Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Js1

Js1 85131

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think because in every other area of endeavor over 70 isn't the sweet spot for success, or capability.

Why are we in this mess? Boomers. So we need to elect another one to fix it? 

that is such a boomer thing to think 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

In terms of policy or electability or... what?

Those two aren't really in the same lanes ideology/policy-wise.

Now, why so many are geeked up for Buttigieg over Booker? That's an interesting one.

Mainly I align better with his policies, but not all of them. I still don’t get how he’s not doing better to be honest. Maybe he doesn’t have the money behind him or maybe it’s hard to find a wedge when all the party chunks are taken. The far left is split between Warren/Sanders, the establishment is balls deep in Biden, and the young middle is behind Pete. That doesn’t leave a lot left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

two decades ago warren was a republican and bernie was an independent (is he still technically?)

Two decades ago I was a Republican voting for Bush and people probably called Bernie a Marxist. 

Now the trolls on this board call me an Uber super leftist internet bully and Bernie a dem. Even though we both haven’t changed all that much. 

Go figure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13133

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Mainly I align better with his policies, but not all of them. I still don’t get how he’s not doing better to be honest. Maybe he doesn’t have the money behind him or maybe it’s hard to find a wedge when all the party chunks are taken. The far left is split between Warren/Sanders, the establishment is balls deep in Biden, and the young middle is behind Pete. That doesn’t leave a lot left. 

giphy.gif

You think Pete is being fueled by young people?

lol Jesus Christ

33 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Why are we in this mess? Boomers. So we need to elect another one to fix it? 

that is such a boomer thing to think 

1) Bernie isn't a Boomer.
2) The Boomers hate Bernie.

Bernie's support is very young and very diverse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's the problem with Gen X. We are fucking slackers, man. 

Nah. We’ve just never had the numbers. And never will. 

Ask any dude in marketing, when you are talking on a mass scale, our generation never mattered, and never will, at least when it comes to aggregate things like voting numbers or mass marketing. 

Somewhat ironically, we might matter somewhat in the future on some things, like housing for example, because the boomers have fucked things up for the millinieals so bad that we have more purchasing power despite lower numbers. This is due to ridiculous student loans and the fact we entered the housing market earlier. Props to us I guess. 

So when it comes to electing presidents, it should not be a surprise that we still have a bunch of old as shit candidates, because the boomers have controlled the voting agenda for going on 40 years now. 

That is about to swiftly change though. The millennials are motivated, pissed super libs and there’s nothing a bunch of dying boomers can do to stop it. Short of eliminating democracy that is, which they might well try to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Andrew Yang is now the standard bearer for this entire wasted generation in the 2020 campaign.

lol

He won’t win but Andrew yang is spouting out things that make more sense than anyone else in the running.

So yeah he’s generation X. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85131

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

With the way things are heading it’s not a joke. Unless you are ok with more than half of the population becoming unnecessary. Which is the direction we’re heading.

Then what? 

We kill and eat them and heat our homes with their possessions? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13133

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

With the way things are heading it’s not a joke. Unless you are ok with more than half of the population becoming unnecessary. Which is the direction we’re heading.

gettyimages-3259016.jpg?itok=6ojxVyQ1

Sci-fi is cool and it's fun to smoke weed and talk with your friends about fully automated luxury space communism, but half the fucking workforce isn't going to be automated away. Not even close to that.

- We do not want robot service workers. 
- We do not want robot doctors and nurses.
- We do not want robot child care and teachers.

That's just 3 of the many massive chunks of our workforce that will only be automated to serve profit interests, not because of efficiency improvements or quality-of-life improvements.

If anything, we want MORE human interaction than what we get now. Allowing the rapacious capitalist need to destroy the workforce to squeeze every drop of profit out is isolating and destructive, and we must fight automation unless it exists to improve the lives of workers. 

I'm not against the UBI as a concept, but Yang's version is about saying to capital, "OK, fine, destroy the workforce to create the greatest wealth consolidation you can, and we'll give everyone a pittance to shut them up and fund it with a regressive VAT. Oh, and like I told Dave Rubin of Glenn Beck's Blaze Network, we can dismantle the social welfare system as well."

Landlords will jack their rates up immediately because they know their renters are getting a monthly bonus and those of us who own houses or have already secured mortgages will just use that extra $1k (provided to me by their regressive VAT dollars lol) to get further ahead.

MATH

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

With the way things are heading it’s not a joke. Unless you are ok with more than half of the population becoming unnecessary. Which is the direction we’re heading.

