Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: Grinning_Colossus on January 06, 2019, 11:48:59 pm

Title: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on January 06, 2019, 11:48:59 pm
Or, Liz Warren's long, happy ride to the White House.

Quote
How Elizabeth Warren Could Win The 2020 Democratic Primary
Ideologically, Warren is right where a Democratic primary candidate should want to be — it’s one of the strongest cards in her hand. According to FiveThirtyEight’s Trump Score, she votes with the president just 13.1 percent of the time, making her the third-most anti-Trump senator in the 115th Congress. Although she’s best known for her stands against income inequality and big banks, she is deeply liberal on both social and economic issues, according to an analysis of her votes and positions by OnTheIssues — although not quite as liberal as Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of Warren’s potential 2020 rivals.

(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/rakich-warren-1231.png?w=575)

Warren’s base is likely to overlap quite a bit with Sanders’s, the self-described democratic socialist who turned heads in the 2016 presidential primaries by winning 40 percent of Democratic delegates. Warren even seemed to make an explicit play for Sanders voters when she devoted a full minute (mid-personal bio, no less) of her four-and-a-half-minute announcement video to an economic-populist message. “America’s middle class is under attack. … Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie and they enlisted politicians to cut them a fatter slice.”

In fact, at least one poll suggests that Warren and Sanders (if he runs again in 2020) will be fighting over the same pool of voters. Back in April 2018, Suffolk University conducted a poll of two versions of the 2020 Democratic primary in New Hampshire: one without Warren and one with her. In the version without her, Sanders pulled 25 percent of the vote. In the version with her, he dropped to 13 percent; Warren got 26 percent. None of the other six candidates about whom the poll asked lost as much support as Sanders did with Warren in the field.

Sanders and Warren have something else in common: the support of small donors, or those who give $200 or less to a campaign. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of Nov. 1, small donors were behind 56 percent of all the money raised by Warren’s re-election campaign. The only 2018 Senate candidate whose fundraising was more reliant on small donors was Sanders himself.

And in terms of raw dollar amounts, Warren raised $10 million more from small donors than Sanders did, even though neither one was facing a competitive race. Warren’s $19.4 million small-donor haul was second only to Beto O’Rourke’s among 2018 general-election candidates for Senate or House. Presidential campaigns are expensive affairs, and being a strong fundraiser — particularly among small donors, a well that is less likely to run dry — is a huge advantage. It can also signal high voter enthusiasm for a candidate.

Warren’s deep pockets may also be financing her apparent strategy of building up goodwill among state-level Democrats who will be instrumental in primary and caucus field organizing. According to the Washington Post, she directed at least $7.6 million to Democratic campaigns for offices like state treasurer and legislator in 2018 — more than any rumored 2020 contender not named Michael Bloomberg. As of mid-October, Warren had also made 172 post-primary congratulatory phone calls to Democratic candidates, blasted her email list on their behalf 180 times, shared policy documents with them 63 times, held 61 one-on-one meetings, hosted 41 fundraisers and shot 36 videos. That is how you develop a network.

Central to Warren’s grassroots networking strategy may be New Hampshire — less than an hour’s drive away from her home base and the second state in the country (after Iowa) to cast primary ballots. While she sent one staffer each to Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada for the 2018 election, two of her aides moved to New Hampshire despite it not hosting any particularly competitive major elections. (They assumed pretty major roles there, too — as the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s political director and communications director.)

The polls at this point aren’t very predictive, but if the primaries were held today, it looks like New Hampshire would be her strongest state. In the latest poll of the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary, 17 percent of Granite Staters said they would vote for Warren, putting her in third place — 2 points away from second.1 In Iowa — or at least in the three Iowa caucus polls taken since Nov. 6, according to FiveThirtyEight’s polls database — she averages 8 percent, putting her in fourth place. She fares the worst in national polls, averaging 5 percent in seven national 2020 Democratic primary polls2 conducted since Election Day.

Overall, Warren’s campaign looks like it could go either way. With some skill and luck, she could launch herself right into the thick of the nomination fight. But there are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic about Warren as well, starting with her stature among her own constituents. Just after Election Day, UMass Amherst released a poll of the 2020 Democratic primary in Massachusetts, and Warren garnered just 11 percent of the sample. That is not good in a state where her name recognition is already high and Democrats are as intimately familiar with her record as any 2020 voter is going to get: Most eventual nominees were already lapping the field in polls of their home states at this point in previous presidential election cycles.

Her 2018 re-election was also unimpressive in a state as blue as Massachusetts. Warren won, but only by 24 points in a state nearly 30 points more Democratic-leaning than the country as a whole.3 Add in the extremely favorable national environment to Democrats, and she “should” have won Massachusetts by more than 39 points.4 By this method, Warren had the weakest incumbency advantage across hundreds of Senate and House elections last year.

It’s unclear what’s cooling voters on Warren. The fallout from her DNA test just weeks before Election Day is a decent guess. But the controversy over her ancestry may also be a proxy for other, less socially acceptable reasons why people dislike her, such as her gender or age. “I don’t think America’s ready for another Hillary. It has to be someone young and dynamic,” one interviewee told Boston radio station WBUR-FM.

Warren has long polarized audiences and was never the world’s most beloved politician to begin with. That may be because she’s a woman with a confrontational style. It may be sexism mixed with other reasons. Whatever the cause(s), Warren isn’t in the best starting position as she enters the fray. But she’s not in the worst position either — she’ll likely find a receptive audience for her message in terms of policy and ideology. A well-run campaign would put her among the field’s top contenders. We’ll find out soon enough: Warren says she’ll announce for sure whether she’s running “early in the new year.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-elizabeth-warren-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-elizabeth-warren-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/)


Hopefully the other potential Dem candidates will opt for 8 more years of grandstanding in the Senate/losing elections in Texas rather than stand in front of the Liz train.  :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tamas on January 07, 2019, 04:18:07 am
What's Languish's take on this lady? The Trumpists seem to fevereshly mock her which is a great start but other than that I know nothing of her.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 07, 2019, 04:30:48 am
Her great-great-great-grandma was an Injun.

Other than that, she strikes me as Bernie Lite.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Monoriu on January 07, 2019, 04:48:09 am
Anybody but Trump. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on January 07, 2019, 04:59:28 am
What's Languish's take on this lady? The Trumpists seem to fevereshly mock her which is a great start but other than that I know nothing of her.

:hmm:

Yeah, no one on this board ever speaks about her.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on January 07, 2019, 05:02:46 am
Anyway to pull this thread more general and away from GC's fan wank.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424096-biden-likely-to-make-decision-on-2020-run-within-next-two-weeks-report
Quote
Biden likely to make decision on 2020 run within next two weeks: report

Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) is likely to make a decision on whether he will run for the presidency in 2020 within the next two weeks, according to a New York Times report.

Biden has reportedly told those close to him that he does not feel other potential Democratic presidential contenders could beat President Trump

The former vice president has been contacting supporters and allies over the last few weeks, the Times reported.

One Democrat he spoke to recently told the Times that Biden during a phone call said, “If you can persuade me there is somebody better who can win, I’m happy not to do it. But I don’t see the candidate who can clearly do what has to be done to win."

This would be Biden's third White House bid.

Biden has continually topped 2020 polls, often winning about support from a third of those surveyed, but skeptics say that polls this far out from elections often rely on name recognition.

...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424082-sherrod-brown-to-make-2020-decision-within-the-next-two-months
Quote
Sherrod Brown to make 2020 decision 'within the next two months,' wife says

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) will decide within the next two months whether he will seek the presidency in 2020, his wife, Connie Schultz, said Sunday.

“I think we’re going to know within the next two months. We have to," Schultz said during an interview on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

Schultz added that Brown won't run if she doesn't "wholeheartedly want to be a part of it all."

“Think of any big decision you’ve made in life," she said. "Unless you’re forced to make instantly, it’s something you have to get used to thinking about. I’m lucky and burdened to be married to a man who will not do this if I don’t wholeheartedly want to be a part of it all. He just won’t.”

