And we're off and running!

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

And we're off and running! - 08/01/19 10:18 PM

The Democratic Party has started the debates, a few states have primaries coming up very soon, it is time to start a whole new forum, Campaign 2020.

And-d-d-d-d-d they're off and running!
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/03/19 06:43 PM

This post didn't make it onto the current topics list BUMP
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/03/19 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
This post didn't make it onto the current topics list BUMP


LOL oh crap I had that problem once before, have to figure out how to fix it.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/05/19 02:18 PM

Joe, are you losing your marbles?

Joe Biden offers sympathy for "the tragic events in Houston" hours after El Paso shooting.

Quote:
Biden, 76, mistakenly referred to the shootings as “the tragic events in Houston today and also in Michigan the day before," but later corrected himself, according to a pool report. Biden seemingly confused Houston for El Paso and Michigan for Ohio when speaking to donors about the shootings.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/05/19 05:32 PM

Biden Trashes Millenials In His Bid To Become Even Less Likeable

Quote:
"The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break. Because here’s the deal guys, we decided we were gonna change the world. And we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement in the first stage. The women’s movement came to be. So my message is, get involved. There’s no place to hide. You can go and you can make all the money in the world, but you can't build a wall high enough to keep the pollution out. You can't live where—you can't not be diminished when your sister can't marry the man or woman, or the woman she loves. You can't—when you have a good friend being profiled, you can't escape this stuff. And so, there's an old expression my philosophy professor would always use from Plato, 'The penalty people face for not being involved in politics is being governed by people worse than themselves. It's wide open. Go out and change it."


Millenials are NOT going to be backing Biden. Biden needs to be winning the votes of the 25-38 year old age group, not using them as a stepping stone to win the votes of older democrats.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:39 PM

Elizabeth Warren is now in second place behind Joe Biden, having eclipsed Bernie Sanders.
A few more Joe Biden moments where he pens bite-sized hagiographies to his neoliberal past or trips over his own tongue and Warren may indeed take the top spot.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:56 PM

I'd rather she ate into Biden's lead...
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Elizabeth Warren is now in second place behind Joe Biden, having eclipsed Bernie Sanders.
A few more Joe Biden moments where he pens bite-sized hagiographies to his neoliberal past or trips over his own tongue and Warren may indeed take the top spot.

The Left need to get over Biden's senior moments. Biden is the only Democrat that moderates and Independents agree on to replace Trump.

I love Lizzy Warren - she's a better candidate for me than Hillary ever was, but the "socialist" label placed upon her by the Right will give us another four years of Trump if she is the Dem nom.

I'd want Lizzy to be FedChair in a Biden Administration. Harris as AG. Inslee as SecInterior. Buttiegig as VP. Booker FBI Director. Castro as DHS Director. O'Rourke HUD or SecEd.

Let's play this next election safe, then move the left. smile
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 09:24 PM

Calling her a socialist is a denial of reality. In 2008 she was appointed to lead the Senate committee that oversaw TARP among other things. Bailing out banks is not exactly socialist! Her CV is filled with academic appointments where she taught or was dean at various law schools (in Texas, even!), and in about 2011:

Quote:
Although she published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy and commercial law. In that field, only Bob Scott of Columbia and Alan Schwartz of Yale were cited more often than Warren.


She is actually fabulously qualified. But I guess qualification doesn't mean much when we have a game-shoe host as President.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 10:04 PM

Warren is a social democrat. She's more capitalist than socialist but she understands that more money needs to be funneled downward. She knows how money works and how the laws that control money works.
This lady is smart and at the peak of her career. She'd be a dab hand at re-assembling the government that Trump has broken and has a plan to make the economy work for everyone.

In the past I thought she was probably un-electable, but here she sits in second place so I'm letting myself get my hopes up.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 10:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'd rather she ate into Biden's lead...


She just moved from 3rd to 2nd.
That IS eating into Biden's lead.
Let him spew another 10 or twenty monster gaffes and his lead will begin to evaporate.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/12/19 02:21 AM

Well, on his worst day Biden's about 1000 times less likely to "misspeak" than Trump. But I guess we don't hold Trump to any standards at all now.
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 03:34 AM

Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.


It might be entertaining to see "Biden Veep II" but I am almost sure he's not interested in accepting that gig for a third term.
Can you imagine Liz rolling her eyes at him every time he commits a gaffe?

I'll get behind Liz. Thing is, her and Bernie agree on a ton of things but she's actually trying to be electable. I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.
I'll vote for him if he wins the nom but it sure is looking like we're gonna get Prezzy-dint Pocahontas.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:04 AM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Hi Pi! Welcome aboard.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:06 AM

VOTE BLUE, NO MATTER WHO
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
[quote=HumblePi]I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.


Groan...
There it is again.
Electability...

Care to share how the second place position now leading in New Hampshire and out raising the rest of the field (second choice for biden voters, BTW) is not electable?

I'm making popcorn on this one.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:11 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
VOTE BLUE, NO MATTER WHO


Even when they're Republican!!!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:21 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
[quote=HumblePi]I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.


Groan...
There it is again.
Electability...

Care to share how the second place position now leading in New Hampshire and out raising the rest of the field (second choice for biden voters, BTW) is not electable?

I'm making popcorn on this one.


Hey, if he's climbing back up, good for him and I'm happy.
I already said that if he wins, he can count on my vote.
What more do you want?

Are you never satisfied?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 06:00 AM

I see electability being used by the pundit class again. No shame with them. I just wondered what you had that made you think he was not as electable. It's a fair question to a discredited qualifier isn't it?

I'm not trying to defend Sanders from any criticism. I'm challenging the idea of 'electability'. You can vote for Biden or Butttigieg or anyone else. It's this weird 'electability' that gets used, usually to destroy a candidate's public perception by punditry. 2016 should have schooled most everyone.

Was it the Iowa fair crowds? The corn kernel vote? I'm just asking.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I see electability being used by the pundit class again. No shame with them. I just wondered what you had that made you think he was not as electable. It's a fair question to a discredited qualifier isn't it?


-Dude, it's a totally fair question.
My opinion only, after eighty years of hysteria over the tag "socialism", I think Bernie's big mistake is something mothers learn early when it is time to give small children medicine.
You trick or fool them into thinking it is tasty and you choose medicine that doesn't have an unpleasant flavor.

Plenty of Americans have already learned that socialism isn't a big bad scary word, plenty have learned that we're not going to turn into Venezuela.
But still "not enough" of them. Not yet, maybe not enough in the next ten years. (depending on other factors)

So why not do what politicians do all the time?
FDR even argued that his ideas weren't socialism and by the time he was done, the only people who still thought so were people who never voted for him and NEVER WOULD anyway.

If Bernie can manage to hit the same levels, this argument of mine will be moot and I would be delighted if it turns out that way.

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

I'm not trying to defend Sanders from any criticism. I'm challenging the idea of 'electability'. You can vote for Biden or Butttigieg or anyone else. It's this weird 'electability' that gets used, usually to destroy a candidate's public perception by punditry. 2016 should have schooled most everyone.

Was it the Iowa fair crowds? The corn kernel vote? I'm just asking.


No, it's not anything except a question of marketing pizazz.
I am NOT one of those pundits, I'm a guy who grew up during the tail end of the Red Scare.
This is familiar territory to me.
Republicans have invested gazillions into recreating the HUAC era all over again and now they have an ARMY of Joe McCarthy's, not just the one.

So why doesn't Bernie rope a dope them?
He should and he is capable of doing it, he's way smarter than they are.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 08:07 PM

Not sure I would agree with the socialist boogeyman theory.

4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

Sanders ran as a democratic socialist and didn't seem to have much of a problem with it. He had more problems with the press and DNC than with voters themselves.

I just don't think red baiting is the handy tool it once was.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 08:14 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Not sure I would agree with the socialist boogeyman theory.

4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

Sanders ran as a democratic socialist and didn't seem to have much of a problem with it. He had more problems with the press and DNC than with voters themselves.

I just don't think red baiting is the handy tool it once was.


I am inclined to agree with you if for no other reason than the sands of time. You want I should help you pick up that big-ass hourglass and we both shake it up and down real hard to make the sand move faster?

I'd give it a try. But I doubt we can hurry it up enough in time for 2020. In 2024 it's a pretty good bet my argument will be 100% moot and yours will be the only logical one.

I promise you Chunks, you will not see me crying or whining about that. I'll be relieved.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:11 PM

Our Rvolution
Justice Democrats
Working Families Party

If your serious bout giving it a good shake...
laugh
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:23 PM

Quote:
4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

No new Millenial voters have "come on line" for several years. The youngest Millenial is 25 now and the oldest around 40. If boomers thought Millenials were weird just wait til the Z-Gen starts voting in earnest.

These younger kids are like millenials on steroids.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:24 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Our Rvolution
Justice Democrats
Working Families Party

If your serious bout giving it a good shake...
laugh


I was one of the first to sign up with WFP.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:26 PM

Right on! Well sometimes something good will fall out of NY...
FDR for one.
AOC for another!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:30 PM

Your right Gregor. I kinda lump em all the same as I get older. But you made my point better. I agree with you cept there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/17/19 02:46 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Your right Gregor. I kinda lump em all the same as I get older. But you made my point better. I agree with you cept there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too


And some of them are channeling all that crap into hundred round magazines. They load up on Orwellian Doublespeak from TrumpCo and now they're wound up. Watch 'em go.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/18/19 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Well, on his worst day Biden's about 1000 times less likely to "misspeak" than Trump. But I guess we don't hold Trump to any standards at all now.


But on his supposedly best day, he seems anxious to appease Republicans.

‘There’s an awful lot of really good Republicans out there’: Joe Biden at Cape Cod fundraiser

Yeah we know, Joe. But at the outset of the 2020 Democratic campaign season, who exactly are you signalling to? Most of those "really good Republicans" already left the party, and most of the ones that still remain are the Party of Trump.

Is Lindsey Graham one of those really good Republicans? How about Steve King? Mitch McConnell? Is he a really good Republican, Joe?
What about Devin Nunes? Are you signalling to Nunes?

Are you sure you joined the right party?
Posted by: itstarted

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/18/19 02:54 PM

need:
Stability
Trust
Judgement
Compromise
... and the desire and ability to listen.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/19/19 12:57 AM

Quote:
there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too


Less than you would think. The racists and alt-right are just nosier, so they look like they have large numbers. I like to watch 4chan/b to see what the young folks are up to. Yes, there are alt-right and racist posts and threads, but more celebrate gay and trans sex, and they practically worship what they call "BBC" which is an acronym for part of Black male anatomy reputed to be larger than average. You see about 20 gay , trans, or dick comparison threads for the one "gay is a mental illness" thread.

Likewise, I suspect alt-right threads that are not just punks trolling the board are much rarer than "Trump is a cuck[old]" or "Why is this guy still President" threads.
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Hi Pi! Welcome aboard.


Thank you for the welcome smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 10:57 PM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.


I'll not vote for any woman candidate just because she's a woman. Same for a man. I'll vote for a candidate that I think will make a good president regardless of sex or gender or political party. When I disliked both major party candidates, I have no qualms in voting third party against both major party candidates which is exactly what I did in 2016.

What I hope from the Democrats is that they look for the most qualified and best candidate available to become the next president leaving gender and race entirely out of it. Look for the candidate that would make the best president, period.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 11:56 PM

Warren would be very qualified. Maybe the best qualified candidate, but I hope the Democrats don't nominate her. I read stories about interviews with people in those mid-western Trump states in which a LOT of women said they don't trust women. Which I find very sad, but you have got to pay attention to your voter's prejudices. Politics is the art of the possible, not "what the losers wish was true".

They voted for a Black man, but not for a White woman. Misogyny runs deep, and it's not just men. There's obviously something wrong with how we teach girls to relate to other girls.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 12:15 AM

Warren/Buttigieg ThumbsUp
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 01:03 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Warren would be very qualified. Maybe the best qualified candidate, but I hope the Democrats don't nominate her. I read stories about interviews with people in those mid-western Trump states in which a LOT of women said they don't trust women. Which I find very sad, but you have got to pay attention to your voter's prejudices. Politics is the art of the possible, not "what the losers wish was true".

They voted for a Black man, but not for a White woman. Misogyny runs deep, and it's not just men. There's obviously something wrong with how we teach girls to relate to other girls.


You're talking about Democratic women or just midwestern women all the way around?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 01:18 AM

Actual Democratic women, who had families who voted for Democrats for decades. It just killed me, because I thought women in general were more sensible than that.

I really think the DNC needs to run their own poll: Just ask Middle America's women their Party (if any) and if they would vote for a woman.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 09:06 PM

There are 9 female republicans in the house, there are 89 female democrats. The score is 8 to 17 in the Senate. Democrats seem perfectly capable of electing women. Republicans haven't even noticed that their party has become a white christian sausage fest.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:00 AM

I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:16 AM

Uh...I think you're crazy to suggest that Hillary lost because Democratic women didn't vote for her. Because she's a woman.

It's a lot more likely that their husbands who are marginally democrats would be caught up in Trump's snare.

But I'm just sayin'...I think that's nuts. There are a lot or reasons she lost that race but that aint one of 'em.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:57 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 04:44 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.


Agreed, Hillary turned people off...TWICE!! ROTFMOL (2008-2016)

Policy wonk? CHECK
Capable? CHECK
Integrity? CHECK - debatable but miles above Trump

Trouble is, she's arrogant. I don't care if she feels entitled, you have to drop the mask and meet the people, not stand around waiting for your coronation.
And when the Feds tell you that you have to upgrade your ancient Blackberry, the thing you DO NOT DO is thumb your nose and take your server private just so you aren't inconvenienced having to learn new tech.

People just flat out disliked her.
I liked her okay but she was not my first choice. Bernie was.
Over the months I watched and began to dislike her more, and get this:
Her contribution to S-CHIP is why my son is still alive today.
So, I can't HATE her!
I STILL did not WANT to vote for her - even though I did under protest.

A lot of people just stayed home, voted oppo out of spite, wrote in...too many did just that, mostly the former.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 12:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.


Agreed, Hillary turned people off...TWICE!! ROTFMOL (2008-2016)

Policy wonk? CHECK
Capable? CHECK
Integrity? CHECK - debatable but miles above Trump

Trouble is, she's arrogant. I don't care if she feels entitled, you have to drop the mask and meet the people, not stand around waiting for your coronation.
And when the Feds tell you that you have to upgrade your ancient Blackberry, the thing you DO NOT DO is thumb your nose and take your server private just so you aren't inconvenienced having to learn new tech.

People just flat out disliked her.
I liked her okay but she was not my first choice. Bernie was.
Over the months I watched and began to dislike her more, and get this:
Her contribution to S-CHIP is why my son is still alive today.
So, I can't HATE her!
I STILL did not WANT to vote for her - even though I did under protest.

A lot of people just stayed home, voted oppo out of spite, wrote in...too many did just that, mostly the former.
I was one of 9 million folks who voted against both Hillary and Trump. My disdain for both was sky high. Yeah, Hillary came across as elitist, aloof and had the personality of a wet mop. Trump with his brash in your face, obnoxious, uncouth persona was more fit for a wrestler in the WWE than the presidency.

One huge difference was that Trump energized his supporters, filled them with enthusiasm to where they were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary had more supporters, perhaps a lot more. But she was ho hum and failed to energize them. That failure lead to many just staying home. She either couldn't or didn't inspire Democrats to go to the polling place for her.

2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
That is my hope. My fervor for third party candidates has evaporated under the pall of the last 3 years. Unlike many, I believe the Democratic field is full of genuine possibilities. None are perfect, the process certainly isn't, but "blue, no matter who" is the only logical choice this election. The risk to the country and the planet is too great otherwise.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: perotista
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
That is my hope. My fervor for third party candidates has evaporated under the pall of the last 3 years. Unlike many, I believe the Democratic field is full of genuine possibilities. None are perfect, the process certainly isn't, but "blue, no matter who" is the only logical choice this election. The risk to the country and the planet is too great otherwise.


My vote depends on whom the Democrats nominate. I know I won't be voting for Trump. Now rather my vote goes to the Democratic or to a third party candidate is solely based on who the Democratic nominee is. There's three or four I would hop on their bandwagon and support all the way, another two or three that would drive me to vote third party again. Against both Trump and whomever.

I think the ball is in the Democrat's court. Who they hand that ball to will probably determine whether they win in a landslide or if another 2016 is possible. I'm not a Democrat, so it's their decision. The key voting group is independents. Independents really, really disliked Hillary. They disliked Trump also, but not as much.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:19 PM

Except, of course, that any vote not for the Democrat is a vote for Trump. That's what happened in 2016.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:45 PM

Quote:
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.


We're in complete agreement in regards to the past and future.

Except that I actually liked Hillary and think the world would be in a much safer place with her at the helm.

But yes. 2020 is set to be a bloodbath. It's a chance for progressives in America to take the helm and spin the wheel hard a-port.

But instead they're gonna nominate Biden. And the American Left will be dead in the water.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Except, of course, that any vote not for the Democrat is a vote for Trump. That's what happened in 2016.


Actually no. The third party vote helped Hillary. According to CNN exit polling when third party voters were asked whom they would have voted for in a strictly two candidate race, no third party candidates. 19% answered Trump, 16% Clinton. 65% responded they wouldn't have voted.

In other words with no third party candidates considering 9 million people voted third party, Trump would have added 1.7 million more votes than he received, Hillary an additional 1.4 million. If no third party candidates, 5.9 million who those who voted wouldn't have. Such was the disdain for both major party candidates that officially registering their vote against both Trump and Clinton drove them to the polls.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Hillary was actually the beneficiary of the third party vote. Third party voting usually hurts the Republican more than the Democrat.

Having voted third party I've been told many times by Clinton supporters my vote for a third party candidate was a vote for Trump. I also have been told by Trump supporters my vote a third party candidate as in reality a vote for Clinton. It was against both. Neither Trump nor Clinton seen their vote tally go up by one once my vote was counted. It was a neither vote which helped neither major party candidate.

