Yeah, my last post was about sharpie-gate, and how unbelievably petty he is to keep insisting that his (illegal!) lie about Hurrican Dorian is true. He's even gotten NOAA to make a false statement supporting him, now! It's pretty insane how childish he is, and how far people will go to lie and cover for him. Insane, and depressing... though some elements of the story are funny, with how absurd it all is.... about something quite serious, a storm which pretty much wiped out a couple of Caribbean islands.
(6th September 2019, 12:19 PM)etoven Wrote: [ -> ]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.
I don't know what you mean by this?
And his supporters have had to concoct conspiracies to support his madness.
Because, you know, the hurricane forecasters are biased against him for.... some reason.
Malevolent gods are better than none.
On the one hand, that John Bolton is gone is very good news -- he waned us to be in more wars, and the world is safer without him having as much power. If it was up to him we'd definitely be at war with Iran now, no question, and maybe more; Trump is almost never right, but he is right about that. On the other hand though, that his opposition to Trump's attempt to make peace in Afghanistan was probably part of why he left is troubling; I know that the Afghan war is endless and really awful and we can't stay forever, but leaving and letting the Taliban probably win would be even worse, I think... after all this, do we want to let the Taliban start horribly oppressing everyone in Afghanistan again?
The problem is people worse than Bolton, people who believe that Trump will save Israel and usher in the blessing of the apocalypse, are still working there.
(Make no mistake, the apocalypse to a right wing Christian is a good thing, a desired thing, a thing they badly want to happen.)
Jon Oliver had a few things to say about that. Also, on Cody's Showdy.
And alsoer, let's not forget the horrible laws passed while everyone was watching Trump doodle on a weather map.
Alsoerer, my voting location just got closed down. I'll be going to vote at an existing location further away. The place I live is growing by leaps and bounds every year, so it seems strange to start shutting down polling places, well, unless that's the point, since this district skews more progressive.
Finally! Trump is going to be impeached! It's been such a long time coming, he has richly deserved this for numerous criminal and anti-American acts since the moment he entered office, but I guess he's finally gone too far. Really though, trying to get a foreign country to give you help against a domestic opponent is awful, but how is this the thing he gets impeached for, and not how he's been enriching himself illegally while in office, got Russian help to win the 2016 election, etc, etc? It was inevitable that he would do even more things along those lines to increase his chances of being impeached though, and that he did so finally is out there. It's kind of a relief that Trump finally did something bad enough that Pelosi gave in and agreed to impeachment; even if removal from office is very unlikely, this as a necessary action to help maintain at least some remnants of democracy in this country.
That even more things keep leaking out, of even more conversations with foreign leaders that people in the White House have tried to hide any record of, shows that this is going to continue getting worse for Trump as the days go on. Good, he richly deserves it, sadly enough.
Two of the white house staff have been asked to testify, refused, and were found in contempt of congress. Why hasn't congress arrested them? It's within their powers to do so. If they don't exercise that power, then why would Trump's idiot lawyer feel the least desire to cooperate when it's his turn?
Get some police on staff, congress, and arrest them!
These past few days, Trump's people have been scrambling to create the narrative that the transcript both A: doesn't say what it says and B: even if it did say that, it doesn't MEAN that, you can interpret it charitably enough that it's nothing. Well, Trump blew all of that up.
Also, another thing:
And one last thing, it doesn't matter who the whistleblower is, or if they are credible, or even if you could 100% establish that they were lying and made it all up. It doesn't matter because Trump released the transcript. The whistleblower just blew a whistle, they are NOT Trump's accuser. Could they have been? Sure, but we're well past that now. Discrediting the whistleblower is pointless, and on our side, defending the whistleblower is pointless. Don't even engage with that. The whistleblower's roll in all this is over, dead, kaput. The only thing that matters now is the transcript, and that's all they need.
Trump's new plan is to try to normalize treason by committing more of it. So, he openly asked China to investigate Joe Biden for "corruption" if they want trade to maybe get easier. Normalizing the unthinkable by saying/doing it openly, over and over, is Trump's mode of operation, and he's doing it again... except the thing he's doing this time is worse than anything he's done before, so it's not working nearly as well. His poll numbers are down, support for impeachment and removal is up, a few Republican Senators are giving slightly wishy-washy statements, etc... sure, removal is extremely unlikely, but things are bad for Trump, and I hope they continue getting even worse. ... And that people do not allow him to normalize borderline treasonous stuff like he is doing, of course!
Quote: And one last thing, it doesn't matter who the whistleblower is, or if they are credible, or even if you could 100% establish that they were lying and made it all up. It doesn't matter because Trump released the transcript. The whistleblower just blew a whistle, they are NOT Trump's accuser. Could they have been? Sure, but we're well past that now. Discrediting the whistleblower is pointless, and on our side, defending the whistleblower is pointless. Don't even engage with that. The whistleblower's roll in all this is over, dead, kaput. The only thing that matters now is the transcript, and that's all they need.