Brown, who won reelection last year to the Senate and could give Democrats a chance to recapture the key swing state of Ohio, has previously said that he's "seriously thinking" about making a bid for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

“We’re seriously thinking about it. We’re seriously talking about it with family, with friends and with political allies who have come to me about this," he said in November.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424095-vermont-newspaper-editorial-board-we-beg-bernie-sanders-not-to-run-in-2020
Quote
Vermont newspaper editorial board: 'We beg' Bernie Sanders not to run in 2020

The editorial board for The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, a newspaper in Vermont, is urging Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) not to run for president in 2020.

"Bernie Sanders should not run for president. In fact, we beg him not to," the editorial board begins in a piece published on Saturday.

The editorial board, which endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, goes on to say that they have more reasons to be concerned than excited about another Sanders run for the White House. It writes about its fears that a Sanders run for president could divide "the well-fractured Democratic Party, and could lead to another split in the 2020 presidential vote."

"There is too much at stake to take that gamble," the board continues. "If we are going to maintain a two-party system, the mandate needs to be a clear one. There is strength in numbers, and if anything has been shown in recent years, it is that unless tallies are overwhelming, there can always be questions or challenges raised over what 'vote totals' really mean: popular vote vs. Electoral College results.

"For us, this comes down to principle over ego. It is one thing to start a revolution, but at a certain point you need to know when to step out of the way and let others carry the water for you."

The board adds that Sanders has developed a loyal following because of certain progressive policies he's championed. But it says that Sanders has become "exhausting" as a candidate and that his personality is "abrasive."

"He can be dismissive and rude in his arrogance. You are either with Bernie Sanders or you are not," the board writes, before charging that his "no-nonsense approach" is comparable to President Trump's.

The board notes that "all signs point to another run, even with accusations" that aides working on his last presidential campaign experienced sexism and harassment in 2016.

...
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tamas on January 07, 2019, 05:45:21 am
Her great-great-great-grandma was an Injun.

Other than that, she strikes me as Bernie Lite.

Oh, that's her? Shit.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tamas on January 07, 2019, 05:45:52 am
What's Languish's take on this lady? The Trumpists seem to fevereshly mock her which is a great start but other than that I know nothing of her.

:hmm:

Yeah, no one on this board ever speaks about her.

Yeah I wasn't really paying attention recently.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tyr on January 07, 2019, 05:49:56 am
Bernie is great and all. A proper moderate socialist is just what America needs. But he's so damn old. I have little confidence in his survivability.
So what is actually needed is a younger person cut from the same mould. If this woman could be that then fair play.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2019, 06:46:58 am
Bernie is great and all. A proper moderate socialist is just what America needs. But he's so damn old. I have little confidence in his survivability.
So what is actually needed is a younger person cut from the same mould. If this woman could be that then fair play.

She's still 69, but there aren't really anyone cut from the same mold in their 50s.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2019, 06:47:50 am
What's Languish's take on this lady? The Trumpists seem to fevereshly mock her which is a great start but other than that I know nothing of her.

She's too feverishly anti-business for me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on January 07, 2019, 07:03:30 am
I've heard Warren is too unlikeable. Is that true?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2019, 10:44:53 am
She was a first rate legal scholar, very smart, popular with students and colleagues.

As a Senator she seems to have spent more time and effort using her seat as a pulpit rather than passing legislation. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on January 07, 2019, 10:54:53 am
I've heard Warren is too unlikeable. Is that true?

Not in my experience.  :ph34r:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 07, 2019, 11:17:55 am
I've heard Warren is too unlikeable. Is that true?

I disagree with her on most issues (shock) and think she'd be a terrible president for this country, but personality-wise I don't find her that unlikable.  She's definitely no Hillary.  Doesn't even show up on the Hillary scale of unlikability.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on January 07, 2019, 11:22:39 am
Ditto what Derspiess said. I think she's brilliant, but disagree with most of her policies. I think the only thing that's unlikable about her is her inane decision to try to counter Trump's/the right's attacks on her ancestry comments. Why even bring that up again?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on January 07, 2019, 11:30:23 am
Clinton's unlikabilty has more to do with her being a hate figure for the Right for a quarter century.


I don't think we need another former college professor in the White House.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on January 07, 2019, 12:00:12 pm
Way too many of our prospective presidential candidates lately (and the sitting President) are geriatrics.  The Reagan lesson has escaped us.

Where have all the youngin's gone.  :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 07, 2019, 12:10:09 pm
Way too many of our prospective presidential candidates lately (and the sitting President) are geriatrics.  The Reagan lesson has escaped us.

Where have all the youngin's gone.  :(

What Reagan lesson?  The one where he promised not to use his opponent's youth and inexperience against him?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2019, 12:19:54 pm
I think he is referring to the suspected mental decline suffered by Reagan in the final years of his presidency.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: PDH on January 07, 2019, 12:46:53 pm
 :(  We should have elected Jerry Brown in 1992.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 07, 2019, 12:53:41 pm
No way.  Doug Wilder FTW!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 07, 2019, 01:01:02 pm
1992 should have been Paul Tsongas' year. :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: frunk on January 07, 2019, 01:01:08 pm
Tsongas.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 07, 2019, 01:04:32 pm
Tsongas.

:hug:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 07, 2019, 02:20:02 pm
Al Franken did a dead-on Tsongas.  So that might have worked out okay.  Only would have been able to serve one term, though :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on January 07, 2019, 02:36:21 pm
That chart seems more than a little left skewed.  No way are those people as far left as plotted.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on January 07, 2019, 02:38:06 pm
Donald Trump is going to get the military to build the stupid wall and the Pentagon is going to pay for it  :lol:

 :Embarrass:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on January 07, 2019, 03:12:32 pm
That chart seems more than a little left skewed.  No way are those people as far left as plotted.

Remember, Nazis are in the middle top.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: 11B4V on January 07, 2019, 03:27:57 pm
Donald Trump is going to get the military to build the stupid wall and the Pentagon is going to pay for it  :lol:

 :Embarrass:

Well we are being invaded and that's the military's wheelhouse.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 07, 2019, 03:29:08 pm
I think Gary Hart would have been a good President too.  He just shoulda waited a couple of decades, since nowadays nobody seems to care about philandering anymore.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2019, 03:33:26 pm
With the obvious exception of Marylin Monroe, Gary Hart's squeeze was probably the hottest president/candidate lay.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 07, 2019, 03:34:06 pm
With the obvious exception of Marylin Monroe, Gary Hart's squeeze was probably the hottest president/candidate lay.
I don't remember what she looked like. :hmm:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2019, 03:39:15 pm
https://www.google.com/search?q=donna+rice+gary+hart&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=n3HDoaUAevqCKM%253A%252C-l2woWBfojaJlM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kRxZAA5ilMxhyXFWAGRlVOQWJu7KQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwtfXu0NzfAhUPA6wKHWVHDfcQ9QEwAHoECAUQBA#imgrc=n3HDoaUAevqCKM:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 07, 2019, 03:39:25 pm
(https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2011/02/23/16d77b51-1c51-11e3-9918-005056850598/resize/620x465/3b0f0adf39144ec5b177ba182539314d/donnarice-garyhart-3010242.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 07, 2019, 03:50:58 pm
Oh yeah.

Now I recall that when Sharon Stone's career broke people used to say she looked like Gary Hart's girlfriend. :)

Did Hart and Rice ever own up to having an affair?  IIRC they both vehemently denied it at the time and I don't know if either of them ever came clean.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 07, 2019, 06:35:03 pm
You guys are overlooking the fact that his name was Gary.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2019, 07:00:03 pm
You guys are overlooking the fact that his name was Gary.

Gary is not a dork name.  Gary Cooper motherfucker.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 07, 2019, 07:11:48 pm
Also Baba Booey's real name!