Hence, it is vital the Democrats come up with a candidate attrictive to independents. In 2016 3% of Democrats voted third party, 4% of Republicans voted third party, 12% of independents voted third party. Time to learn from the mistakes of 2016 when it comes to nominating a candidate. Candidates matter.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 11:15 PM

That analysis ignores who the Third Party candidate is: A popular leftist Third Party candidate would indeed take votes from the Democrat and help elect the Republican. Likewise, a popular right wing candidate would take votes from the Republican and help elect the Democrat. In general, a Third Party candidate can only help elect the mainstream candidate the least like them. This is why people say Third Party runs can only hurt their cause.

It would be completely different if we had a parliamentary form of government, where a Third Party could form a coalition with the mainstream Party most like them, But we don't.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/09/19 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
That analysis ignores who the Third Party candidate is: A popular leftist Third Party candidate would indeed take votes from the Democrat and help elect the Republican. Likewise, a popular right wing candidate would take votes from the Republican and help elect the Democrat. In general, a Third Party candidate can only help elect the mainstream candidate the least like them. This is why people say Third Party runs can only hurt their cause.

It would be completely different if we had a parliamentary form of government, where a Third Party could form a coalition with the mainstream Party most like them, But we don't.


I say you're correct in your synopsis. The reason I stated third party candidates usually hurt Republicans more is that the Libertarians are on the ballot in all 50 states presidential wise. They also run candidates for governors and senators. Most Libertarians would vote Republican if limited to just the GOP and Democratic candidates.

Johnson received 3.28% of the total vote in 2016, Jill Stein 1.07%, McMullin 0.54%. Libertarian and Conservative votes to Johnson and McMullin dwarf Stein's. My word usually doesn't mean every time, just most of the time.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/09/19 03:45 AM

By the way, Perostista...Northwest Ponderer is NWRatCon on DP, in case you didn't know.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 02:16 AM

Too many on the Left sat home and sulked, too many Dems sat home, thinking we already had it in the bag, and that left mostly people who have been conditioned to not trust our institutions, not trust any form of government or even trust what they see and hear in the media....i.e. acting like the lady who stayed on the toilet for two years.

Basically by sitting home and sulking, or believing we had it in the bag, we let the idiots on the right make our choices for us.
But by being complacent, or acting like spoiled brats, we were the bigger idiots, bigger because we ought to have known better.

I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote. If not, then they will get treated to another four year long Trump bukkake session, with some scatological fun thrown in for good measure.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 03:37 AM

Quote:
I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote


This time it's personal. Voters want to hurt this guy and they want to hurt him bad. Everybody is going to want to be part of it. Like the Popeye's Chicken sandwich!

Something on my radar is how Trump is gonna play the China agreement into his re-election plan. Early guess is a shoddy agreement that makes him a hero for ending the trade war that he started. He declares it a victory and throws himself a parade. Republicans love him all the more for ending the trade war that THE DEMOCRATS started.....

Anybody imagine a future where that doesn't happen?
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 11:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote


<snip

Something on my radar is how Trump is gonna play the China agreement into his re-election plan. Early guess is a shoddy agreement that makes him a hero for ending the trade war that he started. He declares it a victory and throws himself a parade. Republicans love him all the more for ending the trade war that THE DEMOCRATS started.....

Anybody imagine a future where that doesn't happen?


Nope, that is how it will be played out, and the Bubbas on the right, better known as Republicans, are going to take it hook, line and shaft.

Bukkake: a type of ... several men ... on another person. ROTFMOL Bow allhail
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/16/19 01:23 AM

Jill Biden admits her husband's policies SUCK, but please settle for him anyway.
Joe won't even be in the race next March if he's already stumbling this badly at this point.
If he is, God help us.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/16/19 12:49 PM

How dare voters stay home and not vote for candidates to screw them over! Don’t they understand how politics work?! Well Trump surely showed them their errors. Maybe now voters will fall in line with another corporate hack promising access to the bananas if they can only jump high enough.
Stay at home sulkers should really take a look at themselves in the mirror and reflect on how they, and they alone, have been responsible for the Parties presidential defeat. Clearly some folks don’t know what’s good for them. Who the adults in the room are and other patronizing gibberish.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/29/19 07:24 PM

Quote:
I assume your not for Sanders on account of your recurring 'he's not going to win you know? you know that don't you" hey chunks, Sanders isn't going to win..." Sure. O.K. Why would I want to argue with somebody who's made up their mind? Your entitled to your opinion.


And you to yours. That's what we do here is share our opinions.

I'm not trying to change your mind about Bernie. I'm neither for nor against him, same with Warren. Neither for nor against.

I'm very much against Joe Biden. I see Warren as the only one who has a chance of beating him. I've been wrong before but I'm not afraid to bet on a horse before the race begins. Too early to place a bet? Why?

I've outlined a lot of reasons why I think the race is gonna turn out like I've called it. You've mostly told me your candidate can't win because democrats are corrupt. I think that's a pretty safe bet and it's part of why I think he can't win. You don't like Warren? I'm cool with that, I don't know that I like her either, I'm just saying she's gonna win. We'll see how it turns out once she's in office.

You think Bernie can win? You see a path where I don't?
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/29/19 08:53 PM

For those who sulk, and not vote. PLEASE, submit an empty ballot. If you all did that a message would be sent. This is a simple fact and blank ballots are counted. voting is not a right, voting is a responsibility. Not voting does nothing, other than prove, to yourself (and others when you brag on it), that you are not responsible, don't give a damn, and, certainly, part of the problem.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 12:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I assume your not for Sanders on account of your recurring 'he's not going to win you know? you know that don't you" hey chunks, Sanders isn't going to win..." Sure. O.K. Why would I want to argue with somebody who's made up their mind? Your entitled to your opinion.


And you to yours. That's what we do here is share our opinions.

I'm not trying to change your mind about Bernie. I'm neither for nor against him, same with Warren. Neither for nor against.

I'm very much against Joe Biden. I see Warren as the only one who has a chance of beating him. I've been wrong before but I'm not afraid to bet on a horse before the race begins. Too early to place a bet? Why?

I've outlined a lot of reasons why I think the race is gonna turn out like I've called it. You've mostly told me your candidate can't win because democrats are corrupt. I think that's a pretty safe bet and it's part of why I think he can't win. You don't like Warren? I'm cool with that, I don't know that I like her either, I'm just saying she's gonna win. We'll see how it turns out once she's in office.

You think Bernie can win? You see a path where I don't?



I never said that Sanders can't win because of DNC corruption, rather it's a very big obstacle. Just as it was last time.

There are differences between 2016 and 2020 though.
It's been said the possibilty is greater and the obstacles are greater than it was in 2016 and I'm agreeing with that sentiment.

First there's the Clinton coalition and it's tactics:
A professional class that used to be republicans of 40 years ago, their political preferences still are. I don't think that group is large enough or energized enough to beat Trump.

If there's more shenanigans like what happened with WFP endorsement Warren is sure to further alienate the left. That showed incredibly poor strategic thinking on her campaigns part. She's already alienating the left.

Then there's the match up between the candidates and Donald Trump. Here the race looks less like a walk for Biden or Warren where Sanders is just barely squeeked out by Biden for the no.2 pole position against Trump. Warrens 3rd.
Trump vs. Dem candidates

So Biden's melting like that proverbial sandcastle. His numbers have been on a downward trajectory. Which candidate is the no.2 choice among Biden leaning voters.
Biden voters pick Sanders

So either Biden supporters are not telling the truth about their second choice pick (a funny thing to be coy about wouldn't you think?) or there's something funny going on with the votes going into Warrens column as Bidens column shrinks. The polls might not be accurate. But hey, when's that ever happened before?

Then there's each candidates respective bases. Let's be honest with who's got the energy. Again. Sanders is crushing it with rallies as much as Trump is. While Warren had a good showing in NYC Sanders was much bigger. People taking time out to show up at a rally could be argued being more accurate than the polls were in 2016. That is, again, being ignored by the corporate press.

Who's Sanders coalition?

There's still a big outsider candidate sentiment and that would be Sanders again. Warren does not sound like an outsider. Her campaign is not run as an outsider. Quite the opposite. I think it would not be smart to ignore that sentiment. He also appears to be mobilizing a working class coalition, the key to most democratic victories is doing just that. It's simple. There's more of em than there are professionals though it's the professionals that insist they know what's best. S'funny that... Democrats have been losing more elections with that strategy than they ever lost with the new deal consensus.
Bartenders for Bernie

I could go on but lemme just finish it by saying it's to early to say it's in the bag.

Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 12:48 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
How dare voters stay home and not vote for candidates to screw them over! Don’t they understand how politics work?! Well Trump surely showed them their errors. Maybe now voters will fall in line with another corporate hack promising access to the bananas if they can only jump high enough.
Stay at home sulkers should really take a look at themselves in the mirror and reflect on how they, and they alone, have been responsible for the Parties presidential defeat. Clearly some folks don’t know what’s good for them. Who the adults in the room are and other patronizing gibberish.


If you don't like either major party candidate, you have only a few choices. Stay home and don't vote, go to the polls and vote against both major party candidates by voting third party. 9 million voters did exactly that in 2016. Or one votes for the candidate you want to lose the least, not win, but lose the least. One needs to remember that 60% of Americans disliked or view that candidate unfavorable, 58% viewed the other candidate unfavorably or negatively.

My disgust with both major party candidates in 2016 lead me to vote against both. Even knowing what I do today, I still would vote against both.

If the major parties come up with candidates that are unacceptable, who's fault is that? Neither was acceptable to me, so I didn't vote for either one of them. Others went my route, still others said to Hades with it and stayed home.

I realize that those who are party animals can't understand why who they choose are not acceptable to everyone. Each individual is different, have differing political views, different likes and dislikes, view the candidates and parties differently. I don't hold staying home against anyone or voting their preferences whether it is for a major party candidate or against both.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 01:10 AM

Originally Posted By: jgw
For those who sulk, and not vote. PLEASE, submit an empty ballot. If you all did that a message would be sent. This is a simple fact and blank ballots are counted. voting is not a right, voting is a responsibility. Not voting does nothing, other than prove, to yourself (and others when you brag on it), that you are not responsible, don't give a damn, and, certainly, part of the problem.


That happened in Michigan. It doesn't appear that the DNC got the message.

Politics works like this:

You have to get more votes to get elected. If you get less votes you lose. In order to win again you have to find a way to appeal to more voters so you can get more votes again.

Hectoring people, saying your better than the 'other side', and outright putting your thumb on the scales to rig the primary is not coming up with better appeals for voters to turn out. It's an admission that you have no ideas to lead with but want to maintain your good thing you got going at the expense of election victories.

Addressing peoples material concerns with proposals that have popular support does. It's been proven here in the past and abroad in the present.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 01:11 AM

Agree with that.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 02:09 AM

Quote:
it's to early to say it's in the bag.


But you have reason to be hopeful.

I'd be thrilled if it turned into a race between progressives with Joe Biden left out in the cold.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 12:01 PM

I think it is dangerous to think the election is in the bag. I think most of us thought 2016 was in the bag for Hillary. That includes me and almost every political pundit with the exception of Nate Silver. He gave Trump a 30% chance to win and was derided by almost everyone. I know I resigned myself to a Hillary win the moment it became clear Trump would be the GOP nominee. I didn't pay the election much attention after that. I even forecast a Hillary win.

I don't know how much you all pay attention to polls. I do a lot. If you look at the generic presidential poll, you have this. Question 53. The Democratic Candidate 40%, Trump 36%. Independents 26% the Democratic Candidate, Trump 28%.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/s96v7z4zoa/econTabReport.pdf

Now there are quite a lot of folks in the "It Depends," column. That I take to mean their vote will be decided by who is the Democratic nominee. There is also a lot of folks in the "I won't vote," category which make YouGov unique. Most polls force a person to choose even though they have no intention of voting.

Now here are your mythical head to head match ups thanks to RCP averages.

Biden 50.1% Trump 43.4%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

Warren 49.7% Trump 44.0%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...arren-6251.html

Sanders 50.0% Trump 43.5%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...nders-6250.html

Buttigieg 47.8% Trump 44.2%

Now there are three kinds of polls, all Adults which history shows 55% of them vote on average. Registered Voters, an average of 65% of them vote and likely voters which shoots the average of those who vote up to 80%. Historical averages give or take a point or two.

The above polls are of registered voters which means that 35% of them who answered and chose a candidate won't bother to vote. For elections, you want the likely voter polls, they more accurate on gauging the results although they too can't determine who will and will not actually vote. They still include 20% of those who will not vote.

Then there is a the margin of error of every poll. Usually plus or minus 3 points. One last thing, the electoral college. The Democratic Candidate 210, Trump 163 with the rest in the tossup column which could go either way.

Back in 2016 just prior to the election the count was Clinton 206, Trump 164 with 171 in the tossup column.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 03:32 PM

Quote:
I don't know how much you all pay attention to polls.


I pay almost no attention at all to them. I mostly see them in headlines but usually don't go much deeper than that. Bernie currently ahead in New Hampshire is about all I need to know for the moment. Biden is losing ground. Chunks has pointed to a possible path for Bernie so I'm adding that into my models. Warren is still going to be seen as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie.

Primary voters are generally more conservative than public opinion, but I'm predicting an uptick in progressive voters this time around because Trump has energized his opposition on every front. The Trump Bump won't be felt as much in the primaries but left leaning voters are energized and may sway the election towards a more progressive candidate than Biden.

Quote:
I think it is dangerous to think the election is in the bag.

It's dangerous when voters don't show up because the polls tell them they don't need to. Don't know why you'd think it dangerous to be confident that your candidate can win.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 04:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:


[quote]I think it is dangerous to think the election is in the bag.

It's dangerous when voters don't show up because the polls tell them they don't need to. Don't know why you'd think it dangerous to be confident that your candidate can win.



It's one thing to think your candidate can win, it's another to take it for granted your candidate will win. Which I equate "In the bag," means.

Unless a couple of those Democratic candidates start to move up that I support, who wins the Democratic nomination is kind of irrelevant to me. But since you are interested in the states, that is where the nomination will be won or lost, not nationally. Currently in Iowa, its Warren, Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders.

In New Hampshire Warren, Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg.
In Nevada Biden, Warren, Sanders with Harris ahead of Buttigieg.
In South Carolina Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris.

Then comes super Tuesday, a couple of states, the big ones. California Warren, Biden, Sanders and Harris.
In Texas Biden, O'Rourke, Warren and Sanders.

Around 40% of the total delegates are up for grabs on Super Tuesday, the chances are good we'll know who the democratic nominee will be after all the votes are counted then.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 04:21 PM

I repeat. I will vote for anybody the Dems put up - I just want Trump gone. By the time he is done we won't have a single ally left and all the courts are going to be packed. Then there are all the 'fixes', little things, like lowering drinking water standards, attacking national monuments for miners and oil folk, climate change denial, trying to log the Alaska national park forests, lies 80% of the time, etc. you know - all them little things. I may not agree with whoever the Dems choose but whoever it is they gotta be better than Trump!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 04:45 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I repeat. I will vote for anybody the Dems put up - I just want Trump gone. By the time he is done we won't have a single ally left and all the courts are going to be packed. Then there are all the 'fixes', little things, like lowering drinking water standards, attacking national monuments for miners and oil folk, climate change denial, trying to log the Alaska national park forests, lies 80% of the time, etc. you know - all them little things. I may not agree with whoever the Dems choose but whoever it is they gotta be better than Trump!

Amen brother jgw Bow

smile
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 06:40 PM

Simple enough.
I guess we have to hope that’s enough reason for people to come out and vote then.
With that logic, Dems should be able to run a sack of door knobs and win.

Or Biden. Same thing really.

That’s not fair. Door knobs won’t throw you in jail for selling weed.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 07:34 PM

Quote:
they gotta be better than Trump!


Forrest Gump would be better than Trump.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 07:45 PM

Quote:
the chances are good we'll know who the democratic nominee will be after all the votes are counted then.


I've already got a pretty good idea who it's going to be.

There's literally three choices, three ways this thing can turn out.

Three horses in the race. It's not a hard call. And if I'm wrong I'm out $5 bucks. I don't think I'm liable to sway the election.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 08:01 PM

I have to say I admire your positive attitude towards 2020. I have serious concerns that Trump can pull off another win.

The Dems, in large part, seem to encourage this outlook and I pray that I am absolutely wrong. I am not sure we can actually survive another Trump/Putin 4 years.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 09:44 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I have to say I admire your positive attitude towards 2020. I have serious concerns that Trump can pull off another win.

The Dems, in large part, seem to encourage this outlook and I pray that I am absolutely wrong. I am not sure we can actually survive another Trump/Putin 4 years.



You might want to save some of that concern for why the last Democratic candidate and her Husband encouraged Trump to run in the first place. You might want to spare me your derision and I wont remind you that your support of the candidate that encouraged Trump to become President makes your judgements and comments suspect.

No?

Russia, Russia, Russia?
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: jgw
I have to say I admire your positive attitude towards 2020. I have serious concerns that Trump can pull off another win.

The Dems, in large part, seem to encourage this outlook and I pray that I am absolutely wrong. I am not sure we can actually survive another Trump/Putin 4 years.


russia, Russia?

My recollection was Bill more or less said that if you want to run, run. Back in those days the Trump's and Clinton's were friends. I don't think Bill encouraged Trump to run. But I would imagine Bill's thinking was that if Trump ran, he might disrupt the GOP primaries some, thus making it easier for Hillary to win.

I don't think Bill, Hillary or Trump himself way back when thought Trump had one iota of a chance.

My take on it anyway.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 11:03 PM

Heres the Washington Post’s take.

A little later Politico’s

And Salon’s take.

Sounds like good judgement. Great voter outreach.

Or the brilliant three dimensional chess playing of the Slavs.
Can’t decide.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 11:11 PM

Weren’t Clinton and Trump both friends with Epstein?
S’all one big family up there.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 11:30 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Heres the Washington Post’s take.

A little later Politico’s

And Salon’s take.

Sounds like good judgement. Great voter outreach.

Or the brilliant three dimensional chess playing of the Slavs.
Can’t decide.


Thanks, It kind of back fired didn't it?

"So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up."
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 06:50 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Weren’t Clinton and Trump both friends with Epstein?
S’all one big family up there.