Yeah, it is kind of amazing how Trump and his administration have managed to make things significantly worse for themselves by pretty much admitting all of the worst charges... but he knows his base doesn't care or believe it -- a poll showed that only 40% of Republicans think that Trump talked about Biden on the Ukraine call, or something along those lines, despite that transcript factually proving that he did. They don't care, our system has broken down and people do not believe the media anymore. The only hope we've got is that that fortunately-a-minority group of people can be rendered electorally irrelevant, but they sure aren't now...
Now, Trump's numbers with Republicans ARE getting worse for him... but the vast majority still believe in him. I've never had any idea why.
Are you sure about Trump's poll numbers being down? I checked fivethirtyeight and they're pretty much where they've always been: 53.7 disapprove, and 41.6 approve. No one has budged, given the latest news. And Republicans are already discussing a blitz strategy to convince voters that this is just Democrats still bitter over the 2016 loss and it's a "nothing-burger".
Nothing has changed, even with Trump calling on China to help him out. It's unbelievable. He's becoming more and more brazen, precisely because he knows he can get away with it. Every time he does something more outrageous and objectively unethical, I wonder if we've reached the breaking point, but... nope.
Luckily, depending on the poll, a lot of Americans think he should be impeached. It looks like it can be as high as 46.5% (approve) vs. 44.8% (disapprove), based on fivethirtyeight's numbers. Still, there are caveats with this, in that polls can use different phrasing on impeachment. Still, it at least paints a fuzzy picture of it.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-...ent-trump/
Fivethirtyeight is generally pretty reliable with their numbers, but I'm rather disappointed that Nate Silver's biases are showing when it comes to donations and whether they matter. A few months ago, "donations are the single biggest predictor of electoral success", but then Bernie's donation totals came out, and now they don't matter, polls baby!
Bernie's numbers are flat. Polling shows that, apparently, under 1% of 2016 Clinton supporters are considering Bernie this time around, and he's not holding everyone who supported him then either, not by a longshot. He's stuck at 15%, max, and is not gaining. Sure he has money, but is that money leading to real gains? And then on top of that, he's the oldest candidate in the race and just had a heart attack...
On the subject of money though, apparently Andrew Yang raised $10 million last quarter, and... WHY? What do people see in him? I really don't get it... I know his polling is low, but he's above a lot of what I would have thought to be more serious candidates and continues to raise money. I don't have a strong opinion on universal basic income but am pretty skeptical about its prospects and if it'd work (and about his plan, too), but still, that's a lot of money...
(5th October 2019, 9:27 AM)Sacred Jellybean Wrote: [ -> ]Are you sure about Trump's poll numbers being down? I checked fivethirtyeight and they're pretty much where they've always been: 53.7 disapprove, and 41.6 approve. No one has budged, given the latest news. And Republicans are already discussing a blitz strategy to convince voters that this is just Democrats still bitter over the 2016 loss and it's a "nothing-burger".
You're right that his base is sticking with him, I'm probably wrong on that point, but polling is showing that support for impeachment and removal are both up and that is very important -- some people (primarily independents, and not diehard Trumper Republicans) have budged, in favor of wanting further investigation of his actions.
As for Republican attempts to paper this over, of course they will try but so far it is not working.
Quote:Nothing has changed, even with Trump calling on China to help him out. It's unbelievable. He's becoming more and more brazen, precisely because he knows he can get away with it. Every time he does something more outrageous and objectively unethical, I wonder if we've reached the breaking point, but... nope.
Luckily, depending on the poll, a lot of Americans think he should be impeached. It looks like it can be as high as 46.5% (approve) vs. 44.8% (disapprove), based on fivethirtyeight's numbers. Still, there are caveats with this, in that polls can use different phrasing on impeachment. Still, it at least paints a fuzzy picture of it.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-...ent-trump/
That he has gotten so brazen, probably partially because mentally he's falling apart and partially because he knows his base will let him get away with anything, is good as far as impeachment goes -- it has finally made impeachment possible, where previously it probably wasn't going to happen. And at least some people are noticing how bad his behavior is, as the increase in support for impeachment shows.
Poling also shows Trump far behind where he was in this point in 2015 -- PPP said recently that at this point in 2015 Trump-Hillary Clinton polls showed them tied at 44%, while now Trump is behind a generic Democrat by like 12%. That Trump's base is sticking whit him is horrible for the future of his democracy, but unless the attempts to rig and subvert the vote work, I don't think this is going to be 2016 again... but that is a huge "unless" and thanks to our insanely awful electoral college system we need to win by a LOT to have any shot at victory, so we'll see.
So yeah, unhinged behavior is bad, and Republican attempts to cover it over and pretend that his criminal and impeachable offenses are nothing are worse, but his actions have gotten so bad that he's paying a price for it anyway. Thank goodness. Removal is still EXTREMELY unlikely, but at this rate you never know...
I wasn't saying Bernie's poll data is rising drastically, it's rising a lot slower than Warren's right now. I'm just pointing out Nate Silver's shifting of the goal posts.
As far as impeachment, this is the dem's game to lose right now, literally. THEY are in full control of whether or not he's impeached. Removed from office? No that's the senate, and they will not under any circumstances be the party who's candidate is the first in US history to be removed from office. It won't happen, period.