(https://media.nbcconnecticut.com/images/652*489/baba+booey_640_480.jpg)

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 07, 2019, 08:24:57 pm
Exactly.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2019, 08:26:47 pm
Thanks for helping Cal.  :glare:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 07, 2019, 08:51:41 pm
 :lol:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on January 07, 2019, 09:21:29 pm
You guys are overlooking the fact that his name was Gary.

Was the only word he could say "Gary?"  I seem to recall him.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 07, 2019, 09:46:46 pm
You guys are overlooking the fact that his name was Gary.

Was the only word he could say "Gary?"  I seem to recall him.

:lol:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2019, 10:04:18 pm
I've heard Warren is too unlikeable. Is that true?
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law.

The combination of old, female and angry make her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Monoriu on January 07, 2019, 10:32:05 pm
I have a great deal of respect for General Sherman.  I just hope more people would come out and quote his immortal words on running for political office. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 08, 2019, 12:49:06 pm
I have a great deal of respect for General Sherman. 
Never say that aloud if you should ever happen to visit Atlanta.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 08, 2019, 02:45:03 pm
I have a great deal of respect for General Sherman.  I just hope more people would come out and quote his immortal words on running for political office.

War is hell?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on January 08, 2019, 02:48:06 pm
I have a great deal of respect for General Sherman.  I just hope more people would come out and quote his immortal words on running for political office.

Are the two parts of the second sentence related?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: merithyn on January 08, 2019, 03:23:10 pm
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 08, 2019, 03:41:11 pm
She's an old lady

Whoa, whoa, whoa, She's a lady?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on January 08, 2019, 04:24:54 pm
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

:rolleyes:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on January 08, 2019, 04:46:47 pm
Hey guys, Seedy's back!  He's hijacked Meri's account.

:)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on January 08, 2019, 05:04:24 pm
Nah, not enough use of "whore pills" or racist slurs.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: 11B4V on January 08, 2019, 06:00:47 pm
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

I thought she was native American.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on January 08, 2019, 07:32:15 pm
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

I thought she was native American.

So, Indian women can't be ladies?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 08, 2019, 07:57:28 pm
:yes: once a squaw, always a squaw.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 08, 2019, 08:16:47 pm
Uh, oh... :ph34r:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on January 14, 2019, 03:55:01 am
Castro just officially announced:

Quote
Former secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro officially announced his presidential bid in San Antonio on Saturday, beginning a campaign that will look to turn his uniquely American immigrant story into a direct repudiation of President Donald Trump.

"When my grandmother got here almost a hundred years ago, I'm sure she never could have imagined that just two generations later, one of her grandsons would be serving as a member of the United States Congress and the other would be standing with you here today to say these words: I am a candidate for President of the United States of America," Castro said.

Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio, had been considering a bid for nearly two years and announced a presidential exploratory committee in December. He has long been viewed as a rising star in the Democratic Party since he first landed on the national scene by delivering the keynote speech for President Barack Obama at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
Castro, in an interview with CNN ahead of his official presidential announcement, acknowledged that he will enter the race looking up at the cadre of other Democrats considering running for the party's nomination.
But Castro, whose grandmother, Victoria Castro, was born in the Mexican border state of Coahuila, and crossed into the United States at Eagle Pass, Texas, in 1922 after her parents died during the Mexican Revolution, added that at no time in his life, from growing up on San Antonio's impoverished West Side to his run for mayor in 2009, was he considered the favorite to get ahead.

The Republican National Committee slammed Castro's announcement, calling him "another delusional Democrat."
Castro was reflective days before his announcement, acknowledging how his wife's support and mother's political work helped him get to this point. If he had a disappointment, he said, it was that is grandmother, who died when he was younger, could not be there to see him.
"I wish my grandmother could be with us to see it," he said. "Win or lose, I hope that I will have a chance to inspire a lot of young kids out there to reach for their dreams."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/12/politics/julian-castro-presidential-announcement/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_content=2019-01-12T18%3A08%3A20&utm_source=fbCNN (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/12/politics/julian-castro-presidential-announcement/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_content=2019-01-12T18%3A08%3A20&utm_source=fbCNN)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on January 15, 2019, 11:50:18 am
Castro for President has a nice ring to it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on January 15, 2019, 11:55:35 am
Quote
The Republican National Committee slammed Castro's announcement, calling him "another delusional Democrat."

Was the RNC under the impression people from some other political party were going to run for the Democratic Party nomination?

Anyway cool to see Texas Democrats stepping up to the plate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on January 15, 2019, 11:56:47 am
Castro just officially announced:

Hmm, has someone who has only* been cabinet member (and HUD is pretty low on that echelon) ever make a successful run for President?





*Not to discount being mayor of San Antonio...but I am not sure anyone has catapulted straight from city mayor to POTUS either.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2019, 12:13:48 pm
Hmm, has someone who has only* been cabinet member (and HUD is pretty low on that echelon) ever make a successful run for President?
Hoover, I think

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on January 15, 2019, 12:22:48 pm
Hmm, has someone who has only* been cabinet member (and HUD is pretty low on that echelon) ever make a successful run for President?
Hoover, I think



Good call, though he had considerable success in private sector.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on January 15, 2019, 05:01:45 pm
Castro just officially announced:

Hmm, has someone who has only* been cabinet member (and HUD is pretty low on that echelon) ever make a successful run for President?

Plenty of Secretaries of State successfully ran for President.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on January 15, 2019, 05:24:15 pm
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

Well, being female is certainly the largest factor in there, but old and angry are part of it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on January 15, 2019, 05:54:52 pm
Castro just officially announced:

Hmm, has someone who has only* been cabinet member (and HUD is pretty low on that echelon) ever make a successful run for President?

Plenty of Secretaries of State successfully ran for President.

It's been a minute (not since James Buchanan).
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2019, 10:04:14 pm
Kristen Gilibrand announced.  On Colbert of all places.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 16, 2019, 04:20:32 am
She called herself a "young mom"  :lmfao:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on January 16, 2019, 04:26:01 am
She called herself a "young mom"  :lmfao:

Yes, a very strange thing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on January 16, 2019, 07:08:50 am
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

:rolleyes:

Odd, isn't it?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on January 16, 2019, 07:36:21 am
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

:rolleyes:

Odd, isn't it?

I guess it will be tested now that there is more than one female candidate with her hat in the ring.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on January 16, 2019, 09:48:39 am
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

:rolleyes:

Odd, isn't it?

I guess it will be tested now that there is more than one female candidate with her hat in the ring.

How does it test anything?  We already know that a woman can win the Democratic nomination for President.  And it's not like women haven't won ther elective offices in the US before.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on January 16, 2019, 10:21:19 am
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

:rolleyes:

Odd, isn't it?

I guess it will be tested now that there is more than one female candidate with her hat in the ring.

How does it test anything?  We already know that a woman can win the Democratic nomination for President.  And it's not like women haven't won ther elective offices in the US before.


I think it will point out that Tim is confused. If people aren't so vocally opposed to the other female candidates in Dem field, clearly isn't just that people can't stand women. Of course, as someone who voted for a female candidate multiple times but dislikes Warren, I find it annoying for him to take that stance.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 16, 2019, 11:51:22 am
Hmm, has someone who has only* been cabinet member (and HUD is pretty low on that echelon) ever make a successful run for President?
Remember that Trump catapulted literally from no public office experience right to POTUS.  Past experience apparently means nothing anymore.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 16, 2019, 12:01:07 pm
Hmm, has someone who has only* been cabinet member (and HUD is pretty low on that echelon) ever make a successful run for President?
Remember that Trump catapulted literally from no public office experience right to POTUS.  Past experience apparently means nothing anymore.

Trump had name recognition up the wazoo though.

