2020 Democratic Nominee

[Larry T. Spider 1740]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

It's not just Russian propaganda.  It's Fox News selling an alternate reality to 35% of the country.  It's voting systems that are vulnerable to hacking.  It's voter suppression.  Kicking people off voter rolls.  Gerrymandering.  Closing urban polling locations.  Long lines in cities to vote.  The electoral college.    A Republican party perfectly willing to completely lie to the voters (e.g. Kemp lying that Abrams attempted to hack his campaign).

This.

The way forward is the way Beto ran his campaign. It’s based heavily on personal interaction, effective fund raising, and a positive message. Also a great ground game.

[Brandywine 1312]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

WE WANT TRANSPARENCY!

Okay, here’s my DNA test.

I can’t vote for someone that capitulates so easily 

I didn’t say I wouldn’t vote for her. If she’s the Dem nominee she’s got my vote. She shouldn’t have done that test. I didn’t like Obama pulling up his birth certificate. Trump made it sound like it was because of him that Obama did it. Like Trump had some kind of super power that forced people to do his will. Don’t give in to his crap.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Brandywine

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

I didn’t say I wouldn’t vote for her. If she’s the Dem nominee she’s got my vote. She shouldn’t have done that test. I didn’t like Obama pulling up his birth certificate. Trump made it sound like it was because of him that Obama did it. Like Trump had some kind of super power that forced people to do his will. Don’t give in to his crap.

The DNA test was to make Trump have egg all over his face about his tax returns.

Warren: “here’s my DNA test, I have nothing to hide.  Now why is Trump still hiding his tax returns?”

She was on offense, not defense.

[Brandywine 1312]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The DNA test was to make Trump have egg all over his face about his tax returns.

Warren: “here’s my DNA test, I have nothing to hide.  Now why is Trump still hiding his tax returns?”

She was on offense, not defense.

I agree with you, but I dont think it came off that way. I think it hurt her more than him. Who knows in the long run it may help her.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Brandywine

[Fozzz 152]

That shit was pretty stupid and offensive as well.  I'll give her a mulligan for that given the dearth of decent options but Liz needs to refrain from doing something like that in the future.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

15 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

I dont think it came off that way. I think it hurt her more than him. 

Because double standards and media bullshit.

The idea that Warren hurt herself with the DNA test is a media narrative.  If enough people in the media start saying it, it becomes true.

However, if you were to do a poll beforehand asking the question, “Should Elizabeth Warren release DNA results concerning her Native American Heritage?”

What do you think the results would have been?   What do you think the results would have been for Republicans vs Democrats?

She wasn’t trying to win over any democrats.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[G650 14086]

Christ y'all. It's just reason 1,387 not to vote for Elizabeth fucking Warren. 

[Larry T. Spider 1740]

I didn’t even know that was a trump tax component to the dna test until this thread. Pretty much a failure and trump win as far as perception goes. We need someone that will do better with this stuff although all will be subjected to an inordinate amount of fake bullshit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I didn’t even know that was a trump tax component to the dna test until this thread. Pretty much a failure and trump win as far as perception goes. We need someone that will do better with this stuff although all will be subjected to an inordinate amount of fake bullshit.

It’s a set up that will come into play later down the road.  She can land a haymaker with it if it were to come up in a debate. 

[elfenix 34171]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

He’s been low key talking for about a year, has lots of traction in Mt and Pacific time zones, but Corp media as based in East Coast and hasn’t tracked him. That’s going to be his major hurdle. He should also make balanced budget co-equal to climate change at the top of his issues, but he’s the rare no-bullshit progressive Democrat, sort of a lefty version of Kasich. Not moderate, but very practical.

 

shitty economic ideas i liked in high school for $400, alex.

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

54 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because double standards and media bullshit. 

It was foolish strategy and it blew back on her.  I like her populist mindset, but the DNA thing was unbelievably stupid and she was goaded into it by Trump....

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

52 minutes ago, G650 said:

Christ y'all. It's just reason 1,387 not to vote for Elizabeth fucking Warren. 

Agreed, but if Trump is again the Republican nominee, I'm going to have to vote for her. 

[David Dennison 18652]

55 minutes ago, G650 said:

Christ y'all. It's just reason 1,387 not to vote for Elizabeth fucking Warren. 

I've pretty much decided the only way I'll vote for her is if she's the nominee. 

I think this is going to be Joe Biden's nomination to lose if he decides to run.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

shitty economic ideas i liked in high school for $400, alex.

That’s cute. A balanced budget or surplus is a good idea during expansion and a bad idea during recession. That’s why I didn’t say balanced budget amendment. Because a balanced budget amendment is stupid.
Nice try, but you may be knocking at the wrong person’s door on this one.

[Ghost of LL 15477]

20 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I am convinced that the vast majority of the voting population assigns ideological positions based on how politicians look and talk.

There's actually some scholarship out there on this topic.  Voters are more likely to regard women as "liberal" controlling for all other factors. 