All they need to do is vote to impeach him, right now, and be done with it. They could have done it the day they took control of congress. The emuluments clause violation would have been enough. The Mueller report would have been enough. The violation of international treaties and illegal treatment of refugees would have been enough. Don't kid yourself ABF. The dems aren't doing this because they want to, they are doing it because they feel politically forced into a corner. The old guard in the dems are terrified because they remember what happened to Clinton, as though that defines what impeachment is like, as though we have anywhere near a big enough sample size to say what the political consequences of impeachment are.
The dems are making big mistakes. They seem to have narrowed the scope of their investigation to JUST the Ukraine scandel. I think this is a mistake. What if the repubs have some amazing defense they pull out at the last second and the Ukraine scandel fizzles in the public mind? No, they need to focus on the entirety of Trump's failings, from the start to finish. Gish gallop it! Smash the public discourse with a running scoreboard of all his failings rushed together. If they intend to sway public opinion enough to get the republicans to actually remove him from office, they can't hold back there.
They also seem too scared to actually use the full weight of their authority. They held two witnesses in contempt of congress already, but nothing happened! Arrest them! Deputize some police and put them in jail! That's a power granted to congress, and if they fail to exercise it, they risk being seen as powerless. They're so scared of looking like authoritarians themselves that they aren't doing what they have every right, and necessity, to do. Democrats need to STOP playing by the republican's narrative rulebook. It's been their weakness for decades. Just do what needs doing, and explain why it needed to be done. Of course the republicans will cry foul, but they ALREADY ARE! They are already claiming it's a coup de ta. There's no point restraining themselves now.
They also need to go after Pence. Oh no, that's too much to chew on all at once! Screw that. Do it! It needs to be done. He's guilty here too, and has been incriminated doing the same illegal activity as Trump. Will people see it as a play to get Nanci Pelosi in power? Of course the republicans will spin it that way, but they already ARE making that claim when it's just Trump! Coup, remember? So, go all in!
The dems need to understand that there are no half measures here. Either they go in all the way, or they should never have started impeachment proceedings. Any attempt to hold back will backfire and make it look like the Dems have no real case. This is a train, and there's no getting off the tracks. Do it, don't hesitate.
Trump's "Great and Unmatched Wisdom". Huh... Well, that was clearly written by an aid poking a little fun at Trump's ego in a way Trump himself is incapable of catching as a dig.
You know, I didn't WANT to end up some commie red socialist mouse that wants a glass of milk. I really didn't, but these CEOs I swear, I mean they couldn't have motivated me to go this way better if they were trying to. I had no idea Captain Planet villains were actually realistic.
Warren has finally committed to not taking doners from giant corporations like Sanders had, and even Yang's going that route. All I can say is, good! That's how you get the corruption out of Washington. Biden, of course, hasn't, and is consistently acting like a befuddled old loon who's taking every chance to betray core democrat values by, well, lying about health care options. Let him slip slide away into obscurity. He never once had a clear message beyond "Remember how you felt with Obama? I am that feeling."
The US Military is now officially a PMC, they're mercenaries. Trump bragged about accepting payment in return for troop deployment. Every person who joined up thinking they were defending some higher cause, or were only going to be used in some way that defends America, well, they have just been told in no uncertain words "You're a sell sword, a hired goon, you do violence so I can make money".
So I think "make the US forces retreat, allowing Turkey to massacre and maybe genocide our allies the Kurds" now should go to the top thing on the list of awfuil things Trump has done. It's just so, so sad...
Now Trump has sunk to the point of openly supporting Turkey's ethnic cleansing of Kurds from parts of northeastern Syria. Openly and repeatedly. Somehow he's managed to come up with a way to sink even lower! It truly is kind of amazing... I mean, sure, as we see with his elementary-school-tier letter to Turkish leader Erdogan Trump is barely literate, but that is no excuse for that level of horrible sentiment. Even the House and Senate Republicans are on record opposing this, but I guess there's nothing they can do to reverse it... unfortunate.
Seriously, I know it will take a while to progress, but can't we impeach him already? Once the House impeaches him there will be a Senate trial -- enough Senate Republicans are rejecting the idea of just dismissing the charges that it will happen -- but no, I still expect them to let him off. That is bad for the more vulnerable Republicans either way, though-- polling shows that my Senator Susan Collins gets hurt significantly in the Republican primary if she supports impeachment, for example, and her numbers there are already poor enough that she could lose in the primary, but gets hurt almost as badly in the general if she votes not to impeach, as moderates who previously have voted for her see who she really is and finally vote for someone else. I hope this kind of polling holds up all the way to next years' elections!
The longer the impeachment takes, the more republicans seem to start shifting over to being fed up with him, including Lindsey Graham (not of Daventry).
It all comes down to the public. The opinion of even the republican voters is shifting as this keeps getting worse and worse. Now we've got a chief of staff not only admitting that Trump did the quid pro, he's saying "get over it, it happens all the time". Well, nothing inflames the fires of justice more than being told "you can't change it, this is reality now".
Meanwhile, Warren is polling ahead of Biden by a fair margin now, and Sanders is catching up after that one-two punch during the debate (most of which had little to do with the debate itself, which as usual is avoiding all the truly important questions like- oh, the fate of teh planet).
