SCOTUS. But, it IS the entry level job to a lot of other higher state-level jobs, so it's EXPERIENCE, and likely VALUABLE experience. But, perhaps Klobuchar needs to do some soul-searching and tone it down a bit. Or a lot.

I remember, when I was about 23 and starting out in corporate management at a pretty young age, when my department director took me aside and gave me some friendly advise: "Remember, not EVERYONE is as smart as you."

There is criticism, and there is constructive criticism. I've found that the legal profession tends to have managers who went through law school but never received any real training or education in management and there's a whole LOT of them that really suck at management.

As we've seen with the Cheetoh (and, really, with George W Bush, who delegated pretty much HIS ENTIRE JOB), being good at management is REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT if you're POTUS.

ltrandazzo
02-08-2019, 04:45 PM
Here's the thing that I'm really afraid of and what also informs my posts about this upcoming election - I don't want to see what happened in 2016 with the Dem primary happen again with 2020. We can't do that again. Part of why I'm excited about this crowded field is that we can avoid a 1 vs. 1 match-up early on and that we can have a crowd head into many of the larger primaries before folks start dropping out. I think that every policy discussion is important and that we really need to understand where every single one of these candidates are coming from, how they're influenced, and how honest they're willing to be with voters about their proposals. I want to know what they truly believe is the best path forward for this country and why they believe that with conviction so that we can head to the polls knowing everything we can know about them.

And then, when the dust has settled and the nominee is clear, we're going to fucking rally behind them to not only beat Donald Trump but beat the Republican party that propped him up in the first place, whether that nominee is Warren, Booker, Harris, Sanders, Castro, Buttigieg, Biden, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Brown, Abrams, etc. It doesn't fucking matter after that (except for Tulsi because she's a monster).

I don't want to hear about anyone being in Wall Street's pockets, big pharma, special interests, whether someone is a cop, them being too socialist, WHATEVER after the nominee is clear. We fucking rally behind that person and we vote for them and take back the fucking White House. Because if we end up with another 2016 and Donald Trump gets re-elected, they are coming for the border, they are coming for healthcare, they are coming for the poor, they are coming for minorities, and they are coming to fuck you, your family and this country over so they can keep their rich buddies rich while everyone else suffers. And then everything we did in 2018 gets wiped away. Not again.

Jinsai
02-08-2019, 06:28 PM
And then, when the dust has settled and the nominee is clear, we're going to fucking rally behind them to not only beat Donald Trump but beat the Republican party that propped him up in the first place, whether that nominee is Warren, Booker, Harris, Sanders, Castro, Buttigieg, Biden, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Brown, Abrams, etc. It doesn't fucking matter after that (except for Tulsi because she's a monster).

See... here's the thing... I want the candidate most likely to win, and after the primaries, I'm a rabid fanboy of whomever won the primaries. This includes Tulsi. I'll get a Tulsi tattoo on my forehead at this point.

All that matters is that Trump is not given a second term. I can't fathom it.