Quote:
Trump continued, "He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

- Donald Trump

Probably not the best optics to discuss your child molester friend that way. coffee
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 11:39 AM

Or invite Epstein’s groomer girlfriend to your wedding or truck around with Jeff on his plane to ‘battle problems’.

Trump and Clinton’s mutual friends

There’s noise that Chelsea Clinton may jump into a congressional district race here in NY.
Sure, why not.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 12:45 PM

Has the South soured on Trump?

I’ve been going over polls looking at census regions instead of party ID and the like. What I’ve been seeing is the Midwest is now Trump’s and the GOP’s strongest region. Not the south. Here’s what I found in several categories.

Trump’s very favorable/very unfavorable, Northeast 30/49, Midwest 32/41, South 27/49, West 26/48%

Generic presidential vote, Democratic Candidate/Trump, Northeast 44/36, Midwest 36/39, South 42/34, West 42/34%

Should Trump run for reelection, Yes/No, Northeast 40/52, Midwest 43/46, South 36/50, West 37/51

Should Trump be impeached and removed from office, yes/no, Northeast 49/39, Midwest 41/46, South 49/37, West 48/40%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zgaz948hzw/econTabReport.pdf

There’s other categories in the link if you care to check them out. It does seem that the Midwest is now Trump’s strongest region of the country. The south is more in line with the Northeast and West Coast than the Midwest. To be sure that somehow YouGov didn’t make a miss print, change the south’s figures with the midwest’s, I went back to an old poll, 31 July 2019 and found the same trend. The Midwest more pro-Trump than the south and the rest of the country.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hash0nbry8/econTabReport.pdf

You can check the differences over time also, using the 30 July poll vs. the 29 Oct poll. I always assumed the south was Trump’s strongest region, the numbers say differently. I was surprised to say the least. What effect if any this has on the 2020 election is hard to tell, too early. I do know Trump is in Trouble in Georgia. With the right candidate the democrats can take my home state, maybe even fairly easily. I found this very interesting, thought I’d share it.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 01:17 PM

I found it very interesting, my friend. As I thought about it, though, I'm not surprised. There are two things that account for this, in my view:

First, most of the South is coastal. It is more dynamic (people moving in), physically closer to the Northeast than the Midwest, and more involved in international trade. It has more of a migrant population, too. The urban-rural population divide leans urban (Atlanta, Miami, Nashville, Memphis, etc.) The skew is the rural- urban ratio, and the fulcrum is the suburbs. The more and bigger the suburbs, the weaker the GOP gets (think Virginia and Johnson County Kansas, suburbs of KC, where Sharice Davids won).

Second - and remember, I'm a native Missourian - Midwesterners are extremely stubborn people. They come from pioneer stock, and stay set in their ways much longer. If you were to break down those survey results further, you would find a stark difference between the rural and urban areas of those representative States (and elsewhere in the country, too). In the rural Midwest, preachers hold sway. Radio personalities like Hannity, Limbaugh, Erickson, are just the modern equivalents of old time "revivalists". They just don't travel to the communities they preach to. There's a distinction between the bible belt and the rust belt, too.

Trump will remain strong with "believers", but industrial workers are skeptics. They went with him in '16 because they were skeptical of the establishment. But, now HE'S the establishment, and they haven't got what THEY were going for. They may not vote for dems, but they're more likely, like you, to "sit this one out".

Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 03:04 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I found it very interesting, my friend. As I thought about it, though, I'm not surprised. There are two things that account for this, in my view:

First, most of the South is coastal. It is more dynamic (people moving in), physically closer to the Northeast than the Midwest, and more involved in international trade. It has more of a migrant population, too. The urban-rural population divide leans urban (Atlanta, Miami, Nashville, Memphis, etc.) The skew is the rural- urban ratio, and the fulcrum is the suburbs. The more and bigger the suburbs, the weaker the GOP gets (think Virginia and Johnson County Kansas, suburbs of KC, where Sharice Davids won).

Second - and remember, I'm a native Missourian - Midwesterners are extremely stubborn people. They come from pioneer stock, and stay set in their ways much longer. If you were to break down those survey results further, you would find a stark difference between the rural and urban areas of those representative States (and elsewhere in the country, too). In the rural Midwest, preachers hold sway. Radio personalities like Hannity, Limbaugh, Erickson, are just the modern equivalents of old time "revivalists". They just don't travel to the communities they preach to. There's a distinction between the bible belt and the rust belt, too.

Trump will remain strong with "believers", but industrial workers are skeptics. They went with him in '16 because they were skeptical of the establishment. But, now HE'S the establishment, and they haven't got what THEY were going for. They may not vote for dems, but they're more likely, like you, to "sit this one out".



I hear you. There is a huge divide between urban and rural, no doubt. Another difference is in 2016 Hillary Clinton had all the baggage, Trump was an unknown. This time around, it will be Trump with the baggage. I like your explanation, it makes sense to me.

I'm not sure about the other southern states, but here in Georgia in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's we got a lot of conservative businessmen and their companies fleeing the higher state taxes and state regulations of the Northeast to resettle here. That trend has changed. Now we're getting the more liberal folks from the northeast. Guess they ran out of conservatives.

Our politics is certainly changing, as is North Carolina's to go along with Virginia's. We're certainly much more urban. Concrete and asphalt has been replacing farmland at a steady pace. I live 25 miles south of Atlanta and it is fast becoming a suburb of that city. In my county alone, I seen the population grow from around 20,000 30 years ago to close to 250,000 today. What was farm land and small towns of less than 10,000 are large towns of 50,000 with hardly no farmland at all. I was born and raised on a farm.

I suppose that is called progress, but I hate it. One of these days there will be no farmland left, Soylent Green will become a reality.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 03:56 PM

Yeah...progress. I don't care much for it either but we've got to deal with it...Hence the need for progressive candidates. My little town is never going to be the sleepy little farming village it used to be. This country is never going back to what it once might have been.

City dwellers recognize the need because they live in the middle of it.

Rural voters find it much easier to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that progress will pass them by. Even as their farmlands are swallowed up by corporate industrial farms and everything else is paved over.

You can't go back. I don't look back and dream of how things used to be. I look to the future and dream of how things can be.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 04:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Yeah...progress. I don't care much for it either but we've got to deal with it...Hence the need for progressive candidates. My little town is never going to be the sleepy little farming village it used to be. This country is never going back to what it once might have been.

City dwellers recognize the need because they live in the middle of it.

Rural voters find it much easier to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that progress will pass them by. Even as their farmlands are swallowed up by corporate industrial farms and everything else is paved over.

You can't go back. I don't look back and dream of how things used to be. I look to the future and dream of how things can be.



Welcome to Solent Green. Enjoy.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 07:59 PM

Your view of the future is somewhat more bleak than mine.

Quote:
Georgia has 9.9 million acres of land devoted to farms, with an average farm size of 235 acres. In 2017 Georgia had more than 42,000 individual farms, and the state's farmers sold more than $9.5 billion worth of agricultural products


Quote:
Florida has 47,740 farm operations; 9.5 million acres of farmland.


I think you're a little premature with your food shortage predictions.

But keep electing conservatives and you'll make it all come true!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 08:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I think you're a little premature with your food shortage predictions.

But keep electing conservatives and you'll make it all come true!


:ohsnap:


smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 10:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Your view of the future is somewhat more bleak than mine.

Quote:
Georgia has 9.9 million acres of land devoted to farms, with an average farm size of 235 acres. In 2017 Georgia had more than 42,000 individual farms, and the state's farmers sold more than $9.5 billion worth of agricultural products


Quote:
Florida has 47,740 farm operations; 9.5 million acres of farmland.


I think you're a little premature with your food shortage predictions.

But keep electing conservatives and you'll make it all come true!


It's not political ideology that is causing the dwindling farm land. It's people. Neither conservatives nor liberals are even worried about it. Just the next election.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 12:01 AM

Lots of liberals are worried about it. Ever heard of Planned Parenthood, birth control, sex education? You know...far left stuff.

The conservative plan seems to mostly revolve around keeping the poors out of their neighborhoods. And denying them education and medicine.

Because Jesus.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 12:21 AM

Urban sprawl is progress?
This country was founded on real estate hustling. How did it get equated with progress I wonder.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 04:48 AM

All California counties have housing shortages. Not so much because of immigration as because residents of the state keep on having kids. Those kids grow up, get jobs, start families, and want a place to live other than their childhood bedrooms. Want less urban sprawl? Support Planned Parenthood.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 11:43 AM

I disagree that liberals are worried about dwindling farm land. Yes, their all into what you mentioned. Which if fine as I side with them on those issues. But being pro-choice has nothing to do with building more subdivisions and shopping malls, the like turning once bountiful farmland's into concrete and asphalt.

Yes, modern equipment, hybrid seed, has increased the amount of food per acre by ten or more fold. The use of insecticides and other disease inhibiting sprays has also helped increase the yield. But at some point in time, we'll reach the the max or some disease or insect will become immune to the above and wreck havoc. Mother Nature can also play havoc.

Regardless of political ideology, political party, this planet of our can only support so many people. Can Soylent Green be that far around the corner? Perhaps China had the right idea, limit each family to one child. Drastic, yes. Workable, no.

Humans I believe are paving their way to their own destruction be that eradicating farmland, sooner or later there will be a nuclear, chemical or biological war, or perhaps something natural will occur. Asteroid, Super Volcano, pandemic, something else.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 11:48 AM

Are you saying real estate development interests should be curtailed?
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 10:14 PM

All I'm saying is that there is just so much farmland. The human population is booming, farmland is shrinking. Someday those lines will cross.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 11:45 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
All I'm saying is that there is just so much farmland. The human population is booming, farmland is shrinking. Someday those lines will cross.

Farmland is also losing its fecundity and resilience. All of those modern productivity enhancements are turning out to be more cancers on the environment. Something like 50% of atmospheric CO2 loading has come from maltreatment of the soil.

It should be a major concern.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 12:06 AM

Well, lucky for us, global climate change is set to wipe out at least half the population and send the rest back to the stone age, or perhaps a sort of dystopian garbage age where primitive tools are hammered from rusting old automobile frames.

Y'know the sky's the limit if you decide the future is going to be ugly.

The future is not going to be like the past. It's not going to be like the present either. But it's going to be okay. Because a lot of smart, motivated people are going to make it okay.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 12:12 AM

WORD!

The carbon that is being released into the atmosphere thru industrial farming is not talked about nearly enough. Can’t remember where I read it but the carbon content of the Midwest soil is being depleted. Scary stuff as I recall.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 04:47 AM



Beto is out. He'd be smart to run for Senate even though he says he won't. smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 11:04 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Beto is out. He'd be smart to run for Senate even though he says he won't. smile

I would have never voted for him anyway. But he was in second place in Texas which has their primary on super Tuesday. It was Biden 26.8, O'Rourke 16.5 with Warren and Sanders in 3rd and 4th.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-6875.html

The question becomes is which candidate will be able to pull in the most O'Rourke supporters? As for the senate, Cornyn isn't Cruz, he's more popular. Trump has a 50% approval rating in Texas, 45% disapprove so O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn who is much more liked by Texan's as a whole than Cruz was. My opinion at this time anyway.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 03:15 PM

Quote:
O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn


Spot on.
I had early hopes for O'Rourke as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie. It didn't pan out as he was never able to capitalize on his earlier success in Texas. He has since taken all sorts of radical positions in an effort to catch the eyes of progressives, none of which would be popular if he ran against Cornyn.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 05:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn


Spot on.
I had early hopes for O'Rourke as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie. It didn't pan out as he was never able to capitalize on his earlier success in Texas. He has since taken all sorts of radical positions in an effort to catch the eyes of progressives, none of which would be popular if he ran against Cornyn.


I agree. When one changes their stripes, it usually doesn't work out although there has been some exceptions.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn


Spot on.
I had early hopes for O'Rourke as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie. It didn't pan out as he was never able to capitalize on his earlier success in Texas. He has since taken all sorts of radical positions in an effort to catch the eyes of progressives, none of which would be popular if he ran against Cornyn.


I agree. When one changes their stripes, it usually doesn't work out although there has been some exceptions.

Authenticity works. Americans knew that Trump was a walking, talking rectum, and, lying, welsher - that's why nothing really sticks to him. It's not like he hid who he really was. Hmm

Trump, being Trump. smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn


Spot on.
I had early hopes for O'Rourke as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie. It didn't pan out as he was never able to capitalize on his earlier success in Texas. He has since taken all sorts of radical positions in an effort to catch the eyes of progressives, none of which would be popular if he ran against Cornyn.


I agree. When one changes their stripes, it usually doesn't work out although there has been some exceptions.

Authenticity works. Americans knew that Trump was a walking, talking rectum, and, lying, welsher - that's why nothing really sticks to him. It's not like he hid who he really was. Hmm

Trump, being Trump. smile


A friend of mind described the 2016 election as between the devil we didn't know and devil we did. Trump was a businessman, a TV personality, no one knew how he would govern. Trump's the devil we didn't know. Everyone knew exactly how Hillary would, she was the devil we knew. He concluded by stating we opted for the devil we didn't know over the devil we did. Perhaps Clinton was too well known.

Yes, Trump, the seven time party switcher was one who changed his stripes to run as a Republican. He did win. Romney was another who changed his stripes from a liberal, Rockefeller Republican to a conservative one, he lost. There are exceptions, true indeed.

Changing his Stripes didn't help O'Rourke in his presidential bid. There were too many authentic progressives for folks to support. Now staying as a moderate probably also would have doomed any presidential aspirations. But it would in my opinion have helped him in any statewide race in Texas. Be that senator, governor or any other office.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 01:59 AM

Most of that "devil we did know" stuff was just 30 years of Republican smears. Hillary has never been charged with any crime and she has been investigated countless times at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars by Republicans. Are they really that incompetent? Is she the smartest criminal on Earth? Or is she actually just the victim of years of slander? You pick one. I'm waiting for an answer...
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 01:32 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Most of that "devil we did know" stuff was just 30 years of Republican smears. Hillary has never been charged with any crime and she has been investigated countless times at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars by Republicans. Are they really that incompetent? Is she the smartest criminal on Earth? Or is she actually just the victim of years of slander? You pick one. I'm waiting for an answer...


Few politicians/elected officials actually get charged with anything. I can remember a few congressmen, a couple of senators. Each individual views things differently, candidates, political parties, events, you name it. It is all a matter of personal perspective. A majority of Americans disagree with your perception of Hillary.

During 2016 she gave me the perception of being aloof, an elitist, that she deserved the presidency only because she was a woman. She had it in the bag. You're perception is entirely different. The e-mail scandal was my main reason for nixing her. I know she was never charged, given a free pass. Being a presidential candidate, one could expect nothing less.

I also know spending 21 years on active duty and another 26 working for the army as a department of the army civilian, that any Sp/4, sergeant along with any civilian was caught with that many classified messages, including TS SCI SAP material on an unclassified server or computer would have immediately lost their security clearance and probably would have been sent straight to Leavenworth. forget that many, not reporting one classified message that shows up on NIPR would be enough to lose your clearance. Automatically. We're talking SIPR and SCIF, SCI, TS netowrk stuff. By the way there is no way to move material from NIPR, SIPR or any of the TS networks to the other without having to copy and retype.

But that is old stuff, ancient history. What was important was how Americans as a whole viewed her on election day, 2016. 56% of all Americans viewed her negatively, this was made up of only 15% of democrats, 70% of independents, 92% of republicans. Question 10. If you want to compare favorable/unfavorable of Hillary against Trump, his is question 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

As time has passed, according to Gallup, Hillary's favorable's are still very low. Democrats give her a 77% favorable vs. 30% for independents and 4% from Republicans.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

Fact is outside of her supporters, mostly democrats she wasn't liked or wanted. Trump was in the same boat, he wasn't liked either outside of his supporters and Republicans. Independents hated both or at least disliked both. 54% of all independents which make up around 40% of the electorate disliked both candidates and wanted neither one to become the next president.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-...candidates.aspx

My personal thinking, opinion, feeling is that in 2016 almost any other Democratic candidate would have trounced Trump. Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Biden especially if he had entered. Would have won easily. That didn't happen and there is now no way to prove it. Just a feeling, mostly going by the favorable numbers of each vs. Trump. Where independents held both Trump and Clinton in disdain, they gave positive numbers to the rest I mentioned.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 03:51 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Most of that "devil we did know" stuff was just 30 years of Republican smears. Hillary has never been charged with any crime and she has been investigated countless times at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars by Republicans. Are they really that incompetent? Is she the smartest criminal on Earth? Or is she actually just the victim of years of slander? You pick one. I'm waiting for an answer...

Bow
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 04:58 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
... caught with that many classified messages, including TS SCI SAP material on an unclassified server or computer would have immediately lost their security clearance and probably would have been sent straight to Leavenworth. ...


One thing you forget, as SecState, she was the Classification/de-Classification Authority for any and all State Department originated material. Additionally, it was determined that the material that was classified at the time of the investigation was not classified at the time the State Department was handling it.

Hell, our current President reveals very highly classified material, methods, and operations on almost a daily basis.

So which is worse, sensitive, but not classified material in email(s); or classified methods, operation and material exposure on television?
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 06:00 PM

So are you saying all of the so called classified e-mails were from the state department and were unclassified at the time Hillary received them? That none of them were from DOD, Homeland Security, FBI, the president, just the state department?

I find that hard to believe. As for Trump, I'll not defend him. My disdain for both Trump and Clinton are about as high as high can get.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
So are you saying all of the so called classified e-mails were from the state department and were unclassified at the time Hillary received them?

My recollection is that the classified info in emails they found was all classified after they got into Clinton's server. I don't recall anything about which departments they were associated with.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: perotista
So are you saying all of the so called classified e-mails were from the state department and were unclassified at the time Hillary received them?

My recollection is that the classified info in emails they found was all classified after they got into Clinton's server. I don't recall anything about which departments they were associated with.


While I think Hillary got away with something that no one else ever would have. It's water under the bridge. I do know with DOD that all plans are classified from the get go until the operation is completed. She had 22 TS SAP (Top Secret Special Access Program) e-mails on her sever. If you ever been involved in any of these, you know those types of messages/e-mails stay in a SCIF and can't be removed.