So, Hillary Clinton said that a certain candidate, clearly Tulsi Gabbard, is being supported by the Russians, who want her to run as an independent spoiler candidate (surely to help Trump win). Tulsi replied by going on a rant about how awful Hillary is, while Russian state TV apparently responded with a half hour program supporting Tulsi and bashing Clinton, both of which kind of prove her point -- yeah, Russia apparently does like Tulsi Gabbard. It makes sense, given her history of saying how much she supports Bashar al Assad and opposing American military interventions (but being totally fine with lots and lots of us bombing foreign countries).
But for some reason, a bunch of other Democratic candidates are also saying how Tulsi isn't a Russian asset -- Butigieg, Yang, now Bernie... why? Even if she isn't a knowing Russian supporter she is definitely being backed by them and doesn't seem to mind it, and has a whole lot of horrible views as well. So why go out there and support here, when all it does is make you look really bad when you read up on the details of all of it? Very disappointing from all of them.
If Hillary thinks that Tulsi is a russian agent, she needs to provide evidence. If she doesn't have evidence, she needs to shut up, because right now she honestly sounds like Trump.
The (very, VERY strong) evidence is in Tulsi's policy positions and in Russia's open support for her.
Heck I don't even care about Tulsi, but frankly if you have evidence, post it. Don't just say "I have good and goodly and strong and big bigly good evidence, evidence like you wouldn't believe.".
In any case, it should be noted that Hillary's spokesman is walking back that claim.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...lsi-gabba/
I don't think Hillary should have said that, but I really, REALLY don't like how Gabbard responded to it. She went off on a rant about how the DNC and media are rigging things against her, which is precisely the rhetoric that helped spoil things for Democrats in 2016. And how she's implying that Clinton is using her power and "proxies" to influence the election, and invited her to "join the race directly", which is part of the same paranoia and anti-Clinton derangement that stifled turnout the last time around. It sounds cynically manipulative at best, and unhinged at worst.
Luckily, Gabbard has vehemently denied any plans to run 3rd party.
Like I said, no real fan of Tulsi here. It's giving Hillary way too much attention frankly. Her claim's got no teeth behind it. Remember the history of Tulsi, she left the DNC in order to support Bernie in 2016. She's got inside knowledge of how the old establishment was against the more liberal wing from the start. Tulsi's rant comes from that place I think, but it certainly isn't doing anyone any favors.
Clinton's endorsement is poison at this point. Her words can only hurt whatever democratic candidate wins the primary now. Is it fair? Not really. I was never a fan of Clinton, but Russia's villifying her was dishonest and manipulative to the point it made far more dems stay home than might have otherwise. That's ridiculous, because progressive dems hardly needed additional excuses.
This whole thing has reminded me of how Russia backed Bernie and Jill Stein -- who, remember, was at that dinner with Putin and Michael Flynn years back! She's totally not connected to Russia... oh no... -- in 2016... and Bernie denied it, even though the fact of their support was clear, in order to cause more chaos, damage Hillary, etc.
I would assume that Russia mostly just wants whatever makes it easier for their friend Trump to win re-election, and Bernie has a much harder job winning in the general than many of our other candidates because of the stigma around the word "socialist" so that's probably most of why they would try to boost him. As far as foreign policy goes though, Trump and Bernie do have a bit in common in that both are to some extent isolationist. I highly doubt Bernie would have done anything as stupid as Trump has in Syria, to be sure, but there is a degree of similarity I think. Looking at 2016, Hillary was certainly stronger on Russia than Bernie, and that may well have played a role in their choice too. Because, I mean, I'm anti-war. I don't want us to be in wars at all! However, if we just pulled out entirely like isolationists want, what would that do to the world? It'd leave Russia and China with much freer hands, and while the US has done all kinds of really horrible things, I do think we are better overall than either of them by a whole lot. So I can't support full pullouts from everywhere; as bad as US military interventions are, in some cases the alternative, handing the world over to Putin and Xi, is worse... we certainly should avoid horrible pointless wastes like the Iraq debacle, but limited presences in Syria and such are sadly necessary, I think. I wish they weren't... but look at what's happening now that we left, it's so much worse! Hillary or Obama aren't warmongers like George W. Bush's administration, but they realize there are some situations (Syria, Afghanistan, and such) where if we do nothing things would be worse.
... I don't know though, the Afghanistan situation is so hopelessly bad... on the one hand we're in an unwinnable forever war, but on the other hand if we leave the lives of a lot of the people there we are defending (in Kabul and such) would probably get worse. What is the best approach? I'm glad I don't have to choose...
As for Tulsi and Russia, really the only question is if she's actually working for them, or if they just have similar goals and policies. It could well be the latter, but "even" if it's "only" that, that's not good! I mean, things like her support for Assad (Russia's ally obviously), for Russian bombing in Syria, that she says nothing about Russia's obvious support for her, etc.
Also, here's another really bad thing -- after that accusation, what did she do?
She went on Fox News to complain on Tucker Carlson's show about how awful Hillary and the DNC are. Fox News. First.
She's also partially anti-abortion, as she pointed out again in the last debate, though that's a different issue.
So yeah, I hope that Tulsi's primary challenger (for her US House seat) wins... and he well might. She's much more conservative on a lot of issues than that district is in Hawaii.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Luckily, Gabbard has vehemently denied any plans to run 3rd party.
