Biden is definitely centrist and in many ways less liberal than a lot of the candidates, but he's good on LGBT rights for sure and is knowledgeable about foreign policy. He did vote for the Iraq War, like most Senate Democrats, but had some good foreign policy ideas for sure. Of course his domestic record is more checkered, with his opposition to busing in the '80s, etc, but that's going to happen with anyone who has been around that long...
He's also a good debater, and easily won both VP debates in '08 and '12. And yes, I definitely think that he would win in 2020, and probably actually has the best chance to win of any of our candidates, so long as there isn't worse about there about him of course, though I think most likely we know the whole story now. That is, that he has a long history of looking creepy in photo ops, but not actually harassing or assaulting anyone. He definitely needs to stop and as I said it probably is sexist behavior, but if he really didn't think there was anything wrong with it and is learning he shouldn't be told 'don't even run at all'. That is something he'll be attacked for of course if he is the nominee, since Trump doesn't care one bit about his far worse behavior and already has mocked Biden some, but Trump will find something to insult any possible Dem candidate for, so I'm not sure how much that matters.
That said, we're up to something like 20 Democrats running for President now. It's a ridiculously large field to say the least! There are so many people running I can't come even close to remembering all of their names... so who's the best candidate? I don't know, there are maybe too many people running. Our best candidate, in terms of policy, isn't Biden or Sanders, but they are the best-known (and among the oldest) candidates so they're ahead for the moment. It'll be interesting to see if that holds up, or if any of the many younger candidates will gain enough traction to challenge for the top.
Biden has zero charisma. He's already lost. You just listed every reason I don't like him.
Me to Biden: "Don't even run at all."
Seriously ABF, THIS is your guy? The democrats have learned nothing. Nothing, not a DAMNED THING! I am so furious right now. You don't even see it! You- you don't even see that you're repeating the same damne mistakes all over again! The same ones!
Let's rename this thread. The democrats are going to get exactly what they deserve. Damn it... The slogan for a Biden presidency should just be "4 More Years!" on a red baseball cap.
Same problem as what, 2016? Bernie Sanders would have done worse, not better, that year, I am still convinced of that. Biden doesn't have Hillary's major downside, he's not female and the media hasn't spent almost 30 years tearing him to pieces because of it. He does have some lasting popularity because he was Obama's VP, and indeed has already said stuff like how he's an "Obama-Biden Democrat". I'd rather see a more liberal candidate then him too, but I do think he'd win; his main appeal is to the same rust-belt constituency that Trump won with, after all.
It kind of depends, though -- do you think anyone would beat Trump in 2020? Almost no one? Something in between? That's the big question, isn't it...
You.... you... you don't get it at all! You completely fail to understand why Hillary lost!
You're repeating the same damned mistake again! Again ABF! You're trying to appeal to the "rust belt" (meaning, republicans) and you will FAIL. EVERY other candidate is a better option than Biden. ALL of them!
Hillary lost because of sexism, James Comey, and the rust belt, though. Insufficient liberal enthusiasm hurt her too, but wasn't the deciding blow. And again, Sanders would have done worse. He won't win if he's our nominee in 2020 either, I would say.
On another note, AG Barr helped cover up Iran-Contra, back in the '80s. He's a guy you go to to help cover up the crimes of a Republican president. Why did the press pretty much take him at his word, initially, when his letter released? Barr has a long record after all!
On that note, Barr was called to talk to congress today, and said almost nothing. He even refused to answer the very simple question of 'has the White House seen any more of the Mueller Report than has been publicly released in your letter?'. It'll be quite interesting to see how much of the report he actually deigns to release next week, if that happens at all...
Citation needed ABF. Citation needed.
A centrist democrat will lose. Period. That is the lesson you should have learned with Hillary. It's what the party should have learned. If you try to appeal to the rust belt with a "diet republican", the republicans are just going to run with their full-sugar republican, and sweep it. They do that every single time.
If you want to win the rust belt, it takes honesty. Don't lie and pretend you share their values. Tell the truth, that your values ARE different than what they've been raised to believe is right, and then make a clear and honest case for why your values will better serve their interests than what the republicans are offering. Point out how republican policy has failed them, and show how left leaning policy serves rural communities better.