Someone whose only claim to fame is being a cabinet member really can't compare.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 16, 2019, 12:01:52 pm
Come on BB, everyone knows the name "Castro"
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 16, 2019, 12:03:51 pm
I still love the fact that we had Barack HUSSEIN Obama in office. :cool:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on January 16, 2019, 12:45:36 pm
I still love the fact that we had Barack HUSSEIN Obama in office. :cool:

So for best result the Dems should really run a guy called Fidel Saddam?   :ph34r:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on January 16, 2019, 01:11:42 pm
I still love the fact that we had Barack HUSSEIN Obama in office. :cool:

So for best result the Dems should really run a guy called Fidel Saddam?   :ph34r:

Throw in Osama in there as well.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2019, 01:16:29 pm
President Joseph Antichrist
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on January 16, 2019, 04:43:28 pm
President Hitler Lincoln
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: frunk on January 16, 2019, 04:46:27 pm
President Hitler Lincoln

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/rickandmorty/images/b/bb/Abradolf_Lincler_Angry.png/revision/latest?cb=20171214005518)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on January 16, 2019, 07:38:15 pm

I think it will point out that Tim is confused.

Well, as if we needed any more evidence of that.  ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on January 16, 2019, 08:11:19 pm
President Hitler Lincoln

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/rickandmorty/images/b/bb/Abradolf_Lincler_Angry.png/revision/latest?cb=20171214005518)

 :lol:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on January 16, 2019, 09:04:29 pm
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

:rolleyes:

Odd, isn't it?

I guess it will be tested now that there is more than one female candidate with her hat in the ring.

How does it test anything?  We already know that a woman can win the Democratic nomination for President.  And it's not like women haven't won ther elective offices in the US before.


I think it will point out that Tim is confused. If people aren't so vocally opposed to the other female candidates in Dem field, clearly isn't just that people can't stand women. Of course, as someone who voted for a female candidate multiple times but dislikes Warren, I find it annoying for him to take that stance.

I'd point out that Tim agrees with you and it was merithyn arguing that people dislike her merely because she is a woman.  Point your annoyance at its source.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on January 16, 2019, 09:42:23 pm
President Hitler Lincoln


Oooh.  That would really split the vote in the South.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on January 17, 2019, 02:12:43 am
She's an old lady that gets angry when banks/corporations break the law. .

The combination of old, female and angry That makes her unlikeable to a lot of people. Whether that's enough to make her unelectable is yet to be seen.

Fyp

:rolleyes:

Odd, isn't it?

I guess it will be tested now that there is more than one female candidate with her hat in the ring.

How does it test anything?  We already know that a woman can win the Democratic nomination for President.  And it's not like women haven't won ther elective offices in the US before.


I think it will point out that Tim is confused. If people aren't so vocally opposed to the other female candidates in Dem field, clearly isn't just that people can't stand women. Of course, as someone who voted for a female candidate multiple times but dislikes Warren, I find it annoying for him to take that stance.

I'd point out that Tim agrees with you and it was merithyn arguing that people dislike her merely because she is a woman.  Point your annoyance at its source.

Fair though Tim did later say the female aspect is a large part of it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: AnchorClanker on January 19, 2019, 07:24:37 am
President Hitler Lincoln


Oooh.  That would really split the vote in the South.

 :lol:

I heard stories about people being denied as renters in the Augusta, GA area due to the unfortunate surname /Sherman/ - although I don't know if those stories are 100% true.  On a related note, if you ever want to give yourself brain bubbles, go to the Augusta Chronicle webpage and read the comments...  :bleeding: :x :bleeding: :x :bleeding: :x

It seriously makes you wish Lincoln hadn't bothered fighting to reunite the nation.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on January 19, 2019, 10:31:00 am
It seriously makes you wish Lincoln hadn't bothered fighting to reunite the nation.

:huh: He didn't fight to reunite the nation.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on January 28, 2019, 10:35:56 am
Until today I had hoped that Biden would be the Democratic nominee.  A Trump-Biden debate would be, if not necessarily the greatest debate the country has ever seen, certainly one of the loudest.  However:

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: 'I am seriously thinking of running for President' (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/27/politics/howard-schultz-starbucks-2020-president/index.html)

If Schultz does run as an independent I hope Michael Bloomberg is the Democratic nominee.  A Schultz-Trump-Bloomberg race would be the most honest picture of our republic at the early years of the 21st Century.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 28, 2019, 10:40:36 am
Ugh.
By that metric Trump is a good choice. I'll take a republic that tries to hide its flaws.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on January 28, 2019, 10:41:10 am
Is Bernie in the ring as of yet?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on January 28, 2019, 10:50:03 am
Is Bernie in the ring as of yet?

Not yet.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Duque de Bragança on January 28, 2019, 11:07:32 am
Until today I had hoped that Biden would be the Democratic nominee.  A Trump-Biden debate would be, if not necessarily the greatest debate the country has ever seen, certainly one of the loudest.  However:

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: 'I am seriously thinking of running for President' (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/27/politics/howard-schultz-starbucks-2020-president/index.html)

If Schultz does run as an independent I hope Michael Bloomberg is the Democratic nominee.  A Schultz-Trump-Bloomberg race would be the most honest picture of our plutocratic republic at the early years of the 21st Century.

Did you forget a word?  :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on January 28, 2019, 11:10:48 am
Until today I had hoped that Biden would be the Democratic nominee.  A Trump-Biden debate would be, if not necessarily the greatest debate the country has ever seen, certainly one of the loudest.  However:

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: 'I am seriously thinking of running for President' (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/27/politics/howard-schultz-starbucks-2020-president/index.html)

If Schultz does run as an independent I hope Michael Bloomberg is the Democratic nominee.  A Schultz-Trump-Bloomberg race would be the most honest picture of our republic at the early years of the 21st Century.

Hell yes. I am super excited for coffee CEO man to run for president! Free frappucinnos for everyone!!!!!!!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on January 28, 2019, 11:14:16 am
Splitting the anti-Trump vote is such a great idea btw. Let's see him defend attacks on two fronts!

When the barista asks me my name to write on the cup, I'm saying "SCHULTZ, BABY, SCHULTZ!!!"
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on January 28, 2019, 11:28:55 am
He really needs to come up with a nickname.

Quote

@realDonaldTrump

Howard Schultz doesn’t have the “guts” to run for President! Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the “smartest person.” Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tamas on January 28, 2019, 11:59:51 am
I am increasingly "annoyed" by the way the "President" uses quotiation "marks".
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 28, 2019, 12:14:48 pm
Oh, of course you would "be annoyed"

(https://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/files/images/2017/4/26/170420_3505988_Weekend_Update_Segment___Chris_Farley_as_Ben.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on January 28, 2019, 12:30:24 pm
He really needs to come up with a nickname.

Quote

@realDonaldTrump

Howard Schultz doesn’t have the “guts” to run for President! Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the “smartest person.” Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!
Trump's reasoning behind calling the guy a wimp couldn't be more transparent.  Of course he wants him to run and divide the liberal vote. :D
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Zoupa on January 28, 2019, 06:22:11 pm
Schultz would get liberals' vote? I've never heard of the guy. Is he well known?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 28, 2019, 06:48:11 pm
Schultz would get liberals' vote? I've never heard of the guy. Is he well known?

Medium.  He showers his coffee jerks with perks.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on January 29, 2019, 06:10:17 am
Schultz would get liberals' vote? I've never heard of the guy. Is he well known?

Not really well known. He is a former CEO at Starbucks but, like, who gives a shit? At least TRUMP had brand name recognition. If you ask people what they think of Schultz they'll probably thank you for reminding them about their car payment this month.

He's a billionaire who saw what TRUMP did and said "Hey, I can do that too!!!!!!" So he paid some shitty consultants and pollsters a few million to tell him him"Of course there's an appetite out there for a independent billionaire to run the country! Pay us more money and we'll run your totally viable campaign for you!"

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on January 29, 2019, 10:16:40 am
Schultz would get liberals' vote? I've never heard of the guy. Is he well known?

Not really well known. He is a former CEO at Starbucks but, like, who gives a shit? At least TRUMP had brand name recognition. If you ask people what they think of Schultz they'll probably thank you for reminding them about their car payment this month.