Let's hope she sticks to that! She said that she was 'staying in to the convention' though, which is questionable... though it doesn't matter, she probably won't have any delegates.
Oh please stop it ABF. You're not only claiming Russia is backing Bernie to smear him, you're claiming it's because he has a harder job because of the soclialist label. Yet, I've said again and again that you are drastically overestimating the "middle ground". It's shrank down to almost nothing. The only group worth appealing to is the must wider band of progressives, and that's where candidates like Bernie come in. Biden's not going to inspite anyone. He's failing to inspire right now, in public, repeatedly. We don't need moderate democrats any more. They should all just go away. We're trying to DO something here.
So, the NY Times clarified -- Hillary said that she thinks Tulsi is being supported by the Russians, not that she thinks Tulsi is working for them; she was talking about what is apparent, their clear support for her campaign from afar and her pro-Russia/Assad foreign policy positions. The 'her running as a third party' thing, though, was actually about Republicans, not Russians. That makes sense.
Anyway, Russia DID back Bernie in '16. It's pretty clear why, too -- as a spoiler to hurt Clinton, a candidate who was clearly going to win; because Clinton was stronger on foreign policy while he is more isolationist; etc. They are similar reasons to why they helped Jill Stein, though she has more Russian ties of course.
Is Russia backing Bernie again? Probably less so, I haven't heard as much about that his year as I have about them backing Trump and Tulsi, but some of that's just because he's having a much less successful campaign this year I imagine...
As for the word "socialist", while I would like to think that we've gotten past that being a big negative, no, I don't think we have.
Quote:Yet, I've said again and again that you are drastically overestimating the "middle ground". It's shrank down to almost nothing. The only group worth appealing to is the must wider band of progressives, and that's where candidates like Bernie come in. Biden's not going to inspite anyone. He's failing to inspire right now, in public, repeatedly. We don't need moderate democrats any more. They should all just go away. We're trying to DO something here.
While it may be possible that Trump is so deeply unpopular that any Democrat can win, appealing to the left parts of the base isn't how you win elections in this country, not on our side. Most all that does is run up your margin in urban areas we're already winning, in states we're sure to win (and Hillary won). That SHOULD be enough, be thanks to our horrendous electoral college system it isn't.
As for who has the best chance to win, though, maybe it's Biden, but he has lots of negatives too. We don't have a clear 'really good candidate' like Bill Clinton or Obama (not that I wanted Obama to win that primary, I supported Hillary... but anyway.), so the people we've got will have to do...
As for Bernie this year, he'll fail at the same place he failed last time -- once the primaries start in the south. Bernie still does quite poorly there. That's also what will probably doom Butigieg, he's got minimal minority appeal and you don't win Democratic primaries anymore without it. Biden and Warren both definitely can win though, any maybe someone else will gain strength like she did, so it'll be interesting to follow over the next few months.
You're outdated. Reaching across the aisle will never work again. The "middle" is too small compared to the number of progressive votes you will LOSE if you pick a candidate that doesn't excite progressives. Why SHOULD they vote if the candidate isn't making any promises? What exact IS Biden's platform other than "I'm that feeling you felt when Obama was in office". He's got nothing. If you run with Biden, You. Will. Lose. The game has changed, accept the new reality or fail.
Biden is just another Hillary, and progressives are going to (mistakenly) stay home if he's the party pick. Pick the extreme. Pick a candidate that actually reflects your views. That's how elections are won now. A "spoiler to Clinton"? What are you even talking about? They ran against each other in the PRIMARY, and Clinton won the primary, and LOST THE ELECTION!
Meanwhile,
Progressives are a distinct minority of the voting public. You can't win with only the left.
Quote:A "spoiler to Clinton"? What are you even talking about? They ran against each other in the PRIMARY, and Clinton won the primary, and LOST THE ELECTION!
Fairly early in the primary season in '16, it was obvious that Hillary was definitely going to win; Bernie could not catch her. Despite this, he insisted on not withdrawing and going all the way to the convention, boosting anti-Hillary feelings among many. Most Bernie supporters did end up voting for Hillary, but by doing some part to help hurt Hillary (by encouraging Bernie supporters to stick with him and not support Hillary even though it was over) Russia surely hoped to hurt her in the general election.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Police training that focuses on their own safety above all else is training police to be cowards, and that's not the job. The job is to put themselves at risk to protect others. The job entails being willing to die for that cause. If someone is not willing to fulfill that duty, they shouldn't take the job! That's it.
Any officer who defends killing an unarmed person with anything like "I thought I was in danger" is a coward who deserves to live in shame for the rest of their lives, preferably in jail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upsho...polls.html
Not too surprising: while Biden wins in most of the states that actually matter, Bernie and Warren do not. This "we need to nominate a farther left candidate to win" narrative isn't based on any facts I know of.
Kind of surprising: Bernie does a bit better than Warren. I guess her gender hurts her more than Bernie's track record hurts him, huh?
In other news, the impeachment inquiry continues, and seriously I hope the Democrats start trying to actually get the people refusing to show up arrested soon because there can't be no consequences for ignoring them.