I've already gone over this very early on in this thread.
Fail to learn from history at your peril. But at the rate things are going, a Biden candidacy is nothing more than a declaration that Trump is going to be an 8 year president.
Yes, a centrist Democrat will definitely lose, just like how... wait, like how all Democrats who have won for President in the last 43 years have been somewhat centrist. Hmm. A "centrist" is not my first choice -- though I very much disagree with the idea that Hillary was "centrist", she was most decidedly liberal -- but they definitely can win.
In other news, Obama raised my taxes and Trump cut them. Unfortunately for him that doesn't make me want to vote for Republicans. :p
Quote: Fail to learn from history at your peril. But at the rate things are going, a Biden candidacy is nothing more than a declaration that Trump is going to be an 8 year president.
Defeating Trump would not be easy and while I do think he would win, there is one way that I've been thinking that it would be disappointing to see Biden become President: he'd probably repeat Obama's mistake of not prosecuting any of the crimes of the previous administration. People in the Bush administration should have been charged for the various illegal things they did!
My definition of a centrist is a little different than your's. Frankly, I didn't forget the stunts she pulled early in her political career. And yes, Obama was a centrist, but he didn't run as a centrist, he ran as a progressive, at least in rhetoric. And he was charismatic. Biden is not charismatic. Not at all. He's got all the charm of a tepid glass of water left by the sink overnight, if that glass of water also groped women. There's the other thing. Why in god's green HELL are you supporting someone who's that much of a creep? Are you really willing to let that go to tow the party line? Do you honestly think THAT is what is going to get the women's vote?
However, isn't it hilarious that in Trump's attempt to "teach us a lesson", he's just given us everything we could want regarding illegals? He's turning the southern border into ellis island! It's great! Oh yes, his motivations are evil, and there's an extra step involved, but the practical reality is we now have an open southern border legally granting access by express shuttling immigrants to major cities throughout the US. A few hundred per city, easily absorbed without notice.
The democrats need to take the win the bumbling manchild just gave to them.
Obama ran to Hillary's right on domestic policy, and to her left on foreign policy. Her health care plan was far better than his, and had she won in '08 we'd have a better health law today, I'm sure. He was never actually a progressive, not in policy. Sure, sort of like a Beto or Buttigieg this year but probably a bigger success from early on he was a good and charismatic speaker who attracted a lot of attention, and got a lot of progressive support, but in policy I don't think he was ever that far left.
And similarly, regardless of how she was 20 or 30 years earlier or how her husband governed, in both '08 and '16 Hillary ran as an unquestionably liberal candidate, particularly on domestic issues.
Quote:And he was charismatic. Biden is not charismatic. Not at all. He's got all the charm of a tepid glass of water left by the sink overnight, if that glass of water also groped women. There's the other thing. Why in god's green HELL are you supporting someone who's that much of a creep? Are you really willing to let that go to tow the party line? Do you honestly think THAT is what is going to get the women's vote?
I do not entirely defend his behavior, but "groped women" isn't accurate as far as we know, nobody has accused Biden of doing anything sexual to them. It was all done in front of the camera because he (wrongly) thought that what he was doing was fine. "Paternalistic sexism" is the best term I've seen to describe it. And, yes, creepy. But so far no one has accused him of anything beyond what we see in the pictures: being a person who's too touchy-feely with both sexes, but women more often, and doesn't ask before doing so. That's not okay behavior, but it's not assault or something.
I agree that Biden isn't nearly as charismatic as Obama, though; there are a lot of reasons that Biden's own previous runs for President ended quickly and with very low polling numbers, he's a mostly quite centrist Democrat, not the most enthusiasm-evoking speaker, and constantly creates gaffes to an infamous degree. And as for this year, he's already talking about how he's an "Obama-Biden Democrat", and from a policy standpoint that's good, but we can do better. How about a President who'd start with actual liberal policies, instead of centrist ones that then get pushed to the right before they become law?
On the other hand though we need to win, and Biden is still polling best, not just in the primaries but against Trump. I'll be interesting to see how that changes as people come to know the other Dems more.