Having dealt with the State Department before, their security both electronic and physical is about as lax as one can get. This was a long time ago while on active duty, but I doubt their security procedures has changed much.

I can understand one not understanding the difference between NIPR, SIPR and SCI Networks and how they work. I can also understand the reluctance to inform the public about how they work, what they're used for and what type of traffic, e-mails they carry.

Perhaps, it was better to let her skate than bring how we as a country handle our information and distribution of it out into the public arena. I understand all of this, it caused me to vote against her, but not to be bothered she wasn't charged. It's all probably for the best.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 09:03 PM

What I am saying is State Dept. Inquiry Into Clinton Emails Finds No Deliberate Mishandling of Classified Information and that most if not all State Department originated material was not classified at the time and if it was, she as the SecState was the declassifying/classifying authority as such could decide to declassify on the spot. Additionally, the classified found on the server was sent to her, she was not the originator. Though she should have done something about that, piss poor OpSec.

Now as to the email server, not a smart move on her part.

P.S. At the bottom of the article is a little ditty about the Trump Administration, and the Trump and Kushner clan's use of email servers and wireless phones. I wonder what the Republicans are going to do, beside nothing.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 10:16 PM

I recollect the total emails which were mostly classified ad hoc as 113. Of that only 3 threads actually had classified material embedded in the body of the email. All of those were "confidential" and marked by the "C" indicating confidential. And of all of those all actual classified material was stripped from the body leaving only unclassified words.

Now of the other 110 threads most had to do with State Dept responses to a known black operation i.e. drone assassination strikes in pakistan. And all of these were originated by news articles which the sender requested State Dept responses. They were all classified because they discussed a black op which BTW was publicly known and especially after Pres Obama declassified on the fly a la Mr Trump.

In my opinion much ado about 3 email threads which had some "confidential" headers embedded in the body of the emails.

What really rankles me is the lack of good preemptive judgement on her part especially after 20 years of demonization by right wing nuts ... you would have thought she would have the good sense to use private email account for her private business and the easily hackable government servers for government business.

As far as deleting emails, NARA regulations at the tie allowed every person who had government accounts the opportunity to delete non-government emails at every persons discretion. That she would delete personal emails would be the same as any secretary in the pool deleting private non-government related emails.

As far as all the hubbub about backups etc coming from the right wing nuts ... they are all idiots with no knowledge nor understanding of how email servers work.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 11:33 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
I recollect the total emails which were mostly classified ad hoc as 113. Of that only 3 threads actually had classified material embedded in the body of the email. All of those were "confidential" and marked by the "C" indicating confidential. And of all of those all actual classified material was stripped from the body leaving only unclassified words.

Now of the other 110 threads most had to do with State Dept responses to a known black operation i.e. drone assassination strikes in pakistan. And all of these were originated by news articles which the sender requested State Dept responses. They were all classified because they discussed a black op which BTW was publicly known and especially after Pres Obama declassified on the fly a la Mr Trump.

In my opinion much ado about 3 email threads which had some "confidential" headers embedded in the body of the emails.

What really rankles me is the lack of good preemptive judgement on her part especially after 20 years of demonization by right wing nuts ... you would have thought she would have the good sense to use private email account for her private business and the easily hackable government servers for government business.

As far as deleting emails, NARA regulations at the tie allowed every person who had government accounts the opportunity to delete non-government emails at every persons discretion. That she would delete personal emails would be the same as any secretary in the pool deleting private non-government related emails.

As far as all the hubbub about backups etc coming from the right wing nuts ... they are all idiots with no knowledge nor understanding of how email servers work.


Well, perhaps a couple of thousand?

The State Department redacted about 2,000 emails before releasing them, saying they contain classified information — including some that have been withheld entirely because they contain "top secret" information.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/clinton-email-half-true/


In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community’s internal watchdog says some of Clinton’s emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hil...cret-ig-n499886

If I remember right the number was 24 TS SAP messages or e-mails.

During my time in the military, I was involved in a lot of this both on active duty and as a civilian working for the army. Now as I stated, DOD is a lot more security conscious, aware and stricter than the state department. I never seen a department as lax when it came to security, both physical and electronic as the state department.

I for one don't hold states security procedures in high regard. Of course the two agencies are involved in completely different jobs. One is more concerned with diplomatic relations, passports and the like, the other in national security.

I have no doubt other state department personnel and heads used private e-mail accounts instead of the governments. That's the state department. I'd never even attempt to defend anyone who did that.

Like I said, it was probably decided it was better to let her skate than to have to bring out into the public arena a lot of stuff the government doesn't want the public to know. That I understand.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 04:15 AM

Really? The Republicans in Congress "decided to let her skate"? No way: They would have LOVED to charge her with a crime, any crime at all. Right before the election? But they couldn't, because no prosecution would be successful, or even undertaken by any prosecutor. Her defense would have pointed out that Colin Powell had done the same thing, and her server was way more secure than a government server with thousands of users on it.

And your comments on "how the public felt about her" just supports my point. It's all about perception, and the Republicans succeeded in smearing her. Many did not trust her, because of that smear.

From a security point of view, she would have been MUCH better than Trump: He's tweeting, talking on TV, and having private conferences with Russians where he gives away all kinds of secure information.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 05:23 AM

You are talking of individual emails, I was talking about email threads.

Also note just talking about a black ops program, which was top secret, except everyone in the world knew about it, would have been classified as TS, except these folks did not believe simply developing a response to news articles was the same as embedding copy and pasted reports.

Your citation does not clarify anything. The accusation was she sent or received classified material. Now what I interpret that to mean is part of whole classified reports were attached or embedded in emails. I do not consider a discussion of State Dept responses to news articles regarding classified materials as classified material because the actual material to be classified is not a part of the discussion (my impression at the time from public sources). I suppose if one were to be a stickler about even obliquely mentioning classified material then there may have been cause to classify. Thus a discussion of the Pakistan drone assassination program instigated by a news article about the secret program would to me not make sense to classify, except inherently because it was closed to the public.

Note also in that citation there is no mention of how the email threads were started. I think context offers a better picture of what was going on, rather than a narrative without explanation i.e. conservatives like to say even though the emails were classified after the fact, we should look at them as if they had been classified when sent, which offers no context.

Now since I mentioned the TS CIA Pakistan Drone assassination program, this thread is now classified and you should read it ... well you know what comes next.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 12:59 PM

Simply put, to Clinton supporters she did no wrong. To the anti-Clintonista's, she should have been tarred and feathered and thrown in jail for putting this country's security at risk. You're not going to change any of their minds.

The FBI decided to late her skate, they probably had consultations with other organizations and decided its better to keep our operations and how we do things, disseminate things secret and from public view. Charging her and going to court would have put these things out in the public arena in full view of friends and enemies. Better to let her skate than have that happen.

We'll have to disagree on why the public disliked Hillary. It was no secret that they did way back in February of 2016 when a poll showed that 56% of all Americans wanted the democrats to nominate someone other than Hillary. The Democrats didn't heed what all Americans wanted, just Democrats which was their right. Now it is all Americans that decide elections, not just Democrats which they found out that November of 2016. The warning was there, the Democrats just ignored it.

I think Hillary has caused her own dissatisfaction among Americans, not just the Republican smears as you call them. She still isn't liked today by a majority of Americans. 77% of Democrats like her, 30% of independents and 4% of Republicans. It was Hillary's dislike by independents that let Trump won the independent vote and the White House. In 2016, only 27% independents liked or had a favorable view of Hillary compared to 30% today.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

Regardless of who we blame or the cause, the fact remains that Hillary plain isn't liked.

I do agree, it is all a matter of personal perspective. The good news from 2016 was that Hillary lost, the bad news was that Trump won. Such is life and politics. It was in my opinion bad politics to nominate someone as disliked as Trump was by America as a whole and more disliked than Trump by independents, 70% disliked of Hillary vs. 57% disliked of Trump back in 2016. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 02:52 PM

I was a Clinton supporter. I didn't imagine she was an angel but I don't require that in a candidate. I do require some sort of competence and experience. She'd have been an excellent president, as presidents go, not the best, not the worst. Trump is pretty obviously the worst.

And there's a fair chance he'll be re-elected. I do hope your joy at Trump's election or Clinton's defeat is tempered by the complete lack of effective government we have achieved by elevating a complete idiot to the position.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 06:08 PM

Not being all that partisan, I really didn't care who won in 2016. That is obvious by my third party vote against both. Would Clinton have been a better president, that is in my opinion a matter of personal perspectives. I'm glad Hillary lost, sad Trump won. That sums up my feelings.

I personally believe that each would have left this country in far worst shape when either one first enter office than when either one leaves office. That either one would have harmed this country. Of course that is my belief, not yours. It's my belief and perspectives that decide my vote. Not anyone else's.

I have no problem with those who think Trump is the greatest president ever and those who think he is the worst. Personal and political beliefs come into play. I also believe that almost any other Democrat other than Hillary would have trounced Trump. That Hillary by her laziness, her ho hum campaign, her inept campaign strategy, her persona that left folks with the feeling she was aloof and an elitist led to her loss more than the Russians or anything else.

Now I seen almost all Clinton supporters and most Democrats overlook the above and place all the blame on the Russians and none on Hillary. I've come to expect that, that doesn't bother me either. I think their nuts, way too partisan that perhaps they won't take the lessons learned from 2016 and apply them to 2020. It might be that those who won't learn from history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.

The biggest lesson the Democrats should learn is that candidates matter. Perhaps not to Republicans and Democrats, history has shown they vote for their party's candidate 90% of the time regardless of who their candidate is. It is to the independent, the less to non-partisan, the unaffiliated, the swing voter where candidates matter comes into play. Not the R or the D next to a candidate's name which for the most part is all the Republicans and democrats pay attention to. I wonder if the democrats have learned this yet. Time will tell.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 07:31 PM

Quote:
Simply put, to Clinton supporters she did no wrong. To the anti-Clintonista's, she should have been tarred and feathered and thrown in jail for putting this country's security at risk. You're not going to change any of their minds.

Perhaps true and valid but may I say, had Sec Pompeo done the same thing with emails, I would have come to the same conclusion i.e the minor infraction of embedding the confidential header "C" in emails and stripping out all the confidential material, and discussing responses to CIA black op programs from news article starters. Of course it was never stated but I wonder, were those threads classified because the news articles mentioned the programs or because of the discussion??? Had Sec Clinton and staff been embedding or attaching classified docs in those emails, yeah she should have been persecuted [ed.].

I did not support her but I was forced to vote for her as the alternative was far worse ... not just a little but far worse.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 07:44 PM

Quote:
Now I seen almost all Clinton supporters and most Democrats overlook the above and place all the blame on the Russians and none on Hillary.
I am neither but do think if one is to assign "blame" for a political loss, then it was a complex mix of things. Despite the fact she was a competent candidate she lacked authenticity. While there may have been some influence from Russian meddling (I suspect it was more to bring out the Trump vote rather than depress the Clinton vote), I believe the major factor in the loss was Dir Comey's last minute announcement. I could almost see the black ink on the pages before me listing the latest poll numbers changing as if in some surreal TV show.

Who could have predicted Mr trump would be the voice of bigotry in America? I never envisioned it as something which would inspire the deplorables to come out or give such a highly flawed human the chance to be president of the US.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 07:56 PM

Quote:
such a highly flawed human


Clinton might have been a highly flawed candidate but as human beings go she's not that bad.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 09:36 PM

I find it interesting. Most of the folk, on this site, seem to be lefties (Democrats). Most are also upset with the "Hillary Emails". I find that pretty interesting. The Trump daughter, Ivonka (I think) has been using a private email server since Trump took over (as far as I know). That being the case one would think that the lefties would be delighted to mention this one every now and then but, I guess, not really.

They, apparently, would rather beat up a fellow progressive/lefty/Democrat than attack a Trump! Amazing! Then, again, maybe not so much........... Seems, to me, that the democratic whatever would much rather beat up one of their own than upset the Trumpies of the world.

It took the Republicans about 40 years to fine tune their Hillary demonization but it REALLY worked for, apparently, EVERYBODY! Its really quite effective, Hitler knew it and, now, the Republicans can demonstrate it. It goes like:
Tell a lie. It needs to be big and it need to be repeated often over time. It will, during that time, become fact.

It also helps if you can get congress to hold 100 million dollars worth of failed hearing. Then tell everybody they were very successful. That will put the cherry on the top of the cake for sure!
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Simply put, to Clinton supporters she did no wrong. To the anti-Clintonista's, she should have been tarred and feathered and thrown in jail for putting this country's security at risk. You're not going to change any of their minds.

Perhaps true and valid but may I say, had Sec Pompeo done the same thing with emails, I would have come to the same conclusion i.e the minor infraction of embedding the confidential header "C" in emails and stripping out all the confidential material, and discussing responses to CIA black op programs from news article starters. Of course it was never stated but I wonder, were those threads classified because the news articles mentioned the programs or because of the discussion??? Had Sec Clinton and staff been embedding or attaching classified docs in those emails, yeah she should have been persecuted [ed.].

I did not support her but I was forced to vote for her as the alternative was far worse ... not just a little but far worse.


I think we'll just have to disagree. Those who worked for DOD thought it was a very serious breach of electronic security. Those who are politically inclined to support Hillary did not.

Of course State Department isn't DOD either. A presidential candidate isn't your typical PFC, Sp/4 or GS-6 either. There you have it.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I think we'll just have to disagree. Those who worked for DOD thought it was a very serious breach of electronic security. Those who are politically inclined to support Hillary did not.

I seriously doubt that James Comey supported Hillary politically. Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 02:18 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I find it interesting. Most of the folk, on this site, seem to be lefties (Democrats). Most are also upset with the "Hillary Emails". I find that pretty interesting. The Trump daughter, Ivonka (I think) has been using a private email server since Trump took over (as far as I know). That being the case one would think that the lefties would be delighted to mention this one every now and then but, I guess, not really.

That's not the reason why it's not mentioned. Ivanka AND Jared have done the same thing that Hillary was accused of. I'm sure it's been mentioned before. The problem is that there is so much to call-out Trump on, that you just don't know where to begin. Hmm

But this much is true: if Trump is calling someone out on some thing - he's doing the very same behavior himself - I guarantee. smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 06:17 PM

And perhaps you hit it on the nail head .... they worked at State not DoD. I think I said it in a different way in a previous post.

Maybe they should all be sent to boot camp for 6 weeks before assuming their positions.

Out of curiosity I have to wonder if the current State Dept is not guilty of similar "crimes". Maybe FOIA should be consulted.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
And perhaps you hit it on the nail head .... they worked at State not DoD. I think I said it in a different way in a previous post.

Maybe they should all be sent to boot camp for 6 weeks before assuming their positions.

Out of curiosity I have to wonder if the current State Dept is not guilty of similar "crimes". Maybe FOIA should be consulted.


Unless the State Department has changed drastically, I very sure they are as lax as ever about both electronic and physical security as ever. It a mentality at State. Then again, you have two entirely different missions between State and DOD.

The State Department just doesn't give security a high priority. At least in my opinion. Not even close to DOD standards.

This was true way before Hillary and I don't expect much have changed since.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 06:44 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
I think we'll just have to disagree. Those who worked for DOD thought it was a very serious breach of electronic security. Those who are politically inclined to support Hillary did not.

I seriously doubt that James Comey supported Hillary politically. Hmm


I haven't the slightest idea who Comey supported. I know Comey became a Democratic Party hero when he exonerated or at least refused to charge Hillary over her E-Mails. Then The Republicans wanted him fired.

Then a couple of weeks prior to the election, Comey reopened the investigation. Now he was a Republican Hero with the Democrats wanting him fired.

Finally when Trump fired Comey, he went back to being a Democratic Party hero. Go figure. Or perhaps I should say that is politics as usual.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I haven't the slightest idea who Comey supported. I know Comey became a Democratic Party hero when he exonerated or at least refused to charge Hillary over her E-Mails. Then The Republicans wanted him fired.

Jame Comey is...was a life-long Republican as has been widely reported. As is Clapper and Mueller.

Originally Posted By: perotista
Then a couple of weeks prior to the election, Comey reopened the investigation. Now he was a Republican Hero with the Democrats wanting him fired.

Finally when Trump fired Comey, he went back to being a Democratic Party hero.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. smile , Hmm
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 10:47 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
I haven't the slightest idea who Comey supported. I know Comey became a Democratic Party hero when he exonerated or at least refused to charge Hillary over her E-Mails. Then The Republicans wanted him fired.

Jame Comey is...was a life-long Republican as has been widely reported. As is Clapper and Mueller.

Originally Posted By: perotista
Then a couple of weeks prior to the election, Comey reopened the investigation. Now he was a Republican Hero with the Democrats wanting him fired.

Finally when Trump fired Comey, he went back to being a Democratic Party hero.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. smile , Hmm


I think your last sentence sums it up.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/06/19 04:58 AM

I think Comey and Mueller both are honorable and ethical men who also are life-long Republicans. Their political affiliation may be different than mine, but they both served the US for a very long time, and they both got the shitty end of the stick at the end of their government service careers. Trump's main problem with them is not their Party affiliation, but the fact that they tried to do the right thing. I think they will wind up the heroes of this story, when it's over. And "Trump Supporter" will be a label Republican politicians will run from for decades.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/17/19 07:30 PM

Very bad sign for Trump reelection:

Even after three campaign rallies, millions of dollars in ad money, and visits from Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Pence, the Democratic Governor of Louisiana has won reelection. His Republican opponent made the election all about his support for and support from Trump. His initial ads did't even have his own picture in them! Just Trump, Trump, Trump.

And he lost, lost, lost. Trump won Louisiana by 20% in 2016.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 01:25 AM

Very bad sign for the Biden campaign...he has finally taken a stand on something! Drawn a line in the sand that he will not cross.

He will see to it that cannabis remains illegal! Because it might be a gateway drug, there's not enough research...
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 01:50 AM

So, every cannabis user should send him a message. Especially all the medical users. Nothing makes you change your platform like a call from AARP.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 12:37 PM

Here's an interesting article from Gallup that was in my inbox this AM.