Well, other than the polls that show Bernie and Warren winning against Trump more than Biden does, oh and the utter lack of support for any of the other centrist candidates in the race.
At this point, Biden is also conceding and using a super pac. He's entirely unlikable, he's sundowning, he's against efforts tthat will actually save the world, and he's against real medicare for all and is actively damaging the fight for it. I have family members that are depending on this, and he's against it, so yes, I'm against him because his policy will kill my mom, and that's not hyperbole. I detest Biden.
And now Bloomberg's in the race. The only people actually excited about that are paid shills on the news networks.
Let me put it this way to alay your fears. So long as Biden's actual policies are better than Trumps even a little bit, I'll still check that box if he ends up the alternative candidate, but I won't be donating to him (not that he cares, he's got a superpac), and no one's actually enthusiastic about him. If he loses ABF, what then? Are you going to blame ageism? Grasp at some other straw, but never once challenge the notion that perhaps, just maybe, it isn't the 90's any more and there IS NO CENTER to appeal to?
I will say this though, if Biden's policies slip so far to the right they become indistinguishable from Trump's. That is, if it looks like he isn't going to immediately free all those children in cages at the border, then yes, I will abstain, because at that point I'm voting between two far right candidates.
Bevin seems to have lost for governor of Kentucky! Weltall must be pretty happy...
But as for the issue of the Democratic primary, if we look only at the top four candidates, the ones most likely to win the nomination -- that is, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg -- of them, on most issues Warren would probably make the best president. Her foreign policy knowledge is quite weak compared to Biden, but for domestic policy she's mostly great. I do think that going straight to medicare for all is possibly a mistake, as it's highly unlikely to happen and going straight for 'we will kill all the health care companies' is probably not going to do well with the voters who will decide this election in those battleground states while 'we will add a public option' is a message that is less bold but probably more likely to win, but even so, she'd be a fantastic president I am sure, quite likely the overall best of our candidates. Sanders might do fine too, but I have a lot more questions about ho well he'd work with congress, etc. As for Buttigieg, he's so young that who knows, but policy-wise I have issues with him. Biden would be a fine president, but he's clearly lost a step from when he was running with Obama, and while he would be the most liberal president in my lifetime if we believe his current policy positions, he's got plenty of issues beyond his age (though he is younger and presumably in better health than Sanders, he hasn't had a heart attack after all), such as his occasional sexist and racist language.
However, we don't live in a vacuum, people have to actually win. And while I am totally fine with people who vote for the candidate they most like the policies of, right now what I want the most is for Trump to lose, which means, because tragically we haven't gotten rid of the horrible electoral college system yet, winning in enough of those states in that poll in my last post that we somehow manage to beat him.
And that's my main problem with Warren -- while she'd be a great president, can she actually beat Trump? Certainly Trump will attack any Democrat with all kinds of lies and slander, but she is one of the easiest for him to attack, with the whole "Pocahontas" thing he's already repeatedly mocked her for, and her gender is sadly clearly a problem, as it was for Hillary. I want there to be a female president, but can Warren win? I'm not convinced that she can. Oh, we're almost certain to win the popular vote, but that is irrelevant in our broken system. Can she win by enough to actually win the electoral college? I'm far from convinced that she can, unfortunately. I think this country's history puts a serious question to the "we need to move farther left to win" thing you have said a lot.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:At this point, Biden is also conceding and using a super pac. He's entirely unlikable, he's sundowning, he's against efforts tthat will actually save the world, and he's against real medicare for all and is actively damaging the fight for it. I have family members that are depending on this, and he's against it, so yes, I'm against him because his policy will kill my mom, and that's not hyperbole. I detest Biden.
The more moderate wing of the Democratic Party -- Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and such -- are in favor of a public option, which would eventually end up with us almost certainly having medicare for all, but through a vector that can actually happen, and in a way the public will actually support. A public option is highly likely to be far better than the for-profit insurance companies, and I am sure we would eventually get to the same point the Sanders/Warren plan would... except, again, it would actually happen, while there's no chance whatsover that I can see of "medicare for all" actually passing. I'm not sure if it is a good idea or not, I don't like the health insurance companies at all, but regardless of who we elect, congress isn't passing something which gets rid of every insurance company! No way. Getting a public option through probably wouldn't be easy either, and probably would depend on winning the Senate, but it's definitely possible.
If it's just an "option" then it won't be funded, period. Biden is torpedoing support for public medical care with every speech he gives, he sounds like a damn republican! He's repeating their talking points, and they're lies, every last one of them, and he knows it. First of all, NO ONE CARES ABOUT THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY. That's not the choice anyone cares about. People want to choose their doctor, and under the current system, that choice is curtailed where a public plan won't. Medicare for all gives people the choice they actually care about. Also, most people in America now support medicare for all. Poll after poll shows it. The numbers also show that for the middle class, the raise in taxes is completely offset by the fact their employers won't need to extract a dime for it from the employee's paycheck. ABF, right now you're the enemy of policies that are necessary. IT doesn't matter if they are politically expedient, they are necessary. If this election and the local ones to follow aren't able to save us from critical nationwide and worldwide emergencies, it will go badly, for those in power that is. People can only bear so much oppression from the top before they rise up. We can do this the civil way, or not. It's their choice, but it's happening.