On the other hand, our other top candidate is... the other guy over 75 years old, Bernie. Blah. I'm not definitely opposed to someone that old as President, but it's kind of too bad that both of our top candidates are old men... and that's not even getting into that I still think Bernie would definitely lose.
Quote:However, isn't it hilarious that in Trump's attempt to "teach us a lesson", he's just given us everything we could want regarding illegals? He's turning the southern border into ellis island! It's great! Oh yes, his motivations are evil, and there's an extra step involved, but the practical reality is we now have an open southern border legally granting access by express shuttling immigrants to major cities throughout the US. A few hundred per city, easily absorbed without notice.
The democrats need to take the win the bumbling manchild just gave to them.
Heh, yeah, good point... Trump is very good at "winning", no question!
You democrats and your obsessive focus on early polling numbers. Biden will lose. Your obsession with winning to the point you will sell out your own principles is exactly what is destroying the republican party. Don't let it destroy you.
So, the Mueller Report, redacted, is out, and Barr allowed more of it out than I expected! His behavior here honestly is pretty weird. He goes out there, lies to the press repeatedly, writes and says numerous very pro-Trump statements, and then... allows a whole lot of damaging information out, instead of trying to block it and having it get tied up in court for years. Huh. Of course I'm sure some of the worst stuff is in the redacted parts, but still, it's a little odd.
Anyway, now that we have a better knowledge of the Mueller Report, I can say yet again, Trump MUST be impeached! Yes, he will not be removed, but that's not the point, making a statement that this behavior must be resisted in all ways legally possible is. And impeachment is an important one of those ways.
Quote: You democrats and your obsessive focus on early polling numbers. Biden will lose. Your obsession with winning to the point you will sell out your own principles is exactly what is destroying the republican party. Don't let it destroy you.
Biden has a good chance of winning, but regardless, my question on this vein his why so many people think Bernie can win...
Seriously, I'd like to know what the case is for Bernie actually being electable is. The whole "socialist" thing alone pretty much makes him unelectable in most of this country, and on top of that he's old, irritable, way far to the left of most people, is on record as saying "I am not a capitalist", etc. He has a devoted fanbase, but probably a lower ceiling than other Dems. He's got one of the hardest routes of victory of anyone we could run.
On the other hand, there is one thing that's an issue right now that I agree with him on -- prisoners voting. Maybe it is because I am from Maine, the only other state that, along with Vermont, allows prisoners to vote, but this issue is confusing to me; why should anyone be denied their right to vote just because they're in jail? I mean, other than to suppress minority votes, after imprisoning high percentages of minority populations of course. But I doubt that's the only cause of it, so yeah, it's weird, I don't get why 48 states don't allow prisoners to vote; I'd have thought it'd be common, like it is here... so yes I agree with Bernie, of course this should be a thing. But some of the media apparently hate the idea, so they're saying things like 'Bernie wants the Boston marathon bomber to be allowed to vote!' as if that's some horrible thing... yes, the guy committed an awful crime, but everyone should be able to vote!
When the younger progressive voters see two unpalatable candidates, they stay home. THAT'S why Hillary lost. Turnout was terrible that election, and it's because the progressive youth vote couldn't stomach voting against their conscious.
Don't try to steal votes from Trump. It WILL NOT WORK, it CAN'T work. Instead, you'll alienate your core, and Biden will lose. Anyway, I'll see you in 2020, when you return here shocked in disbelief that your candidate lost again, only now you won't be able to say it was the sexism that did it.
Take a risk, push the candidate that actually represents your views. Put a fire under the progressive side of your base! Biden... sheesh.... about as exciting as a mildly damp washrag.
Hillary lost mostly because she lost centrist Midwestern voters to Trump, though. Yes, she did also lose because of depressed turnout from younger liberals in those states, but younger voters usually don't vote anyway, stupidly enough, so that probably isn't what decided it. It's Trump's inroads into the midwest based on his lies about bringing back America that won him the Presidency.
And that's the case for Biden -- that he's the candidate best suited to win over that audience. I do think he's more likely to beat Trump than any of our other candidates. However, even if he does win, it'll be a frustrating four years, with a president who wants to get along with Republicans while Republicans continue to refuse to do anything he wants, Obama-style. Of course I want someone better than that.