It really is interesting.

[Js1 85095]

 

[elfenix 34171]

I don't think there is much evidence supporting the efficacy of Russia's propaganda in the 2016 election.  imo, it was pretty much meaningless.  

Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190915811/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_NXvlCbEBV9JS9

[Biff Tannen 45491]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

Yep.  It's just like people claiming they don't like the dotard and then secretly voting for him.  They are all liars.

[elfenix 34171]

That’s cute. A balanced budget or surplus is a good idea during expansion and a bad idea during recession. That’s why I didn’t say balanced budget amendment. Because a balanced budget amendment is stupid.
Nice try, but you may be knocking at the wrong person’s door on this one.

That's the conventional wisdom, at least. We get a recession every time we do it so I don't know why it's considered a good idea.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

This is spot on, but can she actually get anything done about it?

[Anastasis 23393]

15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is spot on, but can she actually get anything done about it?

Congress members going to limit their post government options legislatively?  Yeah, right about never. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

39 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is spot on, but can she actually get anything done about it?

Four years ago, did you ever in your wildest dreams think the government would be shut down over a medieval border wall? 

Anything is possible with enough political will. 

[David Dennison 18652]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Four years ago, did you ever in your wildest dreams think the government would be shut down over a medieval border wall? 

Anything is possible with enough political will. 

I understand what you are saying, but if someone suggested four years ago that shutting down the government over a border wall was a possibility, I would have agreed. This is not surprising at all. 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Four years ago, did you ever in your wildest dreams think the government would be shut down over a medieval border wall? 

Anything is possible with enough political will. 

Political will didn't cause this shutdown though.  A fat, dumb, narcissist did.

[Chuckie Finster 22598]

 

Again, the Democrats can keep whining about how unfair this is and hand another 4 years to Trump, or they can suck it up and nominate a personable white dude and win.

It sucks, but it’s reality.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

That's the conventional wisdom, at least. We get a recession every time we do it so I don't know why it's considered a good idea.

This is a bit, right?

Somebody tell me this is a bit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

32 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Political will didn't cause this shutdown though.  A fat, dumb, narcissist did.

When Trump first said he was going to build a wall back in 2015, most people thought he was fucking nuts.  There’s no way he’s serious. 

But a few people believed him, then he kept campaigning on the wall and more and more started to believe.  He grew an entire political base around this fucking wall.  This political base became so powerful that Trump felt he had no choice but to shut down the government for his own political survival...Over a fucking wall.

That’s how powerful political will can be.

[Larry T. Spider 1740]

Since this has turned into a “how fucked are we as a country” thread along with the dotard one, I will cheer you up with the same sentiments that I have in the past.

Brisket is correct that we will be saddled with cancer that is the trumpists long after he has eaten his last well done steak with ketchup. However, there is one state that can lead the way in changing the entire country for the better. Most of us are lucky enough to live in Texas and be on the front lines of the fight. 

Let’s just start with the obvious. The electoral college has sucked for the democrats and you can’t dream up a scenario where they lose when Texas flips. The GOP may hang on to their terrible ideas while Texas is still light purple, but they will be abandoning their policies that look like they came from a Texags think tank long before Texas turns blue.  Almost all politicians are about self preservation above all else and will change with the political winds. This will shift the national GOP dynamic for the better.

Although the long term outlook is great, the road will be bumpy. The Texas Republican Party will be nasty and corrupt in their attempt to hold onto power. There are people like dan Patrick that will not bend with the wind and will double down on hatred. And even when republicans can’t win a statewide office in Texas, our legislature will have some rural clowns that will do everything they can to gum up the works. It will be a long fight, but we get to be on the front lines and we will win and the current GOP will be DOA.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

We don't deserve Elizabeth Warren.
 

 

[Brisketexan 104559]

Since this has turned into a “how fucked are we as a country” thread along with the dotard one, I will cheer you up with the same sentiments that I have in the past.
Brisket is correct that we will be saddled with cancer that is the trumpists long after he has eaten his last well done steak with ketchup. However, there is one state that can lead the way in changing the entire country for the better. Most of us are lucky enough to live in Texas and be on the front lines of the fight. 
Let’s just start with the obvious. The electoral college has sucked for the democrats and you can’t dream up a scenario where they lose when Texas flips. The GOP may hang on to their terrible ideas while Texas is still light purple, but they will be abandoning their policies that look like they came from a Texags think tank long before Texas turns blue.  Almost all politicians are about self preservation above all else and will change with the political winds. This will shift the national GOP dynamic for the better.
Although the long term outlook is great, the road will be bumpy. The Texas Republican Party will be nasty and corrupt in their attempt to hold onto power. There are people like dan Patrick that will not bend with the wind and will double down on hatred. And even when republicans can’t win a statewide office in Texas, our legislature will have some rural clowns that will do everything they can to gum up the works. It will be a long fight, but we get to be on the front lines and we will win and the current GOP will be DOA.
 