He's a billionaire who saw what TRUMP did and said "Hey, I can do that too!!!!!!" So he paid some shitty consultants and pollsters a few million to tell him him"Of course there's an appetite out there for a independent billionaire to run the country! Pay us more money and we'll run your totally viable campaign for you!"

Wasn't he the guy behind some kind of "Impeach Trump" campaign? I think I read bout him as part of a group of "activist billionaires".
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on January 29, 2019, 10:39:42 am
Wasn't he the guy behind some kind of "Impeach Trump" campaign? I think I read bout him as part of a group of "activist billionaires".

Are you thinking of Tom Steyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#Trump_impeachment_campaign)?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on January 29, 2019, 10:43:43 am
Wasn't he the guy behind some kind of "Impeach Trump" campaign? I think I read bout him as part of a group of "activist billionaires".

Are you thinking of Tom Steyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#Trump_impeachment_campaign)?

Ah, yes, it was that guy, my bad! I think I read that he was also considering a presidential run.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on January 29, 2019, 10:50:26 am
Wasn't he the guy behind some kind of "Impeach Trump" campaign? I think I read bout him as part of a group of "activist billionaires".

Are you thinking of Tom Steyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#Trump_impeachment_campaign)?

Ah, yes, it was that guy, my bad! I think I read that he was also considering a presidential run.

Even better; a hedgefund manager would be an even more honest picture of present day American political life than a coffee magnate.   :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on January 29, 2019, 11:15:39 am
Is he the one who required baristas to start having extraordinarily uncomfortable conversations with patrons about race in America?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 11:23:13 am
Is he the one who required baristas to start having extraordinarily uncomfortable conversations with patrons about race in America?

A mocha? A drink whose color resembles the flesh tones of oppressed peoples? Have you no shame, sir?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2019, 11:24:57 am
Schultz would get liberals' vote? I've never heard of the guy. Is he well known?

I see nothing.  I know nothing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 29, 2019, 11:28:51 am
His silly habit of virtue-signaling aside, I might vote for Schultz if it were down to Trump vs. any likely Dem candidate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 29, 2019, 12:16:24 pm
His silly habit of virtue-signaling aside, I might vote for Schultz if it were down to Trump vs. any likely Dem candidate.

Sure.  He'd hardly be my ideal candidate.  BUt if it's between Trump, Schultz, and a hard-left Demo candidate?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 12:17:41 pm
His silly habit of virtue-signaling aside, I might vote for Schultz if it were down to Trump vs. any likely Dem candidate.

Sure.  He'd hardly be my ideal candidate.  BUt if it's between Trump, Schultz, and a hard-left Demo candidate?

How hard are we talking about? Semi-hard or fully-hard?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 29, 2019, 12:20:22 pm
His silly habit of virtue-signaling aside, I might vote for Schultz if it were down to Trump vs. any likely Dem candidate.

Sure.  He'd hardly be my ideal candidate.  BUt if it's between Trump, Schultz, and a hard-left Demo candidate?

How hard are we talking about? Semi-hard or fully-hard?

A candidate fully embracing medicare for all, free tuition, and the Green New Deal counts as fully hard.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 12:36:02 pm
A candidate fully embracing medicare for all, free tuition, and the Green New Deal counts as fully hard.

Even at Bernie's age that would probably make him fully hard.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on January 29, 2019, 12:38:07 pm
His silly habit of virtue-signaling aside, I might vote for Schultz if it were down to Trump vs. any likely Dem candidate.

Sure.  He'd hardly be my ideal candidate.  BUt if it's between Trump, Schultz, and a hard-left Demo candidate?

How hard are we talking about? Semi-hard or fully-hard?

A candidate fully embracing medicare for all, free tuition, and the Green New Deal counts as fully hard.

Don't you nearly have all those things in Canada already? Must be an arousing place.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Zoupa on January 29, 2019, 02:09:10 pm
We have "medicare" for all, but that's it. We don't have free tuition and we definitely don't any sort of green mentality, PR aside.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 29, 2019, 02:40:59 pm
We have "medicare" for all, but that's it. We don't have free tuition and we definitely don't any sort of green mentality, PR aside.

:yes:

Tuition aint free, and we have a proposed, modest national carbon tax.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 29, 2019, 02:42:01 pm
A candidate fully embracing medicare for all, free tuition, and the Green New Deal counts as fully hard.

Even at Bernie's age that would probably make him fully hard.

You know I knew you were going for a crude penis joke, but I thought I would try to artfully dodge it.

So instead you just rammed in the penis joke anyways.  Typical. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 03:01:38 pm
A candidate fully embracing medicare for all, free tuition, and the Green New Deal counts as fully hard.

Even at Bernie's age that would probably make him fully hard.

You know I knew you were going for a crude penis joke, but I thought I would try to artfully dodge it.

So instead you just rammed in the penis joke anyways.  Typical. :rolleyes:

Yep. That is me. So so typical.

Well I am not sure WTF "hard" means here, so that is why I made fun of it. You insist it means a pretty radical agenda, but are you really sure they are hard in some sense about it? They might not necessarily be inflexible about it. I mean it is easy to be radical before you actually have to make any decisions. Which is primarily what annoys me about them, I do not think they are serious and/or have no practical plan on how to achieve their ends. So they appear to be irresponsible in my eyes.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2019, 03:19:47 pm
What is Green New Deal?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 03:22:16 pm
What is Green New Deal?

Actually good question :hmm:

I presumed it was some big Federal Green initiative but in the context of the New Deal that doesn't make any sense. I guess it is some big welfare program + big Federal Green initiative?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on January 29, 2019, 03:35:05 pm
What is Green New Deal?

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal):

Quote
The Green New Deal (GND) is a proposed economic stimulus program in the United States that aims to address both economic inequality and climate change. The name refers to the New Deal, a combination of social and economic reforms and public works projects undertaken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.  Supporters of a Green New Deal advocate a combination of Roosevelt's economic approach with modern ideas such as renewable energy and resource efficiency.

I prefer the name "Green Leap Forward," but no one asked me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 29, 2019, 03:39:24 pm
A candidate fully embracing medicare for all, free tuition, and the Green New Deal counts as fully hard.

Even at Bernie's age that would probably make him fully hard.

You know I knew you were going for a crude penis joke, but I thought I would try to artfully dodge it.

So instead you just rammed in the penis joke anyways.  Typical. :rolleyes:

Yep. That is me. So so typical.

Well I am not sure WTF "hard" means here, so that is why I made fun of it. You insist it means a pretty radical agenda, but are you really sure they are hard in some sense about it? They might not necessarily be inflexible about it. I mean it is easy to be radical before you actually have to make any decisions. Which is primarily what annoys me about them, I do not think they are serious and/or have no practical plan on how to achieve their ends. So they appear to be irresponsible in my eyes.

I'm just yanking your chain man.  I even threw in a "rammed in" line to go along with the dick jokes.  :P

I want my politicians to have serious but achievable policy goals, and that we should be able to grade them on how many they succeeded in by the time of their election.  As you put it, medicare for all, free tuition and Green New Deal (more in separate post) is not realistic.  Each would be massive new budget-busting expenditures: all three together are unthinkable.  Not to mention there's no question on how you'd pass any of them without getting 60 votes in the Senate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on January 29, 2019, 03:43:52 pm
What is Green New Deal?

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal):

Quote
The Green New Deal (GND) is a proposed economic stimulus program in the United States that aims to address both economic inequality and climate change. The name refers to the New Deal, a combination of social and economic reforms and public works projects undertaken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.  Supporters of a Green New Deal advocate a combination of Roosevelt's economic approach with modern ideas such as renewable energy and resource efficiency.

I prefer the name "Green Leap Forward," but no one asked me.