However, unless we pull off something very unlikely and actually manage to win the Senate, I don't know if it matters who we pick from a legislation perspective, we won't be passing much. That's a horrible thing with how desperate the climate situation is getting, and with how bad growing international right-wing extremism is, but it's true. Thanks to the Senate's built-in huge Republican advantage, doing anything about this nations' problems will be incredibly difficult, Presidency or no. It's frustrating stuff... Of course, you can also get things done without legislation, and Biden will probably get less done through executive actions and such than some of our other candidates, so even considering that there are reasons to not vote for him. But it is true, what we need is quite unlikely because of the large majority of small, right-wing states in the Senate.
Donald Trump decided that the way to solve Congress's mostly Democratic-led attempts at oversight over his administration's many criminal acts and such is to refuse any and all attempts at oversight. No subpoenas will be responded to, no requests honored, etc. Trump is daring the Dems to impeach him, knowing that it won't result in removal.
Meanwhile, the press is saying how "both sides are bad" for this standoff, because somehow trying to stop authoritarians from taking over the government makes us just as bad as them.
So the question is, how do you save democracy when way too many people don't seem to care?
John Bolton's push for a war with Iran continues, and it's getting dangerous now. Congress really has to step in and put a stop to this, they could if they wanted to! We CANNOT allow these people to start another pointless, horribly destructive war in the Middle East. I know Trump isn't behind this, Bolton and co. are, but he's so malleable that that doesn't really matter.
So despite doing creep things again, Biden's polling lead seems to keep getting bigger. I guess a lot of Democrats think that safe (and Obama-connected) is the best way to beat Trump. I do think he has a very good shot at beating Trump, but even so I'd rather see someone at least a bit more liberal, not so old (why are three of the top five Democratic candidates 70+?), not someone with issues like his apparent creepiness (which looks worse today than it did in the past), etc, so I doubt I'll be voting for Biden in the primary...
But if he wins? Yes, of course I'll support him for President, and I'm sure he'd be a vastly better president than Trump in every way. I just badly hope that we pull off a miracle and win the Senate, because no, Mr. Biden, the Senate Republicans are NOT going to give you anything you want just because you try to be nice to them. Seriously, weren't you there when they were sabotaging the Obama administration for years??
Oh. yes, winning the Senate is possible, it'll just be hard. Polling is showing that Susan Collins' approval rating has been damaged quite a bit by her support for Trump and Kavanaugh, I just hope this means we can defeat her, or she retires... winning here is crucial for our chances of taking the Senate, and it'll probably be close.
Looks like you're seeing where I'm coming from on Biden. Yes, I would vote for him too, because the alternative is the worst possible candidate, I just don't have high hopes he'd win. I'd be going to the polls like I'm clocking into a factory day-job, no enthusiasm.
And that "we're the democrats, we compromise" attitude is a huge problem. They just caved on net neutrality. Great. And the line shifts further right, again.
Biden just released a climate plan, and it's actually decent. I mean, it's a solid plan which takes inspiration from the Green New Deal, and aims for carbon-neutral emissions by 2050. It's fairly obviously not enough, but nothing there is any reasonable chance of enacting would be anything remotely close to enough to stop very serous climate change, so anything that reduces it is good and this plan is a lot better than Obama's somewhat tragic lack of serious action.
Biden may be centrist, but he is very definitely not a Republican. No Republican would even think of releasing the education and climate plans he has.
I am not a fan of how Biden treated Warren in this exchange.
The video isn't working, is the link right?
I agree that Biden has plenty of issues and is frustratingly centrist, he just is still a Democrat. I wish we'd have a President who would definitely push back against the way the Republicans in Congress are subverting and destroying democracy instead of Biden's "all we need is to get rid of Trump and it'll all be fine" delusion (if he actually believes it, which yeah, he may well...), but still he would be a dramatically different president from any Republican, even one from the '70s. Also, while it reflects poorly on him in some important ways (ie, that he's been iffy on choice), as his recent 'I support the Hyde Amendment... oh wait now I'm in favor of repeal' thing shows, he can be pushed to be more liberal where it counts.