I just want to clarify one thing...it’s Trump that eats well done steak with ketchup, not me. I’ll accept any number of slights, but not that one.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Julian Castro is in.

[elfenix 34171]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is a bit, right?

Somebody tell me this is a bit.

i mean, it's better fiscal policy than austerity during a recession, but last time we ran a surplus it caused two recessions.  so, yay?

Edited January 3, 2019 by elfenix

[Fozzz 152]

Julian Castro is trash. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12416]

28 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i mean, it's better fiscal policy than austerity during a recession, but last time we ran a surplus it caused two recessions.  so, yay?

 

Last time we ran a surplus it caused two recessions?  What?

[Brisketexan 104559]

 
Last time we ran a surplus it caused two recessions?  What?

He thinks correlation is causation. Let him be.

[elfenix 34171]

1 hour ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

Last time we ran a surplus it caused two recessions?  What?

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

He thinks correlation is causation. Let him be.

running surpluses removes private wealth from the system and is a recessionary pressure by itself.  basically, the flows between private sector, government , and foreign trade balance to 0.  well, foreign trade is a big negative, so if you want private wealth accumulation, you need the government to take on debt.  so, that helped cause the first. 

the second is a bit more of a necessary but not sufficient explanation: when US treasuries dried up and looked to be drying up for a long time, the financial industry needed something else to backstop the system.  it turned to MBS.  yay.

Edited January 3, 2019 by elfenix

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[safe sex 11678]

Tucker is looking particularly flushed there.

[HenryJames 65887]

He gets that way when he can't listen to his own voice.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

We don't deserve Elizabeth Warren.
 

 

So you agree with trumps decision to pull out of Syria ?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

25 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So you agree with trumps decision to pull out of Syria ?

The decision was never the real issue. It was the destabilizing way he did it...via tweet. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Celery Man 20882]

Also addressed by Warren shortly after that quote. Also every other person when talking about why Trump’s Syria troop tweet is disastrous.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

i mean, it's better fiscal policy than austerity during a recession, but last time we ran a surplus it caused two recessions.  so, yay?

That’s nonsense. Running a balanced budget or a modest surplus during protracted periods of expansion to allow the debt/GDP ratio to resettle and store dry power for the next recession does not cause recession, that’s crackpot nonsense. That entire argument is based on the self-evident observation that recession follows boom.

No shit- it’s called the business cycle.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The decision was never the real issue. It was the destabilizing way he did it...via tweet. 

No, the decision to pull out was critcized as a bad move.  The tweet may have been wrong, but the criticism was about the pullout not the message vehicle 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

the decision to pull out was critcized as a bad move.

It was a bad move because it was an outright betrayal of our commitment to the people fighting and dying for our cause.  We should have worked something out with them first and ensured their security before abandoning them.

Did you not read the Mattis letter? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No, the decision to pull out was critcized as a bad move.  The tweet may have been wrong, but the criticism was about the pullout not the message vehicle 

Well, I think different people have different reasons

1) Some people don't think we should withdraw for the foreseeable future, until various strategic objectives have been accomplished. This is a diverse group that includes people who didn't want to be there in the first place but see American credibility and power at stake.

2) Some people think we should be planning for withdrawal, without a specific timeline but with specific specific strategic milestones that move us inexorably towards that point.

3) Some people think we should move towards withdrawal with planning based on a calendar date

4) Some people think we should be preparing for withdrawal now, but to have a detailed plan and communicate it thoroughly to partners prior to execution. 

 

What everyone agrees on: the president should not conduct foreign policy without consultation, on twitter. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It was a bad move because it was an outright betrayal of our commitment to the people fighting and dying for our cause.  We should have worked something out with them first and ensured their security before abandoning them.

Did you not read the Mattis letter? 

Yes I did. My post was to bad teammates atta girl comment about Warren saying pull out of Syria

[FondrenRoad 4378]

14 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

There's actually some scholarship out there on this topic.  Voters are more likely to regard women as "liberal" controlling for all other factors. 

It really is interesting.

Well, women are more likely to be liberal than men, and more likely to be liberal than conservative, so if your only factor is gender, its a safe bet. However, I don't know how you control for other factors when you are talking about people who are in the public eye. Policy positions and voting history are all out there for the public to see. 

I actually think Harris' ethnicity plays a bigger role than gender in voters overvaluation of her liberalness.  The same thing happened with Obama who is very close to center.  And voters have no problem associating women like Palin with conservativism. 

I think gender only comes into play once race is removed as a factor.  Obama was viewed as weak in spite of playing the hands he was dealt more strongly than most.  Meanwhile, white male politicians are largely expected by voters to "man up" and get shit done in a "conservative" manner whether they are actually liberal or conservative.  And often, voters assume that their cowboy is winning even when white male Presidents like Trump are getting their shit pushed in by foreign leaders. This macho ideal is even expected and assumed of liberals like Trudeau in Canada. But these gender based assumptions really only occur for white people.  

Edited January 3, 2019 by FondrenRoad