:yes:

It's AOC's (and like-minded fellow travelers) big idea to spend massive amounts of money to reconfigure the US economy around green energy (and green jobs) in order to combat global warming.  But it's not so much a set of specific policy plans as it is a mindset.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

And Sav, you'd have liked the Canadian equivalent: the Leap Manifesto.  Because everything sounds better when you call it a Manifesto.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on January 29, 2019, 03:47:27 pm
The Green Leaf Forward, imho.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2019, 03:53:56 pm
Green New Deal is pretty vague.  It could be totally reasonable, or totally bonkers, or anything in between.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2019, 03:55:10 pm
First thing I thought of was that Seattle council chick who told the Boeing workers to take over the factories and make electric buses.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on January 29, 2019, 04:09:00 pm
A candidate fully embracing medicare for all, free tuition, and the Green New Deal counts as fully hard.

Even at Bernie's age that would probably make him fully hard.

You know I knew you were going for a crude penis joke, but I thought I would try to artfully dodge it.

So instead you just rammed in the penis joke anyways.  Typical. :rolleyes:

RAM IT!

https://youtu.be/QxkKlzInR4Y
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on January 30, 2019, 02:19:52 am
His silly habit of virtue-signaling aside, I might vote for Schultz if it were down to Trump vs. any likely Dem candidate.

Sure.  He'd hardly be my ideal candidate.  BUt if it's between Trump, Schultz, and a hard-left Demo candidate?

How hard are we talking about? Semi-hard or fully-hard?

A candidate fully embracing medicare for all, free tuition, and the Green New Deal counts as fully hard.

So basically, a decent human being who doesn't believe health and education should depend on one's wealth.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grey Fox on January 30, 2019, 06:36:45 am
First thing I thought of was that Seattle council chick who told the Boeing workers to take over the factories and make electric buses.

It is too early in the morning for wet pants.  :ph34r:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 01, 2019, 06:50:58 am
Senator Cory Booker, whose heterosexuality is apparently relevant, joins the fray!

Quote
Cory Booker: New Jersey Democrat joins presidential race


The first black senator from New Jersey, Mr Booker grew up in Harrington Park, a mainly white, suburban town in the state.

He played for his high school football team before going on to attend a number of top universities, including Stanford, Oxford and eventually Yale Law School.

After graduating, he moved to Newark to set up a non-profit organisation providing legal aid to poor families in difficult circumstances.

In the run up to his 2006 landslide election as mayor, he lived in a notorious housing project in the city and featured in a film that documented his campaign as a young, black, politician.

He was elected to Congress in 2013 by a significant margin, and became the second black member of the Senate at the time.

As a bachelor, Senator Booker has often faced questions about his sexuality from political opponents and journalists.

Last year, when asked about the speculation on the subject, he told the Philadelphia Inquirer that he is heterosexual.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46958829 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46958829)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on February 01, 2019, 07:12:26 am
That in this day and age a politician who happens to be single still has to assert his heterosexuality is...how to say it...appalling? Are we still in the XIXth century? Is "confirmed bachelor" still an eufemism?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 01, 2019, 07:26:20 am
That in this day and age a politician who happens to be single still has to assert his heterosexuality is...how to say it...appalling? Are we still in the XIXth century? Is "confirmed bachelor" still an eufemism?

:rolleyes:

That's what you consider appalling around sexuality in this day and age?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maladict on February 01, 2019, 07:28:06 am
That in this day and age a politician who happens to be single still has to assert his heterosexuality is...how to say it...appalling? Are we still in the XIXth century? Is "confirmed bachelor" still an eufemism?

Appalling yes, but very common. Our PM has had to deal with it for over a decade now, it's embarrassing.
Apparently, not having a relationship (or not desiring one) means there's something you're hiding.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on February 01, 2019, 07:29:29 am
Senator Cory Booker, whose heterosexuality is apparently relevant, joins the fray!

Please  :rolleyes:  He couldn't even defeat Crassus; how is he going to deal with the Iranians?

 ;)

Go get 'em, Spartacus!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on February 01, 2019, 07:42:50 am
That in this day and age a politician who happens to be single still has to assert his heterosexuality is...how to say it...appalling? Are we still in the XIXth century? Is "confirmed bachelor" still an eufemism?

:rolleyes:

That's what you consider appalling around sexuality in this day and age?

 :rolleyes: to your  :rolleyes:

It's part of a larger issue of not conforming to an established profile. If you're not conventional/mainstream in some way, you're put under scrutiny.  You're not married? Suspect. Gay? Suspect. Atheist (in the US, in other countries this is not an issue)? Suspect. And so on and so on. That a political candidate (in this case in the US, but could be in many other places) still has to parade a partner around to be deemed acceptable is one of those things. Fortunately many (most?) people don't give a crap nowadays about some of these topics, but there's still more to advance.

It'd be interesting to know if there are polls that rate the "acceptability" of political candidates according to these parameters, to see how society is evolving. I'd even bargain that a homosexual candidate in a formal relationship miiight be deemed more "acceptable" than a heterosexual one not in a relationship.

Sorry if the wording is not the most precise one, as I'm in a bit of a hurry and I know this is a delicate topic. I hope that my point will come through.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on February 01, 2019, 07:48:38 am
The Dem's upcoming primary is starting to look like...

(https://www.wwe.com/f/styles/wwe_large/public/t25/thumb/2012/05/20120521_sd_top_20_battle_royals_LIGHT_C.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on February 01, 2019, 07:57:19 am
Apparently one of the points of Booker's platform is legalizing weed at the federal level.  :hmm:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 01, 2019, 08:37:31 am
Apparently one of the points of Booker's platform is legalizing weed at the federal level.  :hmm:

In this metaphor, is that him coming in with a chair?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on February 01, 2019, 09:27:04 am
Apparently one of the points of Booker's platform is legalizing weed at the federal level.  :hmm:

In this metaphor, is that him coming in with a chair?

Brass knuckles.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 01, 2019, 09:53:35 am
That in this day and age a politician who happens to be single still has to assert his heterosexuality is...how to say it...appalling? Are we still in the XIXth century? Is "confirmed bachelor" still an eufemism?

:rolleyes:

That's what you consider appalling around sexuality in this day and age?

 :rolleyes: to your  :rolleyes:

It's part of a larger issue of not conforming to an established profile. If you're not conventional/mainstream in some way, you're put under scrutiny.  You're not married? Suspect. Gay? Suspect. Atheist (in the US, in other countries this is not an issue)? Suspect. And so on and so on. That a political candidate (in this case in the US, but could be in many other places) still has to parade a partner around to be deemed acceptable is one of those things. Fortunately many (most?) people don't give a crap nowadays about some of these topics, but there's still more to advance.

It'd be interesting to know if there are polls that rate the "acceptability" of political candidates according to these parameters, to see how society is evolving. I'd even bargain that a homosexual candidate in a formal relationship miiight be deemed more "acceptable" than a heterosexual one not in a relationship.

Sorry if the wording is not the most precise one, as I'm in a bit of a hurry and I know this is a delicate topic. I hope that my point will come through.

Not having a wife & some kids smiling and waving next to him at speeches/rallies will probably cost him a few points in the polls.  That's just how it works here.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 01, 2019, 10:28:29 am
Maybe he's really only running for VP. High(ish) status + plenty of free time means he'd be well-positioned to pick up chicks. :yes:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 01, 2019, 10:39:11 am
Not having a wife & some kids smiling and waving next to him at speeches/rallies will probably cost him a few points in the polls.  That's just how it works here.

I know you would miss the articles about the First Lady's arms.

I am more concerned about the fact he is a vegan  :ph34r:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 01, 2019, 10:48:30 am
I know you would miss the articles about the First Lady's arms.