That's far from high praise of course, in terms of policy we have lots of better candidates... but we don't have any other candidates who lead Trump in the polls... in Texas. A recent poll there a few days ago shows Biden ahead of Trump, 48-44, while all other Dems are behind him.
Clear the field of democratic candidates save one and see where any one alone would stand against Trump's polls. That's the flaw in logic here. Seeing how they stack up when there's a highschool graduation's worth of candidates at play vs exactly one Trump isn't really a fair assessment. Wittle it down until it's, say, JUST Warren or JUST O'Rork and the dems will flock behind that candidate, not to mention the youth vote and the idealistic independent voters.
Quote: Seriously, I'd like to know what the case is for Bernie actually being electable is.
Donald Trump is the president of United States.
(8th June 2019, 3:59 PM)Weltall Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: Seriously, I'd like to know what the case is for Bernie actually being electable is.
Donald Trump is the president of United States.
Bingo. Once again, the democrats are so busy seeing which of their candidates would beat each other they neglected to consider what happens when only one candidate remains. That's all that matters.
Sure, but having a lead over Trump before you get down to just two candidates is probably better than being behind; other candidates may well get to the same point Biden is if they were the only candidate, but there's no guarantee they'd match his numbers.
It's a false equivalence in the first place, so those numbers are basically irrelevant. That's what I'm saying. Pick your candidate based on policy, THEN check numbers. Don't pick candidates based on something as ethereal and undefined as "electability".
Sure, backing a candidate because of agreeing with their policy is a fine idea. It's not the only concern, unfortunately (or else Warren would be the easy pick this year...), but just going with the poll numbers, in a field this large, probably won't lead you to the best candidate for you.
I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about one very very basic thing. When the election comes, none of these candidates will be runing against each other, so their polls against each other are irrelevant.
There's no reliable way to say where Biden will land on the abortion issue, that's troubling.
Speaking of worrying so much about the future you fail to act in the present, let's not forget that they should absolutely be talking about impeachment right now while they still have the chance to actually do it.
The Democratic leadership's failure so far to do anything at all on impeachment, and indeed saying things opposed to it, is very confusing and really bad. There really should be no debate here at all in the Democratic Party, Trump very obviously must be impeached! Why is this even a question? He's an open criminal, has done innumerable impeachable acts while in office, and not impeaching him would be yet another horribly bad death-knell sign for the survival of our democracy. Trump must be impeached, period. I wonder how long it'll take the leadership to get the message... even just for the statement of it, for standing up for our democracy, it's essential to do it even if we know he'll almost certainly not be removed.
On a related note, Trump recently begged foreign countries such as Putin's Russia to hack his opponents in 2020 and leak information to his campaign, because he promised to never go to the FBI if he got such information, he'd use it. He's an open criminal and just reminded everyone of that fact yet again. ... I wonder, did he finally listen to the news about how terrible his poll numbers are in key states, and this is his plan for how to turn that around, hope for another Russian hack? If so, I would like to believe it'd be much less successful next time than it was in '16... we'll see though of course.
That was a stunning reminder of the sort of man we're dealing with.
And I'm much more disturbed by his callous attitude towards "ethics" as a concept.
Take a look at that clip from the video I linked above. He flat out says that "he's seen a lot of things and never called the FBI" (WHAT things?! I figure it's got to have something to do with that horrid "Lolita express" both he and Clinton have been on, so let's not forget for one second that Trump has very likely raped children before.) He projects that "no one" would report to the FBI if someone came to them with "dirt on their enemies". (Meaning he assumes everyone is just as wicked as he is and we just pretend otherwise, which well I have no word to describe how evil that is. Hell, most people don't even have enemies! I don't have enemies, who here has enemies?)
Then there's this. Trump blatantly lies repeatedly to a man who knows better's face. When the man sticks to his guns, Trump seems to genuinely resent the very notion of honesty. I'm left in a state where I once again have no clue how anyone can listen to more than 5 seconds of the man without instantly seeing through him. How do people like this guy?
So the first Democratic debates were yesterday and the day before, and like apparently more people than had ever watched a Democratic debate, I watched them. They were both pretty good and well worth watching.