Then what? 

waterworldslagpit.gif

they all get recycled:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

gettyimages-3259016.jpg?itok=6ojxVyQ1

Sci-fi is cool and it's fun to smoke weed and talk with your friends about fully automated luxury space communism, but half the fucking workforce isn't going to be automated away. Not even close to that.

- We do not want robot service workers. 
- We do not want robot doctors and nurses.
- We do not want robot child care and teachers.

That's just 3 of the many massive chunks of our workforce that will only be automated to serve profit interests, not because of efficiency improvements or quality-of-life improvements.

If anything, we want MORE human interaction than what we get now. Allowing the rapacious capitalist need to destroy the workforce to squeeze every drop of profit out is isolating and destructive, and we must fight automation unless it exists to improve the lives of workers. 

I'm not against the UBI as a concept, but Yang's version is about saying to capital, "OK, fine, destroy the workforce to create the greatest wealth consolidation you can, and we'll give everyone a pittance to shut them up and fund it with a regressive VAT. Oh, and like I told Dave Rubin of Glenn Beck's Blaze Network, we can dismantle the social welfare system as well."

Landlords will jack their rates up immediately because they know their renters are getting a monthly bonus and those of us who own houses or have already secured mortgages will just use that extra $1k (provided to me by their regressive VAT dollars lol) to get further ahead.

MATH

Damnit Donnie! Why you gotta get so smart on us?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Nah. We’ve just never had the numbers. And never will. 

Ask any dude in marketing, when you are talking on a mass scale, our generation never mattered, and never will, at least when it comes to aggregate things like voting numbers or mass marketing. 

Somewhat ironically, we might matter somewhat in the future on some things, like housing for example, because the boomers have fucked things up for the millinieals so bad that we have more purchasing power despite lower numbers. This is due to ridiculous student loans and the fact we entered the housing market earlier. Props to us I guess. 

So when it comes to electing presidents, it should not be a surprise that we still have a bunch of old as shit candidates, because the boomers have controlled the voting agenda for going on 40 years now. 

That is about to swiftly change though. The millennials are motivated, pissed super libs and there’s nothing a bunch of dying boomers can do to stop it. Short of eliminating democracy that is, which they might well try to do. 

I guess that's why all these liberal millennials are rallying around two fossil boomers right now. 

There is no demographic reason that there isn't a Gen Xer Bernie or Warren type running other than a weird technocrat like Yang.  I'm hard pressed to think of a single Gen Xer that has both the liberal and public service chops though.  Actually, I wouldn't even say that public service is/was valued at all by gen X. Gen X conservatives are all about private sector money.  More than boomers were even. Gen X liberals are about private sector charity and money as well. 

But it makes sense when you think about it. The boomers gave Gen X astronomically high crime rates, economic decay just about everywhere you could live, just as shitty, if not worse, job prospects as millennials, and an 80s distrust of "socialism.". The one thing we had over millennials is that the boomers left our cities as bombed out husks so property was cheap.  But that also meant Gen X bootstrapped or died and ran with the boomers "greed is good" ideal even as we claimed to fight it.  Gov't work is a paycut after all.  But we did win the culture war.  Millennials aren't even really gonna have to fight that hard to push the end of the boomers over the edge. The real fight they will have is with socially liberal but overwhelmingly capitalist Gen Xers after that is over. And I support the millennial side of that fight as a Gen X business owner myself. 

Edit:. Actually Yang is a perfect gen X politician example. Made a fortune in the private sector.  Socially liberal.  Cares about what happens to people even if it may end up hurting his own pocketbook in the long run. But he isn't willing to make the long climb up the govt ladder. He just wants the top rung or else he will just keep on in the private sector. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pepper brooks

pepper brooks 579

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Booker is mad that Kamala dropped out, but... who is he mad at?

I'm not even really being critical of him here, I'm genuinely confused as to who the supposed villain here is.

the racist libs, of course.  they're the ones who refused to back the woman of color.  Never mind she has no business running a lemonade stand.  I'm voting Tulsi if she makes it to the primaries.  if she doesn't, I will go with Pete.  Should either of them get the nomination I will vote for either.  Otherwise, I am going write in.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

In a generalized sense, sure, but in a case-by-case, not necessarily.

Absolutely.  The over 70 guys get a check mark in the negative side of the legal pad, in the age entry.  That's it.  It's an "all things being equal" factor.

Well, I guess all factors are "all things being equal" factors, to a degree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23362

Posted
Posted

Because they measure feelings and potential support instead of the snapshot of the tracking polls, I keep my eye on the following weekly polls: “candidates considering”, “second choice”, and “would be disappointed if nominee.”