"Democrats Thinking Strategically About 2020 Nominee Choice"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/268448/demo...ign=syndication

It'd be interesting to find out what you all think about it.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 01:28 PM


Originally Posted By: perotista
Here's an interesting article from Gallup that was in my inbox this AM.

"Democrats Thinking Strategically About 2020 Nominee Choice"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/268448/demo...ign=syndication

It'd be interesting to find out what you all think about it.
It would be interesting to break those results down by State. My bet is that this explains the results in Kentucky and Louisiana this week in the Governor's races, and probably Trump's success in 2016.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 01:46 PM

.
Originally Posted By: perotista
I haven't the slightest idea who Comey supported. I know Comey became a Democratic Party hero when he exonerated or at least refused to charge Hillary over her E-Mails. Then The Republicans wanted him fired.

Then a couple of weeks prior to the election, Comey reopened the investigation. Now he was a Republican Hero with the Democrats wanting him fired.

Finally when Trump fired Comey, he went back to being a Democratic Party hero. Go figure. Or perhaps I should say that is politics as usual.
I think you've horribly misinterpreted this process. Here's my take: Comey is a principled, conservative, ambitious, lifelong government servant who did a really, really stupid thing. And he did it in violation of DoJ rules for what he thought we're good reasons. When he had the first press conference, he had good intentions of protecting his institution (and himself) from criticism, but it was wrong - it interjected his personal conclusions into the public sphere over the interests of the institution. When he made the October announcement, he compounded the error exponentially. He f'd up, big time and gifted is the worst President ever.

In short, he was no one's "hero", but was "useful" in different ways, for different purposes for each party's interests. Then, in typical Trump fashion, he was shat upon for the most unprincipled reason possible, obviating all of that utility.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 02:05 PM

I think you could break it down to the northeast and west coast wanting someone more liberal/progressive while most of the rest of the nation want a more moderate candidate.

Looking at the regional breakdown by a YouGov poll shows the democrats of the Northeast prefer Warren over Biden 37-19 and in the west 26-16. The midwest and south prefer Biden. Question 45

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7umtlf80ov/econTabReport.pdf

Regardless of who the Democrats nominate is, we already know the northeast and west coast is going very heavily Democratic. Adding Illinois that 218 electoral votes in states that the Democratic candidate will win by 15 million plus popular aggregated votes.

It's the Midwest where you have your battleground states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa. It's the midwest that prefers Biden. You can add North Carolina, Georgia and Florida in the south's battleground states that also prefer Biden.

We know regardless of who is the democratic nominee, Biden, Warren, Sanders, Gaylord Cumquat from the neither regions are guaranteed those 218 safe/solid Democratic states. What we don't know is who has the best chance in winning states from the Midwest and South.The battleground states.

This is a problem for the Democrats to figure out.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 08:50 PM

Quote:
This is a problem for the Democrats to figure out.


Before the election rolls around Democrats are going to figure out that whomever they nominate will beat Trump. They don't need to be conservative to win. They don't need to nominate the smelly old empty suit who wants to keep weed illegal. 76% of Democrats are in favor of legalization...Biden is not.

In fact, 76% of Democrats would rather have someone else as president. He may get the nomination anyway. Despite his being generally unable to remember where he is at any given time or what he was talking about. He's pretty sure weed is bad stuff though.

Quote:
Gaylord Cumquat from the nether regions


You mean Mayor Pete? The queer candidate? He'll gas before the third round, or in horse race terms he'll fade...But you really just can't help liking the guy. I'm sort of rooting for him even though he'll totally feck up my carefully planned predictions. If his surge to the front in Iowa tells us anything, it's that he's the man for middle America.

He won't interfere much with my overall agenda though. If I can't have a progressive candidate running against Trump I'll settle for a centrist Millenial.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 10:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
This is a problem for the Democrats to figure out.


Before the election rolls around Democrats are going to figure out that whomever they nominate will beat Trump. They don't need to be conservative to win. They don't need to nominate the smelly old empty suit who wants to keep weed illegal. 76% of Democrats are in favor of legalization...Biden is not.

In fact, 76% of Democrats would rather have someone else as president. He may get the nomination anyway. Despite his being generally unable to remember where he is at any given time or what he was talking about. He's pretty sure weed is bad stuff though.

Quote:
Gaylord Cumquat from the nether regions


You mean Mayor Pete? The queer candidate? He'll gas before the third round, or in horse race terms he'll fade...But you really just can't help liking the guy. I'm sort of rooting for him even though he'll totally feck up my carefully planned predictions. If his surge to the front in Iowa tells us anything, it's that he's the man for middle America.

He won't interfere much with my overall agenda though. If I can't have a progressive candidate running against Trump I'll settle for a centrist Millenial.

No I didn't mean Mayor Pete. I could have used Joe Blow or Smith or anyone. I'm kind of liking Mayor Pete compared to the rest. Of course I've decided my candidate is Tom Steyer. If he's still around come Georgia primary time, I'll vote for him. Klobuchar, Gabbard along with Buttigieg all interest me as second choices. Not some tired old folks from the northeast. We already have one of those as president.

Now we'll see, independents, the less to non-partisan's can be finicky and quirky. Now I know you're not worried about them. But then again, neither was Hillary.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/19/19 11:39 PM

Nope, I'm not worried about independents because I think they'll break heavily for the Democratic candidate. Despite what polling might tell us. Despite what polling told us in 2016. This is an entirely different race.

This time around if every single person who voted for Trump votes for him again he will still lose.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/20/19 12:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Nope, I'm not worried about independents because I think they'll break heavily for the Democratic candidate. Despite what polling might tell us. Despite what polling told us in 2016. This is an entirely different race.

This time around if every single person who voted for Trump votes for him again he will still lose.


Okay,
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/20/19 06:14 PM

Clinton was an extremely unpopular candidate. She won the election by nearly 3 million votes. We have no candidates carrying that kind of baggage this time around. Except Trump. Has he gained any new voters? Has he done anything to get out the vote among Republicans? has he made a lot of enemies? Pissed off Democrats on a daily basis?

No, I'm not worried about independents, Democrats, or Republicans. I'm not worried about third party voters, I'm not worried in the least about which party will win a year from now. I'm not even terribly concerned about which candidate wins the Democratic nomination. I don't want it to be Biden but all the others are fine with me.

Every election is about turnout. The polls can effect the turnout as was the case in 2016 when polling assured voters that Clinton would win handily so they didn't turn out in sufficient numbers. If Democratic voters ever imagined that Donald Trump could actually win they'd have got off their asses and voted. We owe Donald Trump's victory to the media and to the pollsters.

There will be no such apathy this time around. This time it's personal. This time voters will be seeking revenge.

It's going to be a bloodbath.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else.

But the recent elections in Kentucky and Louisiana should go a ways to show how even reliably red states are no longer reliable. These are "polls" that count, polls that should have gone the other way. With any other president they would have gone the other way.

Hide and watch, bucko, it's gonna be a hoot!
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/21/19 10:14 PM

I think that, a couple of years ago, I posted a list of stuff that the Trump administration had done. I think it was pages long and Trump had been in office less than 1 year. Since then the number of what I consider offenses against citizens has, at least, quintupled. I would be nice if somebody with the time could re-capitulate offenses that can be described in single sentences, like:
Trump administration has:
reduced drinking water regulations
changed law to allow coal
wants to log the Tongass national forest
assaulting national monuments
caging children
throwing military veterans out of country
assaults lifelong civil servants for speaking truth
lies approximately 80% of the time
changed law to allow coal waste to pollute streams
etc.

My thought is the Dems should produce such a list of items so that candidates, when lacking for something to say could simply read a any number of such things, for the edification of those held in thrall, by Trump, due to their incredible ignorance. I suspect, for instance, that his administration has, at least, 200 environmental changes that could be added to such a list.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/13/19 03:35 PM

The political economist, Mark Blyth, had predicted the possibility of Brexit fatigue being the major factor in the run up to yesterday’s vote. Here’s an article he referenced a few weeks before yesterdays historic Labor Party wipe out:

‘In 2016, voter dissatisfaction in the US mid-west, and in large swaths of the central and northern UK, gave rise to an electoral earthquake. First it was the June Brexit referendum, where a narrow majority of UK voters opted to leave the European Union. Five months later, it was Trump's similarly narrow victory.

‘In one case it was a man who served as the hammer that forged an electoral realignment. In the other it was a single-issue vote. But at the heart of both was a conservative populism centred around trade and immigration. This week's UK general election is a key test to see whether 2016 was a sign of a durable political shift in the UK. And, like the 2016 Brexit vote, there will be many in the US watching carefully to see if British politics once again foreshadows events to come in the US.’

Will the U.K. elections for shadow the U.S.?

The knives are out and Corbyn has already announced plans to step down. It looks as though the north central areas have confirmed they’re position on Brexit and have left the Labor party.
One wonders if the same dynamic will be happen here in 2020. Will the impeachment be viewed as an attempt to overturn an election?
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/13/19 09:06 PM

The world's gone crazy. I honestly don't know enough about the European economy but it seems like Brexit is likely to do a lot more damage than it does good. Or at least that's what I've gleaned from the headlines and such.

But maybe Brentrance was a bad idea in the first place?

Let's not forget that the British Isles have been at war with the continent for literally thousands of years. There could be some tribal issues with the merger.

If the conservative victory is a harbinger of things to come, then so be it. We're fecked and there's nought to be done. Did you know we're overdue for a recession? And it's not really looking like there's gonna be one anytime soon. The tax cuts will keep the economy propped up as they slowly bankrupt the government.

The number one rule of the government game is not to get caught with that tarbaby in your lap. Like W passed it to Bams right before the music stopped.

A lot of folks vote their pocketbooks, whoever is in charge gets the blame or the credit for their personal financial well being. The myth of the good economy is that everyone in the country is just going deeper and deeper in debt and the government is going deeper and deeper into debt and a handful of megacorporations are pulling all the strings to funnel all of the wealth int the world into the hands....oh dear...am I ranting...nevermind.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/13/19 09:23 PM

No, that's a fair summary. Democrats really need to start fixing things soon. Personally, I think Brexit is a result of Putin's guys meddling to stir up racism and xenophobia in England before Brexit ever came up. (They certainly did exactly that here.) I'm sure Vlad loves the idea of a divided and weak EU. They used the internet to get people riled up about Muslim refugees, so they would want to cut off their flow as part of the EU. They also did the same with Poles, and other Europeans living and working in England.

England had Commonwealth immigrants for decades before this, including lots of brown people from Africa and India. And yes, including Muslims. It's only recently they have decided to shoot themselves in the face (Brexit) to prevent more immigration.

Vlad is chuckling.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/13/19 09:55 PM

Yesterday the house had a 14 hour of 'debate'. I didn't watch much of it as it was, except for a few instances, got incredibly boring after the first hour or so. I did notice that whilst the Republicans charged the Dems with everything but the kitchen sink the Dems, for the most part, stuck to the story. When one actually stepped out of the story, and actually attacked Trump for stuff, it was a genuine boredom breaker. Anyway, it was, as far as I was concerned another effort, by the Dems that fell flat on their collective faces. The only real amusement was when the Dems shut it down to continue in the morning and the Republicans, who had spent the entire time trying to extend the boredom infinitely went ballistic that the Dems chose not to have the vote in the middle of the night.

I also watched the vote which came, and went, rather swiftly.

All in all, so far, I actually saw little that would encourage voters to all come out and vote. Instead we were treated to congressional process. That being said I remember one Republican who was on a geniune run, and, obviously, thrilled with the sound of his own braying, and claiming the entire process was the reason congress was held in such low regard. That got my attention. Their current approval rating seems to be about 20% https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/politics/poll-of-the-week-congress-approval-rating/index.html
Congress is also less popular than hemeroids (amonst other things)
https://www.politifact.com/california/st...oids-and-herpe/

They just don't seem to get it. NONE of them get it! I am going to beat a dead horse on this one - sorry about that. The simple fact is that the founders set up a system wherein two sides would sit down and base decisions on what they could both live with. Its that simple. Congress, however, doesn't seem to see it that way. I believe that those on the left are more agreeable to this system than the right but I am not sure by all that much. One would think that they could come to this conclusion all on their own but, I guess not. Instead everybody wants to have a fight and 'win'. The simple fact is that the system isn't about winning and losing but doing their f***ing jobs! ie. sitting down and hammering out stuff they can both live with without rancor, accusation, hate, screaming, yelling, and making much noise.

I was going to suggest that gov establish an office that regulated congressional behavior which did not support sides. When somebody acted up, or even a party acted up, it got excoriated by this office and every news media in the land would be forced to carry the story. Then I changed my mind. Seems to me, given the current crop of jerks, they would glory in their lunacy.

I am sure there are people who are experts at getting two sides together to reach some kind of agreement. My solution is to gather all the jerks of congress (most or all) in a big room and make them listen to how they are supposed to behave - the whole damned bunch of them. They get to say nothing they just must sit there and listen. That should occur every morning for a solid month. No days off, no vacations, no 3 hour days, they just get lectured on how to behave and what they are there to do (the nation's business and NOTHING else!). Its unfortunate that we don't have a national election where we could get something like this passed (just to see what would happen).

Then, just maybe, they might get the message. One would think that they just might want to be more popular than hemorrhoids. Then, again, considering how the whole bunch of them behave, and their obvious inability to behave like people with a job to do and actually do it eventually the whole bunch will get fired and there will be blood on the streets. I was going to mention they probably need a good spanking but, on reflection, that is probably an error in that they know how high they are thought of and yet they just continue to behave like kindergarten children battling over toys when nobody is looking. That being said they might just want to be spanked (which is a bit disgusting). Instead they don't do their jobs with the entire world watching and, obviously, either don't understand the system or just don't give a damn!

Just saying..................
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/13/19 10:46 PM

Again implying both Parties are equally at fault.

Since 1965:

Republicans in power for 28 years
120 indictments
89 convictions
34 prison sentences

Democrats in power for 25 years
3 indictments
1 conviction
1 prison sentence

Remind me again how both Parties are basically the same?

Even while the impeachment is going on, Democrats are passing bills that the country needs. The impeachment just crowds them out of the news and the Senate refuses to even vote on them. "Do nothing" is not a Congress problem. It's a Republican problem.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/13/19 11:47 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Again implying both Parties are equally at fault.

Since 1965:

Republicans in power for 28 years
120 indictments
89 convictions
34 prison sentences

Democrats in power for 25 years
3 indictments
1 conviction
1 prison sentence

Remind me again how both Parties are basically the same?

Even while the impeachment is going on, Democrats are passing bills that the country needs. The impeachment just crowds them out of the news and the Senate refuses to even vote on them. "Do nothing" is not a Congress problem. It's a Republican problem.


I don't recall doing any "both-siderism" on this issue.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/14/19 12:45 AM

That’s good. Democrats should run on that.

“We’re better than them!”

Oh wait...

They already did.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/14/19 04:21 AM

A Progressive’s Guide to Choosing Between Bernie and Warren

Should there be a need.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/14/19 07:00 PM

I did. The Republicans are waaaay ahead of the Democrats when it comes to wrong. They just can't help themselves. We have now been exposed, in just the last week their Incredible skills of lying, innuendo, name calling, volume, and all the rest. Still, the Dems too have had their problems over the years and, in the end, contributed to the cause of 'winning' instead of doing their jobs. An examle might be interesting. I remember when Biden bragged on working with the other side to get things done (the way its designed) and the serious lefties attacked him full bore for even thinking it was the right thing to do. Yep, if its a contest then the Republicans win hands down and they deserve it! They work, very hard, at it, credit where credit due! (but the Dems to have contributed to the mess)

I continue to believe, however, that the Democrats are amazing at not really fighting back in any meaningful way. Think about it. Called the party of tax and spend and they don't even bother to note that most of that comes from bailing out the nation after yet another Republican financial disaster (which they rarely mention). Trump regularly attacks them for being the party of do nothing and obstruct everything. This, in spite of the fact that the Republicans are really the do nothing party. They have, for instance, passed a whole 50 pieces of legislation in the last 3 years whilst the Dems have sent those same Republicans well over 270 pieces of legislation which Moscow Mitch refuses to even put to a vote. This being the case when was the last time you heard a Democrat, except for Pelosi, point even a bit of that (there are exceptions but they are few and far between). Nope - they just ignore yet another lying slander from the Right. It just goes on and on. The Democrats, I think, are determined to be the civilized ones and just don't care what they are called (a serious mistake as far as I am concerned).

I will also point out, in passing, how the UK treated their 'socialists'. Makes no difference over here, the Democrats just keep on preaching socialism at every opportunity. Unfortunately there are signs that will cause the Democrats to lose and Trump to serve another 4 years unless they are very lucky.

I continue to hope I am dead wrong on this one.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/16/19 02:46 AM

The predictable republican response. Not that it ever occurs to conservatives to work with progressives for a change. Smother them in the primaries and break bread with, well.., what? Ethnofascists? Republicans? One of the two parties we’re only ever supposed to have?

A reminder of how much centrism has failed:

‘The centrist Liberal Democrats – who campaigned harder against Jeremy Corbyn than Boris Johnson – failed to deliver a surge in seats. Its leader, Jo Swinson, lost her own seat after her performance in the general election devolved rapidly. The Lib Dems presented themselves similarly to establishment Democrats across the pond: a respectable third way between the Conservatives and Labour, and effectively a single-issue party committed to staying in the EU by any means necessary. Last spring Nancy Pelosi met with members of Change UK, a collection of Labour MPs who quit the party over opposition to its leftward shift. Two of the three MPs she met with lost their seats last night. The other spent this election season urging marginals – think swing districts, in US-speak – to vote for Johnson.

Let’s also not forget these politicians’ and pundits’ recent record in the US. Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama and handed a rash of state legislatures over to Republican trifectas, neglecting the kind of decentralized, grassroots organizing that fueled his campaign to victory. They lost miserably in 2016 mounting a wildly unpopular candidate committed to maintaining the status quo. And none of them have faced any consequences, continuing to lead the party into what may well be an abyss. Their counterparts elsewhere are losing ground to the far right, or ceding on points like migration. The left may have lost, but the center is hollowing out.

Full article
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/16/19 03:31 AM

Quote:
I continue to believe, however, that the Democrats are amazing at not really fighting back in any meaningful way. Think about it.