My main takeaways -- I agree with the consensus, and the first post-debate poll, Kamala Harris is the big winner. She went up significantly after the debate, and it's easy to see why, she did best of anyone either night for sure. Her biggest moment was tearing into Biden on busing, but she was good all around -- I liked the part where she got the others to stop all talking over eachother, nobody watches a debate to watch the candidates all talk at the same time.
The big surprise from the first night was Castro, who stood out more than anyone in the debate and well outdid Beto in the 'Democrat from Texas' category. Elizabeth Warren also did well in night one, in the domestic policy section. When it came to foreign policy she seems to have kind of disappeared, as she let the others talk without interrupting. She's mostly famous for domestic policy (fiscal issues) so this kind of makes sense, but I hope she improves on it, foreign policy is very important as well. She did fine, but it'll be a bigger test once all of the major candidates face eachother, which they didn't this time with its divided format. It's always nice to see the full breadth of people running early in the cycle so two 10-person debates were fun to watch, but you definitely learn a lot less about the candidates' positions and how they interact with eachother in this kind of debate. There will be like ten more primary debates, though, so that's fine.
Getting back to busing though, Biden's messaging here is confusing, which makes sense given his very mixed record on the issue, but still is, well, hard to make sense of. So, Biden was, from the '70s on, opposed to Department of Education-ordered busing. He did, however, eventually decide to support busing if it happened because of a court order because of racial justice reasons. He seems to have stuck to this strange dichotomy ever since, and still is refusing to say there was anything wrong with his position then.
Now, the debate didn't mention it, but Biden's side pretty much won -- busing isn't common, instead there have been attempts to improve poor schools where they are, to mixed-at-best results. Busing poor black children to suburban white schools is, obviously, still unpopular. Now it's more a money issue than just purely a racial one, as anyone can go to a good school with the money to pay for it, but race and money are clearly linked a lot of the time. But given the still-difficult racial tensions around education, even Harris is being careful about how far she goes to criticize Biden here... but still, it was a definite win for her in the debate and it's shown in the polling, she's gained a lot and he has lost some ground.
Apparently there's a lot of "news" sites claiming the complaints about the concentration camps at the border have been "busted" and pictures show it's all fake there's no concentration camps or children there at all.
It's not true:
But what disturbs me is just how many people are now convinced they don't have anything to be guilty about now. There's so many people clinging to this in a desperate attempt to sooth their conscious, and their existence matters, the mindset that leads to their existence matters, because it endangers both these children, future children, and our country at large.
So, Mueller testified... and nothing changed -- Trump and his cronies are still spewing lies about how Mueller "exonerated" him, the Democats are still struggling with the question of whether to impeach or not, and only a few more Dems in the House support impeachment than did before. Of course, part of that is on Mueller, since just like he promised his testimony wasn't the most useful to either side as he refused to answer most questions with more than a word or two, often variations on 'no comment', but still there were some important and revealing moments, and despite the frustration overall I do think the testimony helped the cause of impeachment.
Of course, impeaching Trump won't do all that much politically since the Senate will not remove him, but I absolutely still think it's crucial to impeach him despite that, the statement that our democracy will be defended is critically important.
As for 2020, it could go either way, Trump could get re-elected or we could win easily. How much foreign interference there is is a factor, I don't know if we'll ever know how legitimate the 2016 vote was, particularly in terms of Russian hackers potentially deleting people from voter rolls and such... and they will do it again, since Trump and his Russia-aligned backers like McConnell have decided that democracy isn't important, only ensuring a continued hold on power is. The way McConnell is blocking any anti-foreign-interference laws is despicable. (On that note though, it is interesting how Republican Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Burr is at least a little better on this issue -- the Senate Intelligence Committee just released a report on foreign hacking saying it absolutely is and was going on.)
The second round of Democratic primary debates were over the last couple of days, and I watched most (but not all) of both, and they were decent for the most part. I doubt anything in them will seriously change the race, there wasn't anything on the level of Harris's performance in the first debate here. CNN's moderation choices are worth criticizing, they were way too focused on trying to get the Democrats to attack eachother for example, but I thought it was mostly okay.