I can always go back & re-live Michelle's seven best arm moments:

https://www.vogue.com/article/michelle-obama-best-arms-biceps-moments

:wub:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 01, 2019, 11:29:30 am
I am more concerned about the fact he is a vegan  :ph34r:

NOT MY PRESIDENT!  :mad:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Zoupa on February 01, 2019, 12:58:46 pm
I hate the way he talks.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 12:01:30 am
Tulsi Gabbard has announced.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 06, 2019, 01:27:05 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyrolQdX4AA7wHR.jpg)

Hmmm. Lean in, Liz. Scalp a banker.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 06, 2019, 02:47:12 am
At what point does she remember to set her ego aside and recognize the primary should be about picking someone electable?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on February 06, 2019, 08:07:58 am
At what point does she remember to set her ego aside
Yeah, cause that's something politicians are capable of doing. :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 06, 2019, 08:12:15 am
:lol:  Liz, Liz, Liz...
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2019, 07:34:27 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12hLIjf1YbA

I figured that registration was shopped, but Warren has apologized for "not being more sensitive to tribal membership and tribal sovereignty."
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 06, 2019, 09:17:49 pm
At what point does she remember to set her ego aside and recognize the primary should be about picking someone electable?


When did that become part of your political philosophy?  I mean, you bitched about Obama beating Clinton for eight years and when Clinton finally had her chance she was beaten by a fat, illiterate gangster.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 06, 2019, 11:18:26 pm
Hmmm. Lean in, Liz. Scalp a banker.

Oh FFS

Ah well. It was not like I was going to vote for her anyway.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on February 07, 2019, 08:45:56 am
GOP in 2018: Our president is a racist and serial sexual harasser.

Virginia Democrats in 2019: Hold my beer.

https://www.apnews.com/a4e49721f5184f07ba8f2d52cd42e6a5

Quote
Democrats speechless as scandal engulfs Virginia’s leaders

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — With Virginia’s top three elected officials engulfed in scandal, fellow Democrats were rendered practically speechless, uncertain of how to thread their way through the racial and sexual allegations and their tangled political implications.

Gov. Ralph Northam’s career was already hanging by a thread over a racist photo in his 1984 medical school yearbook when a woman publicly accused the lieutenant governor of sexually assaulting her 15 years ago, and then the attorney general admitted that he too wore blackface once, as a teenager.

Everyone in Richmond, it seemed, was waiting Thursday for Virginia’s Legislative Black Caucus to respond to the latest developments. “We’ve got a lot to digest,” the group’s chairman, Del. Lamont Bagby, said Wednesday.

Attorney General Mark Herring — in line to become governor if Northam and Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax resign — issued a statement acknowledging he wore brown makeup and a wig in 1980 to look like a rapper during a party when he was a 19-year-old student at the University of Virginia.

Herring — who had previously called on Northam to resign and was planning to run for governor himself in 2021 — apologized for his “callous” behavior and said that the days ahead “will make it clear whether I can or should continue to serve.”

The 57-year-old Herring came forward after rumors about the existence of a blackface photo of him began circulating at the Capitol.

Also Wednesday, Vanessa Tyson, the California woman whose sexual assault allegations against Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax surfaced earlier this week, put out a detailed statement saying Fairfax forced her to perform oral sex on him in a hotel room in 2004 during the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

The Associated Press typically does not identify those who say they were sexually assaulted, but Tyson issued the statement in her name.

Tyson, a 42-year-old political scientist who is on a fellowship at Stanford University and specializes in the political discourse of sexual assault, said, “I have no political motive. I am a proud Democrat.”

“Mr. Fairfax has tried to brand me as a liar to a national audience, in service to his political ambitions, and has threatened litigation,” she said. “Given his false assertions, I’m compelled to make clear what happened.”

Fairfax — who is in line to become governor if Northam resigns — has repeatedly denied her allegations, saying that the encounter was consensual and that he is the victim of a strategically timed political smear.

“At no time did she express to me any discomfort or concern about our interactions, neither during that encounter, nor during the months following it, when she stayed in touch with me, nor the past 15 years,” he said in a statement.

Tyson said she suffered “deep humiliation and shame” and stayed quiet about the allegations as she pursued her career, but by late 2017, as the #MeToo movement took shape and after she saw an article about Fairfax’s campaign, she took her story to The Washington Post, which decided months later not to publish a story.

The National Organization for Women immediately called on Fairfax to resign, saying, “Her story is horrifying, compelling and clear as day — and we believe her.”

The string of scandals that began when the yearbook picture came to light last Friday could have a domino effect on Virginia state government: If all three top Democrats fall, House Speaker Kirk Cox, a conservative Republican, would command the state. :lol:

Cox issued a statement late Wednesday calling the allegations against Fairfax “extremely serious” and said they need a “full airing of facts.” Cox also urged Herring to “adhere to the standard he has set for others,” a nod to Herring’s previous call that Northam resign.

At the Capitol, lawmakers were dumbstruck over the day’s fast-breaking developments, with Democratic Sen. Barbara Favola saying, “I have to take a breath and think about this. This is moving way too quickly.” GOP House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert said it would be “reckless” to comment. “There’s just too much flying around,” he said.

The black caucus quickly condemned Northam and called on him to resign after his initial comments about the yearbook photo, but the group has been silent so far on the allegations involving Fairfax and Herring.

Democrats have expressed fear that the uproar over the governor could jeopardize their chances of taking control of the GOP-dominated Virginia legislature this year. The party made big gains in 2017, in part because of a backlash against President Donald Trump, and has moved to within striking distance of a majority in both houses.

At the same time, the Democrats nationally have taken a hard line against misconduct in their ranks because women and minorities are a vital part of their base and they want to be able to criticize Trump’s behavior without looking hypocritical.

Trump accused Democrats Thursday of political bias, tweeting that “If the three failing pols were Republicans, far stronger action would be taken.”

Northam has come under pressure from nearly the entire Democratic establishment to resign after the discovery of a photo on his profile page in the Eastern Virginia Medical School yearbook of someone in blackface standing next to a person in a Ku Klux Klan hood and robe.

The governor initially said he was in the photo without saying which costume he was wearing, then denied it a day later. But he acknowledged he once used shoe polish to blacken his face and look like Michael Jackson at a dance contest in Texas in 1984, when he was in the Army.

Herring came down hard on Northam when the yearbook photo surfaced, condemning it as “indefensible,” and “profoundly offensive.” He said it was no longer possible for Northam to lead the state.

On Wednesday, though, Herring confessed that he and two friends dressed up to look like rappers, admitting: “It sounds ridiculous even now writing it.”

“That conduct clearly shows that, as a young man, I had a callous and inexcusable lack of awareness and insensitivity to the pain my behavior could inflict on others,” he said. But he added: “This conduct is in no way reflective of the man I have become in the nearly 40 years since.”

Democratic Sen. Louise Lucas said several people were crying, including men, as Herring apologized to black lawmakers Wednesday morning before issuing his public statement.

“He said he was very sorry,” Lucas said.

Lucas said the black lawmakers told Herring they needed to discuss their next steps among themselves.

Herring, who was elected to his second four-year term in 2017, made a name for himself nationally by playing a central role in bringing gay marriage to Virginia. His refusal to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage once in office was cited by a federal judge who overturned the ban, and Virginia began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2014, nearly a year before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 07, 2019, 11:33:17 am
The initial story about the governor of Virginia came up a bit in the "What does a Trump Presidency look like" thread and I mentioned there that I can't see how anyone thought that putting a picture of someone in blackface in a yearbook was a good idea in 1984.  1954, sure, or 1964, but not 1984.  I got my degree in 1984, and I can't imagine anyone I went to college with thinking it was a good idea.

And, on a snarky note:  why would anyone need to use blackface to dress up as Micheal Jackson?   ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 11:34:33 am
And, on a snarky note:  why would anyone need to use blackface to dress up as Micheal Jackson?   ;)

Maybe if they wanted to dress up like Jackson 5 era Michael Jackson.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on February 07, 2019, 11:40:05 am
The initial story about the governor of Virginia came up a bit in the "What does a Trump Presidency look like" thread and I mentioned there that I can't see how anyone thought that putting a picture of someone in blackface in a yearbook was a good idea in 1984.  1954, sure, or 1964, but not 1984.  I got my degree in 1984, and I can't imagine anyone I went to college with thinking it was a good idea.

And, on a snarky note:  why would anyone need to use blackface to dress up as Micheal Jackson?   ;)

Definitely not a good idea, but university students (even med students!) have certainly been known to do foolish things.