Yes, think about it...that would upset the applecart wouldn't it?

Something might change mightn't it?

Think also about the fact that the candidates the DNC wants on the ballot are the ones most like the Republicans.
And they usually get what they want.

Which isn't what the majority of the people want...it's what the rich ones want and what corporate lobbyists buy.

What I'm sayin' here is that the game is rigged. Both parties answer to the same master.

The voters have within their powers the ability to change this. But every time the opportunity arrives they get flim-flammed out of it one way or another. We have before us an opportunity...so it's really just a matter of waiting to see how we get flim-flammed out of it.

One good way would be to split the progressive vote to give the win to the party favorite. I wonder if they've thought of that?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/16/19 05:32 PM

Well now,

Here's a democrat that's more honest about his orientation at least:
Anti-impeachment Democrat poised to switch parties

Is this what you mean about working across the aisle, JGW? Really, what's the difference between this guy and, say, party favored WV's Joe Manchin or Illinois' Dan Lipinski that are backed over more progressive challengers by the Democrats primary structures (DSCC, DCCC)?

Begs the question why the Democratic party talks about being 'left' but always favors the right, even in blue voting districts. Odd that. Such a mystery there...

Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/16/19 07:39 PM

Chunk, you work about as hard as anybody I have heard of to stand up and fight for absolutely nothing. its truly weird. If I was to ask you just what you are for I am absolutely sure I would be gifted with incredibly ambiguous technical political blather that, basically, would probably confuse the hell out of me as well as hurt my feelings as I am kinda delicate.

Apparently you are for NOT working across the isle. Instead you choose to use a quisling, who is determined to keep his job, to define just what "work across the isle" means. The simple fact is that working across the isle means that two people, on opposing sides, agree that there is a problem and that they may have the capacity to both get it done by agreeing to what to do. This is not compromise so much as two reasonable people agreeing to a solution they can both live with. Its that simple. I suspect you actually don't believe that is even possible. You might actually consider such a thing although, as far as I can tell you belong on the camp of the purists (you know, that select group of political nazis who would rather condemn than support, and would never deal with the enemy no matter what). What bothers me about that one is that group actually voted for Trump last time around because they didn't get their way.

One can almost appreciate your capacity to work, very hard, to make sure that Trump gets another 4 years. Its really not so much about left and right as much as there being 2 sides (without the labels). To vote for a side you have to decide whether you want the Trump side or the other side. Apparently your druthers is the Trump side, or, possibly, you just don't care and the important part is really the blather.

At the risk of p*ssing you off it sincerely hope you lose. I am saying that because you are win/lose kinda guy. I know you want to win but have yet been unable to figure out, in plain words, just where the hell you stand.

I, on the other hand, want Trump gone. I tend to not deal with winning and losing as that, in itself is a dead end and got us where we are today. I just want the Jackass gone so we can all move on (both sides). In other words I am completely disinterested in what the Dems do, say or act. I just want Trump gone and, apparently, you don't care one way or another as the important thing is to pick nits whilst displaying an incredible, and impressive, capacity for political jargon.

Again, I just want Trump gone. I have absolutely no interest in anything but that which tends to help that along. I literally do not care about anything else. If the Dems win THEN I will care but, until then..... I stand neutral on impeachment as I have no idea if its gonna help, not help, or doesn't make a difference.

I just want Trump gone.......... (and I seem to have a lot of company on that one)
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/16/19 08:06 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw

I, on the other hand, want Trump gone. I tend to not deal with winning and losing as that, in itself is a dead end and got us where we are today. I just want the Jackass gone so we can all move on (both sides).


People act like the republic is going to recover from all of this.

I mean, it would, if Trump was the root cause problem. But he isn't.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/16/19 09:56 PM

Ayup...late stage capitalism is the problem. I want that gone.

I want evangelical Christianity gone too. I want white supremacy gone. I want corporate money out of politics, and I want income inequality addressed.

Getting rid of DJT will do nothing. We'll still be rocking back and forth in the same mudhole as he walks away.

Only a progressive federal agenda can dig us out of this mess. It's important who replaces Trump.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 03:15 AM

I would say replacing Trump with Pence is not what Pelosi has in mind. I think she wants the triple crown: Presidency, House, and Senate going Democratic in 2020. Then all sorts of things become possible.

But that won't be enough. You have to show everybody that acting like a dictator in the White House has very negative consequences, else lots of future Presidents will do the same thing. Start by indicting Trump for all the criminal things he has done, by both feds and states. Then charge all his little troll helpers for their roles in the conspiracy. Then wrap it all in a RICO charge and confiscate all their ill-gotten gains. Everybody who contributed to this mess should be ruined.

And I think that, more than anything, will end this shared delusion about "alternate reality".
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 03:48 AM

Bow Bow Bow Bow
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 03:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Ayup...late stage capitalism is the problem. I want that gone.


That is a good one, but not even the problem.

The problem is that Americans have grown weary of the burdens of even the illusion of self-government.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 03:30 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Chunk, you work about as hard as anybody I have heard of to stand up and fight for absolutely nothing. its truly weird. If I was to ask you just what you are for I am absolutely sure I would be gifted with incredibly ambiguous technical political blather that, basically, would probably confuse the hell out of me as well as hurt my feelings as I am kinda delicate.

Apparently you are for NOT working across the isle. Instead you choose to use a quisling, who is determined to keep his job, to define just what "work across the isle" means. The simple fact is that working across the isle means that two people, on opposing sides, agree that there is a problem and that they may have the capacity to both get it done by agreeing to what to do. This is not compromise so much as two reasonable people agreeing to a solution they can both live with. Its that simple. I suspect you actually don't believe that is even possible. You might actually consider such a thing although, as far as I can tell you belong on the camp of the purists (you know, that select group of political nazis who would rather condemn than support, and would never deal with the enemy no matter what). What bothers me about that one is that group actually voted for Trump last time around because they didn't get their way.

One can almost appreciate your capacity to work, very hard, to make sure that Trump gets another 4 years. Its really not so much about left and right as much as there being 2 sides (without the labels). To vote for a side you have to decide whether you want the Trump side or the other side. Apparently your druthers is the Trump side, or, possibly, you just don't care and the important part is really the blather.

At the risk of p*ssing you off it sincerely hope you lose. I am saying that because you are win/lose kinda guy. I know you want to win but have yet been unable to figure out, in plain words, just where the hell you stand.

I, on the other hand, want Trump gone. I tend to not deal with winning and losing as that, in itself is a dead end and got us where we are today. I just want the Jackass gone so we can all move on (both sides). In other words I am completely disinterested in what the Dems do, say or act. I just want Trump gone and, apparently, you don't care one way or another as the important thing is to pick nits whilst displaying an incredible, and impressive, capacity for political jargon.

Again, I just want Trump gone. I have absolutely no interest in anything but that which tends to help that along. I literally do not care about anything else. If the Dems win THEN I will care but, until then..... I stand neutral on impeachment as I have no idea if its gonna help, not help, or doesn't make a difference.

I just want Trump gone.......... (and I seem to have a lot of company on that one)


That right there...

You've encapsulated so much in one post of the willfully obtuse argument that come from conservatives.

First, I have repeated myself over my positions for months/years now. Can't help you with your confusion. You want to know my position on any topic? Just ask.

Second, I have no idea why anyone would fetishize Bi-partison 'working across the aisle'. That's been a bait and switch over the last forty years with the results mostly being Democrats carrying water for Republicans on key issues.

What you seem to be arguing for, JGW, is a 'return to normalcy'. That ship sailed and was what the Democrats tried to run on it in 2016. That is why they wanted Trump to win his primary and run against him the first place. Not that we'll see any real discussion of that chestnut. No 'come to Jesus' on that political malpractice. A more out of touch political party I have ever seen.

How on earth anyone would insist on rallying behind that incompetent management that directly helped bring us Trump in the first place is beyond my pay grade. But from the smoking crater of 2016 they crawl, pointing everywhere they can to blame crashing the plane into the dirt and insisting we voters get behind them and board the next one with the same crew back at the controls. The most important thing is to get back into the blue sky!!!

Brudder please....

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 04:04 PM

Most people I know have grown disillusioned of any hope of self government. No one thinks the government works for them.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 04:17 PM

That is a Hollywood fantasy ending that avoids having to do politics.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 07:11 PM

Quote:
Most people I know have grown disillusioned of any hope of self government. No one thinks the government works for them.


Now there's a line that could have been pulled from any society anywhere in the history of mankind. But, truth be told, government works okay for most people. They go about their daily lives with little to no interference from government. Taxes aren't too high, law enforcement not too militarized, regulations not too restrictive. Jobs are available, there's no sewage in the streets and garbage gets collected. The bodies of the dead are regularly carted off.

An increase in the number of poor people is often an indicator that government is doing a bad job. Government works very very well for the very very wealthy and they are practicing self government as we speak.

I submit that it has always been thus and forevermore will be.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 08:08 PM

1. I did that once and was dazzled with political bamboozlement
2. its the way the system is designed. You simple don't get

I was not arguing about anything simply making a statement. Just something else you absolutely refuse to get. Your purity, however, is without peer.

Oh, if this is an argument - YOU WIN! (and I don't give a sh*t)

Oh, I have claimed professional status as a wishful thinker. You, however, I think, absolutely win on that one too!

When Trump wins his second term he should, I think, personally thank you..............
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 08:08 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
That is a Hollywood fantasy ending that avoids having to do politics.


What does it say about a portion of the left that the only thing they care about is tearing down the only thing standing between the world and a United States run by modern-day Nazis?

The stench of unthinking narcissism and privilege is overwhelming.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 08:26 PM

Quote:
Second, I have no idea why anyone would fetishize Bi-partison 'working across the aisle'. That's been a bait and switch over the last forty years with the results mostly being Democrats carrying water for Republicans on key issues.



Yep. That right there. Bipartisanship is dead. It was them that killed it, not us. When the two parties are able to agree it is only on non partisan issues(like giving a medal to a dog or more money to the rich).

We literally have a cold civil war raging. One party or the other is going to have emerge a clear winner and if one of them wins we all lose. If the other one wins we might still all lose.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 08:32 PM

Quote:
the only thing standing between the world and a United States run by modern-day Nazis?

Oh mighty and powerful Democrat Party save us all from Republicans!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/17/19 09:37 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
1. I did that once and was dazzled with political bamboozlement
2. its the way the system is designed. You simple don't get

I was not arguing about anything simply making a statement. Just something else you absolutely refuse to get. Your purity, however, is without peer.

Oh, if this is an argument - YOU WIN! (and I don't give a sh*t)

Oh, I have claimed professional status as a wishful thinker. You, however, I think, absolutely win on that one too!

When Trump wins his second term he should, I think, personally thank you..............


Spicey!!

1. No idea what your on about but I like the innuendo you managed to show horn in.
2. Where is it written that there shall be only two corporate parties. I’ll wait.....
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/18/19 05:20 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

2. Where is it written that there shall be only two corporate parties. I’ll wait.....



Your wait is over, because where is it written that alternate parties are supposed to just magically appear by mere wishing, magically appear with a full set of down-ticket support and filled seats in local, city, county, state and Congress?

Where is it written that setting up a PO Box, website and social media account is enough to deserve being elected POTUS straight from the git-go with no foundational support?

You're already on record as flatly stating that you should not be considered a voice for solutions, so you're just here to gripe.
So it's a cinch you're probably not that interested in doing the long term legwork to stand an alternate party up with the needed numbers to actually win elections.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/18/19 02:23 PM

Duverger's Law takes no prisoners. Our system will only have two parties large enough to matter at any given time.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/18/19 07:25 PM

Two corporate parties? Huh?

On the other hand, nice bit of gaslight - well done!
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/18/19 09:11 PM

Quote:
Two corporate parties?


Yes, two corporate parties is what we're stuck with and what many are fighting against. Two of the leading candidates are taking no corporate money. The others have invited corporate sponsorship.

Maybe you can guess which ones...?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/19/19 12:03 AM

Gaslight!....

Does claiming ‘gaslight!’ with someone you disagree with start becoming a form of gaslighting itself?

Just wondering where the edges are of this vague use of the word. Almost as vague as the now familiar ‘whataboutism’.

The now all to common response when you have nothing to counter with or are intellectually lazy.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/19/19 12:26 AM

Very incisive and pointed argument you've got there, Chunks!

allhail
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/19/19 12:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

2. Where is it written that there shall be only two corporate parties. I’ll wait.....



Your wait is over, because where is it written that alternate parties are supposed to just magically appear by mere wishing, magically appear with a full set of down-ticket support and filled seats in local, city, county, state and Congress?

Where is it written that setting up a PO Box, website and social media account is enough to deserve being elected POTUS straight from the git-go with no foundational support?

You're already on record as flatly stating that you should not be considered a voice for solutions, so you're just here to gripe.
So it's a cinch you're probably not that interested in doing the long term legwork to stand an alternate party up with the needed numbers to actually win elections.



I don’t know Jeff. I don’t have the slightest idea. Those are your questions, not mine.


JGW seems to think the he knows how the system should work based on some design I may not get. I’d like a citation for his claim. That used to be a way to keep things semi-legit. Back in Phil’s day I think.

Did I say that I should not be considered a voice for solutions? Where was that?
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/19/19 02:31 PM

Just because 3rd parties are funnier doesn't make them better, anyhow. Any credible 3rd party would be *immediately* corrupted. Like by next Tuesday.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/20/19 09:08 PM

Quote:
Any credible 3rd party would be *immediately* corrupted. Like by next Tuesday.


By your measure, corruption is the norm then. Just part of the equation. That may explain a lot about why Republicans stand behind Trump. They expect their politicians to be corrupt. Democrats pretend they aren't equally corrupt. Third Parties promise they won't be as corrupt but they're human too.

I think we could all agree that Obama was the least corrupt president since Carter. As I recall he was worth about $1-2 Mil when he first took office(Mostly from book sales).
He just bought a $12 million dollar house.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/20/19 09:59 PM

Gaslighting is making statements that are sensless and have no reference thereby causing doubt. You have expertise in this arena at that. Mr Trump also is an expert but more practiced.

My reference is the two corporate party thing that makes absolutely no sense to me. Probably due to ignorance?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/21/19 04:00 AM

‘It’s the servant who takes the money.’

A child can understand this.

One has to only look at how our politics are conducted and underwritten and whose interests are being served to understand we have two factions of one capitalist party.

You may prefer it to be that way but you have not offered any proof it is by legitimate design. It’s only your self serving opinion as far as I can tell without much evidence.

As your someone who can’t tell what is leftist politics from right wing politics, beyond your confessed elementary school education of it, it’s ironic that you find exception to the argument that there’s not much significant difference between the two corporate parties we have currently.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/21/19 04:46 AM

Since 1965

Republicans................Democrats
(28 years in power)........(25 years in power)
120 indictments............3 indictments
89 convictions...............1 conviction
34 prison sentences........1 prison sentence

Remind me again how both parties are basically the same?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/21/19 01:54 PM

They are primarily in service to corporate interests.

Does fanning people with political rap sheets win votes or mean anything to anyone?
The notorious Democratic crime bill jailed the poor, minorities and addicted in numbers to rival anything republicans could dream up. You think you’ve got something to say about the parties cleaned rap sheet to voters?
What, exactly?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/21/19 02:00 PM

Bankers responsible for record breaking white collar crime levels leading to the housing collapse and economic recession have an even better rap sheet PIA.
By your logic, should we be electing them?

Trick question! We more or less vote for the candidates they allow us to.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/21/19 02:49 PM

Private Logtroll standing by for orders, sir!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/22/19 01:05 AM


Originally Posted By: logtroll
Private Logtroll standing by for orders, sir!


Well alright. Let’s get the revolution started!!!
grin
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/22/19 02:59 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Private Logtroll standing by for orders, sir!


Well alright. Let’s get the revolution started!!!
grin

What should I do?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/22/19 05:04 AM

Get involved.
Support leftists for a desperately needed change in framing arguments and ideas.
Decolonize your mind. Stop consuming and repeating false media generated narratives.
There’s no more time left.

We’ve reached the point of socialism or barbarism and barbarism is clearly winning the race. The upcoming election may just be the last offramp to avoid where we’re heading. Neo-Liberals are the first obstacles to overcome.


Nothing I haven’t said before already.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/22/19 05:08 AM

Been doing that for years. Guess I won’t stop.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/22/19 05:17 AM

Great interview with Mike Moore on the Useful Idiots podcast this week. Love him or hate him but he called it right in 2016. Might just be worth listening to him for 2020.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/22/19 06:31 PM

I think you are saying that the Democrats are:
1. A Capitalist Organization
2. Its split into two parts
3. This the the cause of all of our problems

We need the capitalist gone and all not belonging to the righteous pure left gone as well, this will fix everything!

Wonderful! Reduce the Democratic voters to 20% of its membership and then have a revolution.

GOOD THINKING! WELL DONE! Your dedication to losing is truly impressive! Thank you for the clarification!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/22/19 09:16 PM

In order for us to get to where we should be, one first must get a handle on what we are. Right now, "what we are" is in the hands of another group who thinks we should be a barbaric far right authoritarian theocratic oligarchy.

A move back to a center left in power is a distinct and effective sea change away from that, provided it is a convincing and irrefutable win that is perceived as an effective rebuke to the barbarians.

From there the leap to a more leftist position is a shorter gap.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 01:29 AM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I think you are saying that the Democrats are:
1. A Capitalist Organization
2. Its split into two parts
3. This the the cause of all of our problems

We need the capitalist gone and all not belonging to the righteous pure left gone as well, this will fix everything!

Wonderful! Reduce the Democratic voters to 20% of its membership and then have a revolution.

GOOD THINKING! WELL DONE! Your dedication to losing is truly impressive! Thank you for the clarification!


Gaslight much?...
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 01:42 AM

Quote:
From there the leap to a more leftist position is a shorter gap.

But it's a leap that will never be made. It's a leap we've been waiting for and a leap that never seems to come. Only the voters can make the leap. The party will not make it for us. Elect a centrist you'll get more centrist government.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 01:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
In order for us to get to where we should be, one first must get a handle on what we are. Right now, "what we are" is in the hands of another group who thinks we should be a barbaric far right authoritarian theocratic oligarchy.