But yeah, Biden is likely to remain the front-runner, with Warren and Sanders following. I hope the next debates, in early September, get Warren and Biden on the same stage, that would be great... the 'moderates versus liberals' narrative of the first night is a valid one, and Biden is the primary more moderate candidate, not the ones who were in night one. CNN pushed John Delaney hard as the moderate face of the first debate to counter Warren and Sanders, but obviously Biden's much better at that.
As for night two though, Inslee's entirely right about climate change. Biden's plan is decent, but we need bold if we want any chance of slowing it down. (Yang's "retreat from the coasts" message may eventually be necessary, but I don't think people are going to listen to that right now.)
Getting upset that governors and mayors are left with the task of implementing sweeping change on a local level was a strange one. That's their JOB. What are they complaining about? That would be like garbage disposers complaining that their work sure is a lot tougher after the parade. Well of course it is, but that's the job isn't it? I'm not saying support and coordination aren't a part of it, of course they are (in the same way you hire more people to handle the garbage in preparation for parade day), but geez, if we're really terrified of change because change is hard, we're doomed.
As you might imagine, I thought Warren and Sanders both performed very well, and they're the ones everyone's quoting today, so I'd say they got their names out there. Once again, I never really considered "name recognition" a big deal when it comes to primaries. When the dust settles and the party's picked their candidate, do you really think whoever it is, and I mean literally anyone, won't instantly become a household name overnight? Of course they will. Name recognition is not an issue right now. Oh and yes, I clearly want a more progressive Democratic party. I'm sick of the moderates parroting Republican talking points as their own.
Trump just quoted some other republican's line "A moderate socialist is still a socialist". This is the point. It doesn't matter how far the moderates try to swing their party to seem more "acceptable" to republicans. That ship sailed ages ago. It doesn't work any more. ANY mention of health care change, at all, in any form, is now "socialism" and evil and a violation of God's divine will. I'm not even exaggerating. The modern republican literally believes that the Republican party is the party of God, chosen BY God, in this dark and evil time. THAT is what you have to cut through to reach a republican voter, a religious conviction that their party is right. You don't do that by putting on a Reagan mask and pretending to be a republican. You do that by being radical, embracing it, and explaining to the rust belt WHY the republican party has failed them and why democrat policies will benefit them.
I wonder, what would it actually take for America to take action against guns? More horrendous slaughters, more certainty they will continue happening... it's pretty sad.
(1st August 2019, 10:49 AM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: [ -> ]Getting upset that governors and mayors are left with the task of implementing sweeping change on a local level was a strange one. That's their JOB. What are they complaining about? That would be like garbage disposers complaining that their work sure is a lot tougher after the parade. Well of course it is, but that's the job isn't it? I'm not saying support and coordination aren't a part of it, of course they are (in the same way you hire more people to handle the garbage in preparation for parade day), but geez, if we're really terrified of change because change is hard, we're doomed.
I'm not sure which part you are referring to here, maybe I missed it? I didn't see all of either debate...
Quote:As you might imagine, I thought Warren and Sanders both performed very well, and they're the ones everyone's quoting today, so I'd say they got their names out there. Once again, I never really considered "name recognition" a big deal when it comes to primaries. When the dust settles and the party's picked their candidate, do you really think whoever it is, and I mean literally anyone, won't instantly become a household name overnight? Of course they will. Name recognition is not an issue right now. Oh and yes, I clearly want a more progressive Democratic party. I'm sick of the moderates parroting Republican talking points as their own.
Warren definitely did well in the second debates, yeah. I still have serious concerns about her ability to win against Trump, but yeah policy-wise she's quite good.
Certainly name recognition and polling will increase once the party has a nominee, yes, but I would think that starting from a higher point is a positive...
As for Republican talking points, that was mostly the moderators doing that, not the candidates. The centrist candidates were attacking the liberal ones for sure, but you can tell that they're still Democrats. Some might have gone a bit far sometimes, but that's why I'm not entirely sold on the party's decision to not put anmy effort into trimming the size of the field; the minor candidates can be interesting, or frustrating, to hear from, but either way, debates with just the candidates that actually have a chance would be great. Probably too scared by the whole Bernie-fans-were-super-mad-in-2016 thing, though, the Democratic Party is refusing to do that. Too bad.