I don't trust Biden at all. I mean just listen to him.
Does that sound anything like a liberal to you? He's not just parroting republican talking points, he's embracing their ideology. "They have this attitude that they know better than the average person does what's good for them." Well, yes! Experts know better than the lay person in their field. That's how it works. The Overton window is shifting. The democratic establishment is, as they have been doing for 20 years, shifting to the right to accomodate the republican's moves to the right. The republicans keep moving to the right because they know the democrats will follow. It happens again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and look where we are. Biden sounds like some rich republican telling poor people that something they desperately need isn't right for them, "choice" is all that matters, because that's what he's become. I say it's about time we started pushing the window back, and that's not going to happen by bending with the republican's pressure.
The gall, the sheer GALL of you telling me that supporting a candidate that actually proposes policies I support is wrong is insulting. Why even bother voting for a candidate that's just going to do what the republicans are already doing? Tell me that, what is "winning" worth to you exactly? Is winning an end in itself? Firstly, I say risking a loss is worth actually accomplishing something. Secondly, Biden doesn't inspire people, at all. Just look at the comparison. Warren and Sanders both have FAR more individual donations than Biden. Not that Biden needs it now, he's got a handful of billionaires buying him. And don't be naive, if you accept donations from giant corporations, you are going to be influenced by it. That's just reality.
We need a candidate that actually excites the liberal voting block, or they are just going to stay home again come election day. Remember that the voter turnout in 2016 was pretty low among the left. Biden being a male isn't going to get 50% of the country to go vote for him. The people who hate women are voting for Trump anyway, so what difference does that make?
I've been hearing it for almost 3 years now ABF, and I had hoped that the lesson of 2016 would sink in. But it hasn't. The democratic party leadership just thinks if they "reach across the isle" harder than ever before, they can win. They won't, and it isn't worth winning if you betray every value you hold to get there.
If Biden is selected, sure, I'll trudge on over to the polls and vote for him rather than Trump, but Trump is going to win anyway, and then I will come back here and listen to you talk about how "ageism" is what defeated him, or you'll blame the entire progressive wing of the party for "tarnishing Biden's image". You'll mean it too, that's the infuriating part. A centrist democrat is no better than a republican. There's so much, so many things wrong with the country, corrupt system after system after system. The blinders are off, I see it all now, but we won't do anything about it by playing by the same playbook we have been for decades. Do you want change, or don't you?
Quote:If it's just an "option" then it won't be funded, period.
This statement makes absolutely no sense and has no relation to how a public option would work. If there was a public option, of course it would be funded; that's the whole point, the idea is to improve health care by a public option funded by the government instead of the insurance companies. Many people absolutely would switch to a public option. The health care companies know that, that's part of why they helped kill it when the ACA first passed. The endgame of a public option is probably a single-payer system.
Quote: IT doesn't matter if they are politically expedient, they are necessary.
I know Bernie believes this kind of thing -- that he doesn't really care about if things get done, but instead makes statements of what he wishes would happen and when asked about the details goes "political revolution!" as if that's an answer, but just because something should happen doesn't mean it will.
I mean, for example, we obviously should have been taking very, very serious action on climate change on a governmental level, but we aren't. Nobody really took it seriously until it was way too late, and now things are getting bad even sooner than predicted... while the Republicans do their best to make things even worse.
So yeah, I'm all for making statements of ideals, they are necessary... but I do think you also always need to look at what can be done politically. There has to have been more that could have been done on climate change than was done...
Quote: Biden is torpedoing support for public medical care with every speech he gives, he sounds like a damn republican! He's repeating their talking points, and they're lies, every last one of them, and he knows it. o/quote]
Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, etc. are all saying similar things, and no, they most definitely are NOT Republican talking points! No Republican supports a public option! Republicans don't want better health care in this country. Democrats do. Don't forget that.
If Biden was President and got a public option through, that would be the most liberal change in health care we've probably ever had. He is to Obama and Bill Clinton's left for sure. He's no Republican by any possible definition of the term. (And that's part of why I preferred Hillary over Obama in '08, she was actually in favor of a public option, while Obama was much more willing to give up on that... I think it might have happened had Hillary been President, she wouldn't have done that Obama thing of "how about we start in the center-right then start the discussion there, oh wait now you've moved even farther right? Well I just got a worse deal than I would have had I started a bit more to the left" thing he did over and over... but anyway.)
As for medicare for all, as a concept I'm not opposed, it's a good goal. I just don't think we'll be able to get there that quickly.
[quote]The gall, the sheer GALL of you telling me that supporting a candidate that actually proposes policies I support is wrong is insulting. Why even bother voting for a candidate that's just going to do what the republicans are already doing? Tell me that, what is "winning" worth to you exactly? Is winning an end in itself? Firstly, I say risking a loss is worth actually accomplishing something. Secondly, Biden doesn't inspire people, at all. Just look at the comparison. Warren and Sanders both have FAR more individual donations than Biden. Not that Biden needs it now, he's got a handful of billionaires buying him. And don't be naive, if you accept donations from giant corporations, you are going to be influenced by it. That's just reality.
I'm not saying you need to support Biden in the primaries, I'm not sure I'll be voting for him either.