A move back to a center left in power is a distinct and effective sea change away from that, provided it is a convincing and irrefutable win that is perceived as an effective rebuke to the barbarians.

From there the leap to a more leftist position is a shorter gap.


I guess it would depend on what you consider ‘center left’?
My understanding of it would be someone such as FDR.
If that’s what your advocating then, yeah sure.
If it’s a ‘return to normalcy’ incrementalism argument to reinstall the neoliberal consensus of austerity and technocracy then I suggest stocking up on brass as it’s been a proven loser against the rising fascist tides.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 02:44 AM

A good article that doesn’t flinch at what’s staring at us in 2020:

‘As the Trump impeachment drama peaks and then fizzles, and the nation descends into the horror of its next grim presidential election, likely pitting two right-leaning white male septuagenarians (Joe Biden and Donald Trump) against each other, I am reminded of a brilliant reflection on how fascism can rise to power from the great Dutch astronomer and council communist Anton Pannekoek. “Parliaments evermore serve to mask, by a flood of oratory,” Pannekoek wrote in Nazi-occupied Holland, “the rule of big capital behind the semblance of the self-determination of people. So the cant of the politicians, the lack of inspiring principles, the petty bargaining behind the scenes, intensifies the conviction in critical observers not acquainted with the deeper causes that parliamentarianism is a pool of corruption and democracy a chimera—and … that the strong personality must prevail, as independent ruler of the state.”

“The fascist in the White House,” the WSWS reported, “constitutes an immense danger to democratic rights and must be forced from power. But this urgent and historic task cannot be left in the hands of the Democrats. It can be achieved only through an independent mobilization of the working class in intractable opposition to all factions of the American financial oligarchy.”

There’s no electoral and constitutional Santa Claus coming to bend the arc of American history away from a descent into fascism and toward democracy and decency. Only a mass movement of, by, and for the people beneath and beyond the election cycle and stale aristo-republican constitutionalism has any chance of doing that.

Is This Goodbye to the American Republic?
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
From there the leap to a more leftist position is a shorter gap.

But it's a leap that will never be made. It's a leap we've been waiting for and a leap that never seems to come. Only the voters can make the leap. The party will not make it for us. Elect a centrist you'll get more centrist government.


I'm not a fan of centrism, but I'll take it over this s*** any day.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 02:39 PM

It’s about the only argument you can make for it really.
The same group making it in 2016 will be making it again in 2020.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 02:48 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
It’s about the only argument you can make for it really.
The same group making it in 2016 will be making it again in 2020.


This is all normal.

Eventually, we'll just have to set up guillotines.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 05:31 PM

I don't recall the Democratic party campaign committees outlawing incumbent challenge in the primaries.

Don't like your representative? Suck it.

It's a club now.

Want to mount a challenge? Good luck getting staff. Shoulda went to the right schools loser!
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/23/19 09:59 PM

The problem is relying on the voters. I have always belied that if you are going to run as a Democrat you stick to the middle to get the job then have at it. Unfortunately I suspect that this may not work any better but, at least, you are more assured of winning (unless you are fortunate to run in a really leftist area which is often not all that easy to determine.

Basically, the middle has always been a better place to be. This makes sense, particularly when running as a democrat as much of the middle votes there too.

Betting on the mythic American voting public has, pretty much, always been a loser (unless the Republics have REALLY screwed up the economy). Trump may have done that with the nation debt which is a real medal winner. I think, by the time he is done he will have contributed OVER a trillion dollars a year whilst reducing any security net stuff he was able to identify.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/24/19 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: jgw
The problem is relying on the voters. I have always belied that if you are going to run as a Democrat you stick to the middle to get the job then have at it...

Basically, the middle has always been a better place to be. This makes sense, particularly when running as a democrat as much of the middle votes there too.

Betting on the mythic American voting public has, pretty much, always been a loser (unless the Republics have REALLY screwed up the economy)....


Ah yes, the mythical middle. Wiser words have hardly been typed. I remember the crushing victories when Kerry reported for duty and Hillary ran, and won twice, by appealing to white suburban Republicans.
How Foolish Obama looked with his stunning defeat, voters having repudiated his radically progressive sounding platform of 2008.

I agree JGW. Voters suck.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/24/19 07:13 PM

Which Obama defeat are you referencing. There were a LOT of those after the Republicans took over the congress. They stopped the majority of legislation from Obama just as they said they would do when he got elected.

I am really not sure how this has a whole lot to do with Obama, however. What it really demonstrated was that the Republicans have a really great plan of doing nothing which has come to full fruit with the Republican Senate.

In any case I am certainly happy that you are pleased with the Republican lack of any legislation which might help the poor, young, and needy. Always an inspiration!
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/24/19 09:54 PM

Quote:
the Republicans have a really great plan of doing nothing which has come to full fruit with the Republican Senate.


Doing nothing? You somehow imagine that Republicans are doing nothing? Do you have any idea how many judges Trump has appointed and the senate has confirmed? The Trump Tax cuts are nothing? Have you glanced at how that effects the deficit and the national debt? Perhaps you've noticed the erosion of democracy? All this isn't happening because Republicans have done "nothing". While they have certainly done nothing to promote the general welfare they've been very busy doing reprehensible things. And Democrats really haven't fought back that hard because rich Democrats make money on those reprehensible things too.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/24/19 11:07 PM

Democrats did not fight simply because they did not have the votes. What did you want them to do, bring guns to the Republican House and bump off a few Republicans? As soon as they did get a majority in 2018, they started passing all sorts of bills that the Senate has ignored. Congressional Democrats have always done what they could. But if you want them to be effective, the voters need to give them seats.

Evidently, in 2016 voters wanted to cripple them, and this is what they get. Blaming the Democrats in Congress is rather silly.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/26/19 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw


I am really not sure how this has a whole lot to do with Obama, however. What it really demonstrated was that the Republicans have a really great plan of doing nothing which has come to full fruit with the Republican Senate.



It had to do with your opinion that democratic elections are won from the middle. As you put it:

‘Basically, the middle has always been a better place to be. This makes sense, particularly when running as a democrat as much of the middle votes there too.’

Kerry, Gore and Clinton ran as center right candidates and lost. Obama ran a progressive left sounding campaign, got out the Yutes in 2008 and won handsomely.

Your confusing your opinions with observable reality.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/26/19 12:32 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw

In any case I am certainly happy that you are pleased with the Republican lack of any legislation which might help the poor, young, and needy. Always an inspiration!


Hey kids, look over on the right... gaslighting!
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/26/19 02:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger

Doing nothing? You somehow imagine that Republicans are doing nothing? Do you have any idea how many judges Trump has appointed and the senate has confirmed?


This. Right here.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/26/19 07:43 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all


Evidently, in 2016 voters wanted to cripple them, and this is what they get. Blaming the Democrats in Congress is rather silly.


Lazy apathetic Dem voters and pissed off Dems who stayed home and sulked is what got us the TRIFECTA. And Trump, of course.
But the TRIFECTA was mostly the result of people just not even bothering to vote at all.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/26/19 09:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all


Evidently, in 2016 voters wanted to cripple them, and this is what they get. Blaming the Democrats in Congress is rather silly.


Lazy apathetic Dem voters and pissed off Dems who stayed home and sulked is what got us the TRIFECTA. And Trump, of course.
But the TRIFECTA was mostly the result of people just not even bothering to vote at all.


The right's problem is that the whole world is seen as a zero-sum game, and they now violently oppose any other world view ("Is that a poor kid EATING LUNCH! AAAARRRG!")

The left's problem is that nobody knows how to form coalitions, and are now violently opposed to the very idea. This is how your political view can be socially dominant and still fail to achieve a governing majority.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/26/19 11:43 PM

Quote:
But the TRIFECTA was mostly the result of people just not even bothering to vote at all.

If you give people sh*tty candidates they won't come out and vote.

If the party forces sh*tty candidates onto the ballot they shouldn't be surprised when people don't come out and vote.

What you're asking is for non-Democrats to come on out and vote for Democratic candidates they don't like.

And then blaming the non-Democrats when the Democratic candidate loses.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/27/19 04:31 AM

I doubt it was actual Democrats who did not come out to vote in 2016. It was mostly independents. Anybody connected in a formal way to the Democratic Party would have been highly motivated. But over 1/3 of voters are not connected to a Party, and float from flower to flower, voting sometimes R, sometimes D, some times Third Party, and sometimes not at all.

And as for sh*tty candidates, almost all of Hillary's supposed sh*tyness was supplied by Republicans! It was the big lie technique: You repeat a lie enough times and people start to believe it. Apparently you still do, even though Hillary's policies were almost identical to Obama's.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/27/19 12:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
But the TRIFECTA was mostly the result of people just not even bothering to vote at all.

If you give people sh*tty candidates they won't come out and vote.

If the party forces sh*tty candidates onto the ballot they shouldn't be surprised when people don't come out and vote.

What you're asking is for non-Democrats to come on out and vote for Democratic candidates they don't like.

And then blaming the non-Democrats when the Democratic candidate loses.



If people won't come out to vote against a low-rent Mussolini, then I guess we get the government we deserve.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/27/19 06:24 PM

Quote:
we get the government we deserve.

Half of America doesn't call him Mango Mussolini. They call him God's Chosen One.

Half of America is happy with the government we have and willing to vote for its continuance.

Half of America doesn't vote at all because they don't see either party as better than the other.

Everybody votes their pocketbook.

It's a bit of a logjam right now but I honestly think we may see some changes in the next few years.

Bernie is surging in the polls by the way! I imagine Chunkstyle is walking around with a little more spring in his step these days just knowing there's a good chance he'll get to own the libs in the end.

We would then hope that Warren would bow out early and endorse Bernie.

It's the agenda that's important, not the person. Sen. Warren would have a big part to play in a Sanders administration. I'm gonna let myself get a little excited about this possibility...
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/27/19 06:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
we get the government we deserve.

Half of America doesn't call him Mango Mussolini. They call him God's Chosen One.


Well, yes. That's part of the "deserving" bit.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 02:33 PM

‘Team R and Team D exist to provide the illusion of political competition so as to perpetuate the American program of pillage and plunder. The ‘responsible’ leadership of Team D supported NAFTA, ‘fiscal conservatism,’ the racist repression of the 1994 Crime Bill and George W. Bush’s war against Iraq. In return, Team R supported the bailout of Wall Street. Team D’s explanation for this one-sidedness is that they lack the power to govern. More pointedly, the explanation through their surrogates is that they are feckless, unprincipled and easily rolled. Understand, it is the friends of the Democrats who explain their politics thusly.

Impeachment theater while planet burns

Best observation of the political reality of our two corporate factions I’ve read this year.
On the other hand, it could be an anti anti Trump type...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 02:49 PM

The Democratic Party shithogs and pisspigs will only fight harder as the possibility of a candidate, sincere in the effort to move to a more economically, environmentally and socially just country, becoming the party candidate becomes a possibility.
My sense is everyone knows the seriousness of the situation that supports Sanders and overcoming the D Party is the first step on a very long road. This does seem to be the last off ramp there will be.

If Sanders fails to achieve the nomination, the consolation of two sundowning boomers strutting around on the stage, babbling incoherently past one another while the courtier media tries to reinterpret what was said to their moldering audiences in a sensible message will be a fitting end to a long brutal dehumanizing s*** show.



Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
The Democratic Party shithogs and pisspigs...

You'll be thanking those shitghogs and pisspigs when one of them defeats Fatass Trump in November 2020.

You're welcome. smile
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 03:21 PM

Please and thank you


Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 03:27 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Please and thank you

Who cares? At least he's not Trump. smile
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 03:31 PM

Vs...
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 03:33 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Please and thank you

Who cares? At least he's not Trump. smile


2020 LibDem bumper sticker?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 03:34 PM

Please let them debate...
Please let them debate...
Please let them debate...
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 03:47 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Please and thank you

Who cares? At least he's not Trump. smile


2020 LibDem bumper sticker?

Why not? $87.00 for 125 quantity. Want one? smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 05:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger

Bernie is surging in the polls by the way! I imagine Chunkstyle is walking around with a little more spring in his step these days just knowing there's a good chance he'll get to own the libs in the end.

We would then hope that Warren would bow out early and endorse Bernie.

It's the agenda that's important, not the person. Sen. Warren would have a big part to play in a Sanders administration. I'm gonna let myself get a little excited about this possibility...



Has anyone else noticed that the top MSM outlets have suddenly done a soft pivot and are quietly acknowledging that there even IS a Candidate Sanders? And then this morning I clocked both CNN and MSNBC pointing to op-eds by Politico and The Guardian which are stating that DNC is beginning to grasp the possibility that a Sanders pick is the winning gambit against Trump.

I don't know if it's genuine or calculated...it sort of resembles watching my square parents trying to learn how to dance The Twist back in the 1950's, but I still had to almost pinch myself.

Just how effective IS the GOP noise machine, really?
As the campaign approaches, I guess we'll see.

But I still say that they've largely shot their wad on boy who cries wolf shrieks of socialism, because the folks who buy that already voted Trump anyway, and the ones who don't normally bother to inform themselves saw a very composed old guy with frumpy hair who didn't look or sound anything like either Stalin or Castro a few times over the past week.
In fact, he sounded a lot like FDR.

He was talking about bringing back good paying jobs and helping their kids get training for those jobs, all while presenting a logical case for healthcare reform and for once, these voters and viewers didn't get treated to the usual indignant snorts of derision after the nice Mister Sanders was finished speaking.

Again, maybe this is just a calculated media move, or maybe media is starting to notice that they gain viewers whenever that nice old man is on their channel, and the viewers go away when he's not.
Oh wait...that IS calculated. Okay I don't care, just keeping putting the nice old man on TV.

Anyway, it's a noticeable shift, and not just because I noticed it.
I heard a lot of friends noticing it too.
At least for the moment, the MSM blackout of Bernie appears to be lifting.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 05:26 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
This does seem to be the last off ramp there will be.




What did Klaatu say?
"At the precipice, we change" ??
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I doubt it was actual Democrats who did not come out to vote in 2016. It was mostly independents. Anybody connected in a formal way to the Democratic Party would have been highly motivated. But over 1/3 of voters are not connected to a Party, and float from flower to flower, voting sometimes R, sometimes D, some times Third Party, and sometimes not at all.

And as for sh*tty candidates, almost all of Hillary's supposed sh*tyness was supplied by Republicans! It was the big lie technique: You repeat a lie enough times and people start to believe it. Apparently you still do, even though Hillary's policies were almost identical to Obama's.


That's right, Democrats wanted independents to vote for their sh*tty candidate because vote blue no matter who. Then they blamed those non-Democrats for their loss. Go figger...you've got to earn the independent voters.

I liked Clinton. I voted for her. I think she would have been a great president. But, say what you will, she was a sh*tty candidate. Too much baggage, too many political enemies, she was too distant, too aloof, and most of all had no charisma. There were a thousand things that that made her a better choice than Trump. But what did he have that she didn't have? CHARISMA.

Democrats have one charismatic candidate in the primaries. They have one candidate who is known to have enormous support among independents.

It aint Biden.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 07:14 PM

I'll admit that I gave Bernie no chance when the race started. But it looks like Warren is flaming out. That's a lost bet if Senator Hatrack comes back. I'd say it's not the first time I was wrong but it would be more truthful to say it would've been the first time I was ever right if Ida been right

I thought she might slip in as a centrist choice.

So the media is liable to turn this into a right vs left barnburner.

The more I learn about Mayor Pete the less I like. **with the caveat that what I learn is pretty much what the propaganda machine wants me to learn**
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 07:54 PM

I am not a big fan of Bernie

I don't think he can beat Trump
I think he is too old plus he had a heart attack
He is a self proclaimed socialist who refuses to even consider joining the Democratic party
He is a bit too free with multi-trillion dollar programs

Etc......
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
But what did he have that she didn't have?


3 million less votes than his opponent?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 09:22 PM

Parking validation in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/28/19 09:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: Greger
But what did he have that she didn't have?

3 million less votes than his opponent?


Bow
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/29/19 06:04 AM

Whoever gets the nod, I hope we can have some sort of unity ticket, with somebody on it each wing of the Democratic Party supports. We really need to win this one so we can start fixing stuff Trump broke. That means a progressive and a centrist. I'm not all that excited about who is in each role, because I could live with it either way. They still can't create legislation: That's congress' job. But they can lead, and that means all Americans, not just their faction of their Party.

Congress is not going to send them wacky hyper-progressive legislation to sign, even if the progressive is the President. Likewise, congress is not going to send conservative or neocon bills after the Trump battle.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/29/19 08:47 PM

At the risk of giving offense I would repeat that, even if the Dems win the election there are VERY few promises likely to be kept. The problem is the national debt. By the end of 2020 its gonna be likely that payments of the debt itself will be more than we spend on maintaining the military! (and, maybe more than that)

The simple fact is that a national debt of something like 24 TRILLION dollars costs a LOT to maintain! The only way that can be fixed is to raise taxes and plow it all back into the debt until its manageable. This also means that everybody will work very hard to rank on the Dems for doing something like that which will, again, bring back the Repubublicans so they can, yet again, increase the national debt.

So, first and foremost, support whoever is running as the Democrat, just don't make any difference. Someplace in all of this there was a bumper sticker suggested. It looked like:

"Who cares? At least he's not Trump" (change "he's" to appropriate for candidate)

The simple fact is that is the goal and everything else is secondary. Stop the Democratic internals, the maligning of the Democratic opposition, etc. and just get it done!!!!!!! The promises, no matter how good, bad, or indifferent just don't make any difference - not gonna happen! The Republicans are making sure of that one right now!

The Trump efforts to control the debt are pretty simple and quite public. If its for education, healthcare, the poor, the environment, the needy, etc. cut it. If its for corporations or the upper 10% spend it or give it away! The Dems would be much better off if they stopped attacking each other and work on that a bit.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/29/19 09:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: Greger
But what did he have that she didn't have?


3 million less votes than his opponent?


It should have been 10 million. It should have been more.