Quote:Trump just quoted some other republican's line "A moderate socialist is still a socialist". This is the point. It doesn't matter how far the moderates try to swing their party to seem more "acceptable" to republicans. That ship sailed ages ago. It doesn't work any more. ANY mention of health care change, at all, in any form, is now "socialism" and evil and a violation of God's divine will. I'm not even exaggerating. The modern republican literally believes that the Republican party is the party of God, chosen BY God, in this dark and evil time. THAT is what you have to cut through to reach a republican voter, a religious conviction that their party is right. You don't do that by putting on a Reagan mask and pretending to be a republican. You do that by being radical, embracing it, and explaining to the rust belt WHY the republican party has failed them and why democrat policies will benefit them.
I saw a thing recently about evangelicals upset by how Trump swears all the time. They'll happily overlook things like that, how he's destroying their livelihoods (in the case of farmers), and more, though, since he hates them brown people, and that's all that matters, right?
Anyway though, yeah, the Republicans will definitely try to call any Democrat a socialist as if it's some awful thing, while the left says 'that's fine, America needs more socialism'. It'd be great if we could actually win in the rust belt with that kind of message, but I'm not convinced we can. If you go too far to one side, you lose the middle. What will this lead to, though? I'm sure socialism does not poll as badly now as it once did, but it's probably going to hurt the Dems with some people... though more probably will be turned off by Trump's policy positions, so that shouldn't be nearly as good for their party as they hope.
Aaand Trump just drew a bubble on the old hurricane projection map in sharpie so he could retroactively "never have been wrong", by lying in the most hilariously pathetic childish display yet.
I mean look at this!
https://people.com/politics/trump-denies...h-alabama/
Just call Trump a liar reporters! Do it! Say it to his big dumb face right there in front of him! Do it!
The "President" cannot possibly be older than about three, mentally...
Never forget that Trump is a symptom, not the disease. The system is broken and needs major reform.
How do you fix stupid? Supporting and revering Trump, continuing to hang onto his every word after he's demonstrably lied thousands of times, betrays a judgment of character and common sense so abysmal that I can't even fathom that kind of rationale.
It's one thing to "give him a chance" and to think "maybe he'll become more presidential and take the job more seriously once he's in"... but to continue to hang onto him after seeing what a spectacular failure he is, how incompetent he is, the blatant corruption and dishonesty and narcissism... I'm just at a loss. I've never felt more ashamed to be a citizen of this country, never felt so disconnected from my fellow Americans.
I should probably keep in mind that a majority of people disapprove, and that he lost the popular vote, and would have lost much more if liberals didn't turn their noses up at Hillary. Still, that 40%!! of people still approve of him is mind-blowing and depressing.
I just realized that the republicans have been on ABF's public space shitlist for over 9 years now.
Not long enough in my opinion but there it is.
(6th September 2019, 3:18 AM)Sacred Jellybean Wrote: [ -> ]How do you fix stupid? Supporting and revering Trump, continuing to hang onto his every word after he's demonstrably lied thousands of times, betrays a judgment of character and common sense so abysmal that I can't even fathom that kind of rationale.
It's one thing to "give him a chance" and to think "maybe he'll become more presidential and take the job more seriously once he's in"... but to continue to hang onto him after seeing what a spectacular failure he is, how incompetent he is, the blatant corruption and dishonesty and narcissism... I'm just at a loss. I've never felt more ashamed to be a citizen of this country, never felt so disconnected from my fellow Americans.
I should probably keep in mind that a majority of people disapprove, and that he lost the popular vote, and would have lost much more if liberals didn't turn their noses up at Hillary. Still, that 40%!! of people still approve of him is mind-blowing and depressing.
I heard today the 40% is because they stupidly believe that he is fixing the economy. But even that misperception is on the way out.
(5th September 2019, 5:58 PM)A Black Falcon Wrote: [ -> ]The "President" cannot possibly be older than about three, mentally...
Haha.. Like when he made a map earlier this week in sharpy to support a lie and said it was from NOAA.
People who are crying fowl for the news reporting on, apparently are clueless as to why having to report on it is the issue here.
Apparently we as a people have forgotten how to be offended at the craziest shit.
Possibly because our definition of crazy shit is ever expanding every day, I don't know.
[
attachment=369]