Candidates considering:

8BCE5519-4FCA-4354-A914-B25C25103F6A_zps

 

Second choice:

666751B9-63D5-4863-A856-66218EFBA568_zps

 

Would be disappointed if nominee:

626878AE-EB82-476E-B7E6-2FFC84D37558_zps

Funny how men always come off as bigger snowflakes in these polls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

He won’t win but Andrew yang is spouting out things that make more sense than anyone else in the running.

So yeah he’s generation X. 

Yep. While the Boomers are talking about "breaking up big tech!!!!111" and robot taxes, which of course are ridiculous ideas that are reminiscent of grandpa trying to use his CD-Rom as a cup holder, Yang is actually bringing up thoughtful ideas to address the most important issues that are inbound.

And tantric brought up a good point above. No companies want to go hire 70 year olds for any position of importance. There's a reason they're all Wal-Mart greeters and golf course marshals. It's ageist as shit, but it's valid and there's a reason for it.

For whatever reason, be it Gen X not putting up good candidates, the Dem party not having a full pipeline, or the most probable cause of Boomers still controlling the primaries via sheer numbers, it's pathetic that our three top candidates are over 70 years old. I'm probably going to vote for one of the three in the primary, but no amount of crying by our resident perma-victims changes the fact that it's a sad state of affairs when we keep electing fucking Boomers to fix the problems they created. 

Edited by BradInATX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This is so fucking weird and hilarious. I bet Yang smoked A LOT of weed when he was younger.  And earlier today. 

That's his campaign manager trying to stop it. LMAO. 

 

 

 

My head hurts from laughing so hard at this. He's like some playboy model

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dropout

Dropout 355

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol @ how mad Gen Xers are that millenials and zoomers prefer an ancient Silent Generation Jew to their skateboarding clowns and cops.

Your parents don't like you and neither do your kids.

giphy.gif

 

24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


Ok boomer

That’s not how this meme works. Bt is not the stereotype. He is usually right. You are usually wrong. And y’all are crying like liddle’ Bitches in here. Let the record show the vast majority of gen x itt had to be taken to the revolution kicking and screaming. Good thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29179

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Booker is mad that Kamala dropped out, but... who is he mad at?

I'm not even really being critical of him here, I'm genuinely confused as to who the supposed villain here is.

this clip, or just the screenshot of the clip actually provides a little more background to the question of "why is booker not getting more traction?" (i'm quoting b-t but not addressing his content, this is just a tangent from other threads)

there are 4 basic things going on here (gop claims, president's mess, impeachment hearings, and booker).  cable news these days is all trump all the time.  when networks stray too far, they risk losing viewers that tune in a few times a day just to see what shenanigans have happened today in the oval office.

hugo, among others, has condemned the shitty coverage of candidates, their policies, general primary jockeying, for months now.  the networks are basically forced to wedge what little candidate coverage they have into the small non-trump window they're willing to allow throughout the day.  so unless something major happens, we're restricted to a short soundbyte or maybe a video clip.  when there's a debate, we get a day or so of coverage.  maybe.

so when you have a field of 25 candidates, including maybe 8-10 serious ones, there are only so many opportunities to break through and have an impact.  (make an impact?  no, you have an impact, you make a difference).  in my opinion, booker was just never able to differentiate himself in his limited opportunities.  maybe in a different cycle with a different field, things could've gone better for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol @ how mad Gen Xers are that millenials and zoomers prefer an ancient Silent Generation Jew to their skateboarding clowns and cops.

Your parents don't like you and neither do your kids.

giphy.gif

Who said we were mad about that? When we’re old and sitting in a nursing home eating jello and playing Madden and tecmo bowl we fully expect we’ll get just as ignored as we were when we were kids. Won’t be a problem either, since used to it. 

Edited by JimmyJames
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

In terms of policy or electability or... what?

Those two aren't really in the same lanes ideology/policy-wise.

Now, why so many are geeked up for Buttigieg over Booker? That's an interesting one.

Booker's problem is that he isn't exciting and new. Pete has establishment ideals, but he is a fresh face. Booker isn't.  Also, Booker is the textbook definition of a political opportunist. I'm still pissed at him for bailing on Newark way too quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Who said we were mad about that? When we’re old and sitting in a nursing home eating jello and playing Madden and techno bowl we fully expect we’ll get just as ignored as we were when we were kids. Won’t be a problem either, since used to it. 

Yep. This is true too. Gen X never had any expectation that anyone was going to look out for them.  No pensions. No unions. Not too many dads around even.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...