But it wasn't. Why? Charisma.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/30/19 12:05 AM

I think the debt problem is pretty simple:

1. Change the tax structure back to what it was in the past that worked so well. (Pretty conservative, no?)

2. Stop spending so much on the military. Like only spend half as much and we will still have the strongest military on Earth, by far. This has to be done gradually, so we don't throw a bunch of people out of work.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/30/19 01:06 AM

Quote:
So, first and foremost, support whoever is running as the Democrat


Vote blue no matter who?

No. I will vote for a progressive candidate or not at all. I simply will not vote for Biden.

You want me to vote blue? Nominate sanders or Warren, it's just that simple.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/30/19 01:26 AM

You don't want AOC and Bernie to get good committee assignments? Because even if Biden is President, they will. With Republican majorities they won't. For progressives to have any effect on our political future, a Democrat has to win. If Trump is in there for another 4 years, progressive members of Congress do nothing.

If Trump wins, I'm not even sure we will have 2024 elections. Progressives will be in labor camps, and Democrats will not be allowed to vote because they all committed the felony of lese majaste.*

*insulting the King
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/30/19 03:41 AM

If Biden wins he will be a failure and a one term president. Democrats will lose in 2024 and will not get another shot for 8 more years.

If Trump gets another term he will completely destroy the Republican Party and the credibility of evangelicals. (along with the world economy)

If Sanders wins he might be a one term president and he might get beaten in 2024 by a Republican...but he will go out a hero. And people will follow him and emulate him...and ultimately my agenda will be served.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/30/19 01:53 PM

Sanders will be framing arguments in a way that we haven’t seen since FDR. Nobody who’s supporting him should seriously think he will get the corporate parties to roll over and pass his agenda. His record tells you he will beat them around the head and shoulders mercilessly and make them justify their phony economics and politics to working class voters. Beating them down over time to creat a toehold for further progressive leftists to follow.
I sincerely hope he burns the DCCC and DSCC to the ground forcing representatives to draw support from their voters instead of those two corporate fronts. Imagine the political realignment that could make. Horror to some, rain for others.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/31/19 01:29 AM

Did I just see a headline that said Joe Biden is open to a Republican running mate? That's really gonna boost his chances.

Old Uncle Joe is going to reach across the aisle and heal the nation...

It's feckin insanity but I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/31/19 02:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Did I just see a headline that said Joe Biden is open to a Republican running mate? That's really gonna boost his chances.

Old Uncle Joe is going to reach across the aisle and heal the nation...

It's feckin insanity but I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.


Sorry, but I don't think I can wrap my brain around something like that. And it's NOT even because they are "Republican" in the generic sense but because they are what passes for Republican today. This isn't 1960, this is 2019, and the Republicans who even COULD fit such a concept AINT IN the Republican Party anymore.

But more importantly, where would such a running mate's loyalties lie? That is the problem, because if their loyalties lie WITH that party as it is today, it means their loyalties lie with Trump, because today's Republican Party is the Party of Trump.

If it was the Party of Ike Eisenhower then maybe I could consider it. There are no Nelson Rockefellers or Ike Eisenhowers.

And in any case, we're so far to the Right right now that the very last thing we need is a 6000 ton barge dragging us even further in that direction when what we need is to land somewhere around center-Left.

And from where we sit right now, even the very center itself seems light years away.
No thanks, hard pass, sorry.
I think Biden is losing his marbles.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/31/19 04:04 AM

Best take I’ve read:

Why not? Obama did it!
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/31/19 04:21 AM

Quote:
Why not? Obama did it!


That's funny. And accurate.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/31/19 05:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Why not? Obama did it!


That's funny. And accurate.


Unfortunately, as it turns out, it IS way too close for comfort, and I guess no one should be surprised.
It's too bad Joe Lieberman didn't join the GOP right after shooting down the public option. Biden could choose him.
Maybe Biden never even really supported any kind of healthcare reform in the first place and just "went along with it".
I honestly don't even remember him fighting for it at all.

Nothing says "stalking horse" quite like the so called Dem party "front runner" announcing he's considering a Republican running mate.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 12/31/19 05:43 AM

Not a very good idea, considering what a shite-show the Republican Party has become. But what if it was Mitt Romney, who is a dedicated never-Trumper now. If the two mainstream Parties are almost identical (as Chunky claims), then this would be the mainstream Parties versus Trump. Would you vote against Trump in such a case?

What Biden needs to do is to have a VP from the Left, like Warren, to bring the Party together. If he can get the Left and the Center together, he can probably get enough Independent votes to win. Fail to attract either Left or Center and he loses.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/01/20 12:55 AM

If Clinton had chosen Bernie they'd have won too. But that aint how things ever work out.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/01/20 05:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
If Clinton had chosen Bernie they'd have won too. But that aint how things ever work out.


Yeah, I never could figure that out. It would have been a lock.

Instead Kaine was brought in, which added precisely nothing to the ticket.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/01/20 04:41 PM

An interesting Marxist analysis of the upcoming election:

‘Assuming that much of the Trump base fits the description of Lumpenproletariat, what are the implications? For one, it is not clear over the last 50 years if now going into the 2020 US presidential elections that significant appeals to class and economics could have moved these voters back to the Democrats. Perhaps had the Democratic Party continued to talk class many of these workers would have stayed with them, but it is not clear that faced with the threat of extinction they could have be moved toward more progressive politics. Two, even if the Democrats had continued to talk class, appeals today to them on the basis of class and economics may not be powerful enough to move them electorally; they may be lost politically and if demographics are correct, they are facing significant distinction over time. Three, while progressive candidates such as Bernie Sanders may be able to shift some of these voters to them, betting on wholesale shifting of the Lumpenproletariat to the Democrats is unlikely.’

Trump, Democrats and the Lumpenproletariat
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/01/20 06:58 PM

It bears pointing out that The Democratic Party is also made up primarily of lumpenproles.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/01/20 07:08 PM

The bears are pointing that out?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/01/20 07:22 PM

No doubt. It comes down to reading your charts and make your strategy accordingly.
The analysis gives another dimension of the election s’all, imo.
Not sure the income levels of the lumpen were drilled into well enough.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 01:32 PM

I found the campaign fundraising risks announced so far interesting. Trump raised $46 million, and of course is crowing about that and spinning wildly, but Sanders raised $34, Buttigieg $24 and Yang $16 million. They are not the frontrunners, whose numbers have not yet been disclosed. Trump has the advantage of being able to bank that with no serious primary competition, but I think it is an indication, at least, that enthusiasm is higher with the Dem base.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 02:05 PM

Sanders hit 5 million donations. Average donation was $18.
Not sure how many donated to Trump, Yang or McKinsey.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 03:37 PM

Julian Castro just dropped out of the race.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 04:23 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I found the campaign fundraising risks announced so far interesting. Trump raised $46 million, and of course is crowing about that and spinning wildly, but Sanders raised $34, Buttigieg $24 and Yang $16 million. They are not the frontrunners, whose numbers have not yet been disclosed.


Sanders has been a front runner for awhile now.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 06:13 PM

Quote:
Sanders has been a front runner for awhile now.


I don't think hes been lower than third throughout the race. Seems to be safely in second place right now. Mayor Pete is taking billionaire money and so is Biden. Warren is begging right now, having contests and offering to personally phone small donors. I think she's struggling a bit. The media is shoring up Pete, I don't dislike him and he'd probably make a decent president but I'm just not interested in Republican Lite candidates like him and Biden.

Biden has been the "frontrunner" since the start, but no one actually likes him...Warren and Sanders have been right there with him and Pete has been included among the frontrunners out of kindness I suppose.

For most of the race if you added Sanders' and Warren's poll numbers they were roughly equal to Bidens. Says to me that about 50% of the voters want a progressive candidate. Progressive candidates are funding their race with small donations, the rest with corporate funds...so the pretty obvious conclusion is that Biden and Buttigieg are under the corporate thumb. The lumpen are okay with that, they have good jobs, nice cars and health insurance.

So the people who vote for Democratic candidates are as divided as the nation, with a 50/50 ideological split.

The folks on the far left are saying

Stop A Car Is Coming

the folks on the far right can't hear them.

There's a chance that the car might not hit them, so they needn't hear the warning.

There's a chance that they will see the car and dodge to the left and safety..

And there's a chance of getting T-boned.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 06:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Sanders has been a front runner for awhile now.


I don't think hes been lower than third throughout the race. Seems to be safely in second place right now. Mayor Pete is taking billionaire money and so is Biden. Warren is begging right now, having contests and offering to personally phone small donors. I think she's struggling a bit. The media is shoring up Pete, I don't dislike him and he'd probably make a decent president but I'm just not interested in Republican Lite candidates like him and Biden.

Biden has been the "frontrunner" since the start, but no one actually likes him...Warren and Sanders have been right there with him and Pete has been included among the frontrunners out of kindness I suppose.

For most of the race if you added Sanders' and Warren's poll numbers they were roughly equal to Bidens. Says to me that about 50% of the voters want a progressive candidate. Progressive candidates are funding their race with small donations, the rest with corporate funds...so the pretty obvious conclusion is that Biden and Buttigieg are under the corporate thumb. The lumpen are okay with that, they have good jobs, nice cars and health insurance.

So the people who vote for Democratic candidates are as divided as the nation, with a 50/50 ideological split.

The folks on the far left are saying

Stop A Car Is Coming

the folks on the far right can't hear them.

There's a chance that the car might not hit them, so they needn't hear the warning.

There's a chance that they will see the car and dodge to the left and safety..

And there's a chance of getting T-boned.


If I were the only voter, Warren would be the next president. After her, it's Sanders. After Sanders, all the others in no particular order. I am not interested in Buttigieg, because he is in fact GOP lite. Biden is a dinosaur.

However, the only person I would actively oppose would be Gabbard.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Sanders has been a front runner for awhile now.


I don't think hes been lower than third throughout the race. Seems to be safely in second place right now. Mayor Pete is taking billionaire money and so is Biden. Warren is begging right now, having contests and offering to personally phone small donors. I think she's struggling a bit. The media is shoring up Pete, I don't dislike him and he'd probably make a decent president but I'm just not interested in Republican Lite candidates like him and Biden.

Biden has been the "frontrunner" since the start, but no one actually likes him...Warren and Sanders have been right there with him and Pete has been included among the frontrunners out of kindness I suppose.

For most of the race if you added Sanders' and Warren's poll numbers they were roughly equal to Bidens. Says to me that about 50% of the voters want a progressive candidate. Progressive candidates are funding their race with small donations, the rest with corporate funds...so the pretty obvious conclusion is that Biden and Buttigieg are under the corporate thumb. The lumpen are okay with that, they have good jobs, nice cars and health insurance.

So the people who vote for Democratic candidates are as divided as the nation, with a 50/50 ideological split.

The folks on the far left are saying

Stop A Car Is Coming

the folks on the far right can't hear them.

There's a chance that the car might not hit them, so they needn't hear the warning.

There's a chance that they will see the car and dodge to the left and safety..

And there's a chance of getting T-boned.


If I were the only voter, Warren would be the next president. After her, it's Sanders. After Sanders, all the others in no particular order. I am not interested in Buttigieg, because he is in fact GOP lite. Biden is a dinosaur.

However, the only person I would actively oppose would be Gabbard.


I've been bouncing between pillar and post about Warren and Sanders but I'd be happy with either one as the candidate, and I too view Gabbard as almost the 2020 equivalent of Lyndon LaRouche, who by the way also ran as a Democrat.

But that's also the reason I know she will never have a snowflake's chance in a cyclotron. The problem is, she's just another interference factor, and fully open to manipulation.

I reached the conclusion a long time ago that Tulsi Gabbard is highly confident, even good at a few skill sets, but she's not especially intelligent. If she was, she'd already know she's being used as a tool.

The trouble is, she'll be back, again and again, just like Stein, just like Nader, just like LaRouche, just like a thousand other clowns.

My main worry is that we might just be setting ourselves up for a redux of Democrats 1968, except HHH was a much better candidate than Biden. I should be pleased that Sanders is getting a bit more recognition from the press, but then again so did Eugene McCarthy.
Didn't help him much in the end.

Obviously it's not like today is a carbon copy of Dems 1968 but there are enough similar patterns developing, patterns that I hope we manage to avoid.

Biden, in my humble opinion, is still very much a "generic" placeholder, a candidate who "isn't too far Left", which in and of itself is just a backlash against RW media descriptors of folks like Sanders and Warren. The cure of course, is more Sanders exposure where folks can get a little bit more accustomed to who and what he is.

Biden has been the "perceived front runner" only because he seems "safe" to a fairly significant portion of timid voters who fear change. But he should have busted way out in front with a dozen or more landmark ideas, and so far he's had bupkis on that score.

Safe candidates? I think clinging to safe candidates is a recipe for disaster when dealing with someone like Trump.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 09:57 PM

Quote:
Biden has been the "perceived front runner" only because he seems "safe" to a fairly significant portion of timid voters who fear change.


"Let's go back to how everything was in 2008" is not a very inspiring campaign theme for Democrats, although when you think about it a bit that would be great. At least compared to four more years of Trump.

If Biden wants to win, he has to unite everybody left of Trump by asking a progressive to be his VP. If a progressive wants to win, they need to ask a centrist to be their VP. This is no time to fly off in different directions, IE. the usual Democratic fiasco. First of all you need to WIN, and then you can enact your agenda. Lose and you can preach your agenda into the wind for the next four years. Unless you wind up in a concentration camp for insulting the King.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 10:02 PM

Here's a nice story, but beginning to sound like a broken record:

The Only Thing Republicans Now Stand For

Quote:
Republicans are now officially the character doesn’t count party, the personal responsibility just proves you have failed to blame the other guy party, the deficit doesn’t matter party, the Russia is our ally party, and the I’m-right-and-you-are-human-scum party

Stuart Stevens, a top Republican Party strategist in the 2012 election


He's working for Weld to try running against Trump in primaries.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 10:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
[quote=Hamish Howl]
But that's also the reason I know she will never have a snowflake's chance in a cyclotron. The problem is, she's just another interference factor, and fully open to manipulation.



If I wanted to interfere in an election and get away with it, I would simply cause as much uncertainty as I could.

If I wanted to damage that country, I would interfere on alternating sides and get "caught" with just enough plausible deniability to prevent the country's factions from uniting against me.

Then I would just sit back and watch the place tear itself apart in a frenzy of category errors, paranoia, and stern damage.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 10:06 PM

Exactly what Putin has done. Sad that his dupes can't see that.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/02/20 10:51 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Exactly what Putin has done. Sad that his dupes can't see that.


Well, yeah. Putin is basically a James Bond villain, and can be considered an outside context event.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/03/20 12:19 AM

Sanders leads in:

Money raised
Number of individual contributions
Number of volunteers
Numbers of voters who’ve ‘made up their minds’
Crowd sizes
Voter trust

Just sayin
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/03/20 12:38 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Sanders leads in:

Money raised
Number of individual contributions
Number of volunteers
Numbers of voters who’ve ‘made up their minds’
Crowd sizes
Voter trust

Just sayin



Unbelievable.
I can talk about how pleased I am to see Sanders getting more respect and tying with Biden, and with you, it's as if I just posted MAGA.
Oh well, at least you are consistent! ROTFMOL

Yeah, ICYMI, I just finished posting about how Sanders is getting better media recognition. I could add that party heads are beginning to apparently grasp the realization that their best fortunes may lie with him.
But it doesn't matter... LOL because you'll just keep making this about me and my...what's the slur you use for liberals now?

It's like you have one of those new VR filters on.
I could post a pic of me and the wifey wearing Bernie shirts and you'd see "Trump-Pence 2020" instead.

Wow, just wow.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/03/20 02:11 AM

Settle down Jeff.

Just making a general point that Sanders may not be leading in the polls at number one but he’s leading in other metrics.
My guess is you started the thread initially so it appears as though I’m responding to you by posting in general.
I have no opinion about your recent posts. I’m not all that interested.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/03/20 01:53 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Sanders leads in:

Money raised
Number of individual contributions
Number of volunteers
Numbers of voters who’ve ‘made up their minds’
Crowd sizes
Voter trust

Just sayin



None of that actually gets you the job, though. He had gigantic crowds last time around. So did Sarah Palin (used here for this specific comparison only).
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/03/20 03:15 PM

What gets you the job is primary voters. Sanders' campaign machine has always been about primary voters. Biden is just so awful and voters want change...a couple of metrics that are also working in Bernie's favor.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/06/20 04:45 AM

Update:

Poll Shows Sanders Leading in New Hampsh...t 2020 Caucuses
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/06/20 07:19 PM

Polls, wonderful polls. Anybody remember how Hillary was winning it all? Right up until she wasn't? Does anybody actually think Sanders can beat Trump? Even a little bit? Hmmmmmm?

Yep, wishful thinking, and a lot of prayer, will, I guess, win the day...................

I am almost convinced that the secret plan is to run Sanders, lose, and then blame, not necessarily in order:
Nazis
People of color
White people
Immigrants
Democrats
Socialists
Non-Christians
The Left
The Right
The Uncommitted
The Middle
Etc (my favorite)
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/06/20 07:22 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Polls, wonderful polls. Anybody remember how Hillary was winning it all? Right up until she wasn't? Does anybody actually think Sanders can beat Trump? Even a little bit? Hmmmmmm?



Yeah. For reasons that bother me, he in fact has the best chance of beating Trump.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/07/20 12:35 AM

Just remember that we have a Congress to wipe out and clean up, too.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/07/20 01:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Just remember that we have a Congress to wipe out and clean up, too.


What does that mean?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/07/20 04:59 PM

This could be interesting in the courts for the 2020 census map making...

The Anarchist Daughter of the GOP's Gerr...on Google Drive
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 01/07/20 05:05 PM

From her initial statement:


'...when they finally figured out that Hofeller’s daughter (as in, “...my god, is
that Hofeller’s daugher?!” actually had something that embarrassed them, they started a campaign to
highlight my already public private life, and imply that my character or motivation was relevant to the
authenticity of the files, themselves, ie, the evidence against them. It totally isn’t relevant.
I was not the party that brought my personal life into this matter, it was the GOP, trying to object to
evidence on sole grounds that it was devastating to their case.
I also leave my s*** here so that everyone can see the ridiculousness of the GOP’s assertion that these files
belong to them."

Fun stuff!