We can't lose this one though, we really can't.
Quote: We need a candidate that actually excites the liberal voting block, or they are just going to stay home again come election day. Remember that the voter turnout in 2016 was pretty low among the left. Biden being a male isn't going to get 50% of the country to go vote for him. The people who hate women are voting for Trump anyway, so what difference does that make?
Sure, had more liberals voted in 2016 it would have helped, but this "we need to move to the left" idea you have just doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not saying we need to move to the right to win, or stick just to the center; sometimes bold plans do catch on and help a candidate. But we definitely will not win just by exciting the left, that is not a winning coalition in this country. That's how we lose again. I still believe that Bernie, in 2016, would have ended up doing worse than Hillary did; she, at least, got a majority of the popular vote...
Quote: I've been hearing it for almost 3 years now ABF, and I had hoped that the lesson of 2016 would sink in. But it hasn't. The democratic party leadership just thinks if they "reach across the isle" harder than ever before, they can win. They won't, and it isn't worth winning if you betray every value you hold to get there.
This "I can work with the Republican Senators" thing Biden keeps saying is probably the most frustrating thing among all of his policy ideas, yeah. They will not work with you, didn't you see what happened to Obama? But on the other hand, it's not like giving up on them entirely gets us anywhere either, they have a Senate majority which will be very hard to dislodge and thanks to the way the states are laid out they should be able to have most of the time for quite some time going forward. So it's a pretty tough situation. But yeah, Biden's comments on this do sound somewhat clueless, I hope he secretly knows better.
I'm reminded of the ridiculous argument they're making, that attempted crime isn't a crime.
The Republicans are running out of excuses for why they are defending the very obviously criminal and impeachable acts of their horrible president, but sadly they are sure to let him off anyway; they clearly are very far past caring about law, fact, or anything other than helping Trump ruin our democracy because of their fear of his base... it's really sad stuff.
That said though, that even some of Trump's people are abandoning him, like Sondland yesterday, is great to see. Sondland decided he'r rather not maybe go to jail so he seems to have mostly told the truth, and very good for him.
And as regards "medicare for those who want it" (the public option I was very for when Obama was pushing for it), here's the flaw, and why private health insurance basically needs to die out as an institution for government healthcare to work.
Is the transition going to be painful, and fought back against tooth and nail by insurance companies? Sure- but it should never have reached this point to begin with. They never should have come into existence. They don't deserve to exist. They deserve oblivion, not cooperation.
The employees working around the nation for these companies? They deserve to exist. Government run healthcare is going to need a lot of positions filled nationwide, and I believe this is a perfect way to transition those individuals into such jobs, bringing their experience and public records with them. The CEOs running the companies? They'll be fine, they're rich. They don't need jobs.
Here's an actual lawyer dismantling the pathetic defenses being offered for Trump.
Those cagey libtards nearly outlawed Christmas, before Papa Trump came and stopped them in their tracks. But the war is not over, friends! Behold, the radical left's latest target, THANKSGIVING!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-t...3iAJAENStE
how the fuck is this not satire and how the fuck are republicans this gullible ffs
I'm still waiting for it all to come full circle and for Fox News to decry the war on that most hallowed of eves, Halloween.
It honestly feels like Trump confused Thanksgiving with Columbus Day. I haven't heard anyone say the name "Thanksgiving" should be changed, but plenty of people are arguing that Columbus was a monster not deserving of the praise and outright myths concocted in his honor (on looking into it, the myth that Columbus proved the earth was round was concocted because decades ago the leadership in this country felt that the US needed a "mythology" so it could claim to have a "deep history". Pathetic really, because if they wanted a deep history, all they needed to do was talk to the native Americans.)
Buttigieg and Bloomberg are both attempting to buy their way into the race. It's insane we're even talking about either of them. Bloomberg's record is abysmal (he advised people to vote for W, his "stop and frisk" led to high incarceration, and he pushed for reduced taxes on the wealthy). Buttigieg is- on paper- not rich but when you actually look at what he owns, his equity, he's pretty dang rich. His policies are just a more palatable version of Republican policies.
Both of them should disappear, and both are proof that laws to prevent people from investing their personal money in their own political campaign are needed.
Food for thought: Isn't it hypocritical to on the one hand want a candidate that appeals to people outside the party, but then simultaneously say that independent voters shouldn't be allowed to participate in party primaries? Isn't the only result of that kind of policy one where the candidate selected doesn't represent those outside the party?
I get your point, but isn't a candidate supposed to represent their party first and foremost? Sure, you need to appeal to people not in the party to win, but the primary goal is to represent your party's views on issues.
As for Buttigieg, his positions on issues are not the best, but I find his questionable history worse. I don't only mean his issues with racism, but also that he gave a speech before a tea party group once and has made a birther joke on camera at least once, like last year or such... like, sure, he's not a Republican on the issues, he's a centrist Democrat which is a very different thing from today's Republicans, but he clearly has tried to appeal to them in some not-good ways. Due to his total lack of minority appeal though he has next to no chance to win. Sure, he's on the upswing right now, but he's still poling near zero with black people and you don't win the Democratic nomination that way.
![[Image: ugRK28q.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ugRK28q.png)