The question is whether wearing blackface in 1984 is such a mark of bad character that it tells us what kind of person the governor is in 2019.  I don't think it does.

Oh, and the Governor mentioned doing blackface to do the moonwalk, which would have this as being Thriller-era MJ, who still looked pretty black.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51VRdpYNU9L._SY355_.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 07, 2019, 11:45:18 am

Oh, and the Governor mentioned doing blackface to do the moonwalk, which would have this as being Thriller-era MJ, who still looked pretty black.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51VRdpYNU9L._SY355_.jpg)

Yeah, I know.  He'd already had some plastic surgery (compare the album cover above to that of the Off the Wall album) but the really drastic changes to his appearance came later.  As I said, I was being snarky.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 11:48:32 am
Quote
The question is whether wearing blackface in 1984 is such a mark of bad character that it tells us what kind of person the governor is in 2019.  I don't think it does.

Yeah I am pretty annoyed by the lack of forgiveness that seems to be pervasive these days. There is no bowing and scraping that can erase the sin of being a fucking dumbass decades before. Which is something I hope everybody considers when we have everything recorded forever on social media. Talk about an atmosphere of paranoia and repression we are creating.

Note I am not going to research whatever exactly these Virginia Democrats did and judge whether or not their excommunication from public life by the tribunes of the people was justified. I am just commenting on the phenomenon in general.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2019, 11:53:56 am
In addition to the blackface there is a hooded klansman in the yearbook picture.  There isn't much room for equivocation on this one.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 11:55:47 am
In addition to the blackface there is a hooded klansman in the yearbook picture.  There isn't much room for equivocation on this one.

What sort of school was this anyway? The George Wallace School for The Sons of the Confederacy?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on February 07, 2019, 12:03:31 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyrolQdX4AA7wHR.jpg)

Hmmm. Lean in, Liz. Scalp a banker.

I once told Northwest Airlines that I was a baron.  I still get mail (now from Delta Airlines) addressed to Lord Savonarola.   :bowler:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on February 07, 2019, 01:20:44 pm
The question is whether wearing blackface in 1984 is such a mark of bad character that it tells us what kind of person the governor is in 2019.  I don't think it does.

His actions since the revelation certainly cemented him still being a dumbass.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on February 07, 2019, 01:51:44 pm
I once told Northwest Airlines that I was a baron.  I still get mail (now from Delta Airlines) addressed to Lord Savonarola.   :bowler:
:lol:

I forget why but one time I registered for something in my cat's name.  His official name was Caesar but he had a million nicknames including 'Caesar Cardini' (the guy who invented the Caesar salad), and in order to class him up I listed his name as "Worthington C. Cardini".  Whoever it was clearly sold the name/address to a mailing list so for years I got mail for "Worthington C. Cardini", "Worthington Cardini" or even "W.C. Cardini".

I used to give him the mail and he'd usually bite it for a while, and then me. :)

RIP Caesar  :cry:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on February 07, 2019, 01:55:37 pm
Also I forget if I told the story here but there used to be a sheepdog named Waldo who was a commissioned Kentucky Colonel. :)  So he got mail addressed to "Colonel Waldo". :showoff:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 07, 2019, 03:10:55 pm
The issue might just be Virginia.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/feb/07/donald-trump-latest-news-live-nancy-pelosi-shutdown?page=with:block-5c5c7869e4b04a6f567daf94#block-5c5c7869e4b04a6f567daf94
Quote
Virginia senate leader edited yearbook full of racist photos and slurs

Another Virginia politician is in hot water over racist content in a yearbook.

State senate majority leader Tommy Norment oversaw a yearbook at the Virginia Military Institute in 1968 that contains a host of racist photos and slurs, the Virginian-Pilot reports. They include photos of people wearing blackface.

Norment, a Republican, was managing editor of the yearbook. It features a photo of a student in blackface at a costume party and another photo of two men in blackface holding a football.

It gets worse: the yearbook uses the N-word at least once. It also uses the slurs “Chink” and “Jap” to refer to a student from Thailand. And another student is described as a “Barracks Jew” for his involvement in classmates’ financial affairs.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 03:27:43 pm
I guess Virginia is also for haters.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on February 07, 2019, 04:45:25 pm
I got the feels we'll be seeing a lot of old yearbooks in the coming weeks.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 07, 2019, 04:48:05 pm
Why don't we just assume that everyone in Virginia wore Blackface at one point in their lives.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on February 07, 2019, 04:56:14 pm
I used to live in Virginia   :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 07, 2019, 04:58:20 pm
Why don't we just assume that everyone in Virginia wore Blackface at one point in their lives.

Fair
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 09, 2019, 10:00:23 pm
Warren made it official and is getting a lot of free publicity.

(https://i.imgur.com/GROoAVt.jpg)



I really hope she doesn't allow Trump to continue making this a thing. I might have to vote for Bernie instead.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 09, 2019, 10:04:02 pm
Why is trail capitalized?  :huh:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 09, 2019, 10:10:10 pm
It's a Trail of Tears reference.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 09, 2019, 10:39:24 pm
It's a Trail of Tears reference.


Oh for the love God, I hope that's not true.  Jesus Fucking Christ.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on February 09, 2019, 10:47:04 pm
Considering the fact that each time he's tweeted about Warren, he included an Indigenous reference, it's pretty certainly a Trail of Tears jab.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 09, 2019, 11:13:57 pm
I think the word trail has a broader association with Indians than that one event.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on February 09, 2019, 11:21:31 pm
I think the word trail has a broader association with Indians than that one event.

 :yeahright:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 09, 2019, 11:45:43 pm
They're not exactly known for building roads.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on February 10, 2019, 12:05:44 am
Quote
The question is whether wearing blackface in 1984 is such a mark of bad character that it tells us what kind of person the governor is in 2019.  I don't think it does.

Yeah I am pretty annoyed by the lack of forgiveness that seems to be pervasive these days. There is no bowing and scraping that can erase the sin of being a fucking dumbass decades before. Which is something I hope everybody considers when we have everything recorded forever on social media. Talk about an atmosphere of paranoia and repression we are creating.

Note I am not going to research whatever exactly these Virginia Democrats did and judge whether or not their excommunication from public life by the tribunes of the people was justified. I am just commenting on the phenomenon in general.
I agree, I think this atmosphere of extreme lack of forgiveness or second chances is repulsive and repressive.  Unleashing morality NKVD is not a productive response to virulent racism that Trump laid bare.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 10, 2019, 12:34:55 am
Considering the fact that each time he's tweeted about Warren, he included an Indigenous reference, it's pretty certainly a Trail of Tears jab.


Yeah.  You're probably right.  For some reason I find that very depressing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2019, 01:09:56 am
I doubt Donald knows what the Trail of Tears is.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on February 10, 2019, 01:15:37 pm
I doubt Donald knows what the Trail of Tears is.
Agree.  He's too stupid to have ever heard of it.

It's just that, being racist, he associates Native Americans (or Injuns, as he might say) with the wilderness and that's where trails are.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on February 10, 2019, 01:18:59 pm
I know what the Trail of Tears is, and I'm a furreiner.

Okay, first time I heard of it was while I lived in the US, but it seemed basic historic knowledge in the US.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 10, 2019, 01:24:10 pm
I know what the Trail of Tears is, and I'm a furreiner.

Okay, first time I heard of it was while I lived in the US, but it seemed basic historic knowledge in the US.

It is basic knowledge. Which is why Trump doesn't know it, most likely.

Also possible that he simply didn't ever learn about it, though I don't know what the curriculum would've been like ~50 years ago.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on February 10, 2019, 01:26:31 pm
Amazing. Is the President of the United States incredibly stupid, or incredibly racist? Let's parse his tweets to decide which is the more charitable interpretation.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on February 10, 2019, 01:54:47 pm
I know what the Trail of Tears is, and I'm a furreiner.

Okay, first time I heard of it was while I lived in the US, but it seemed basic historic knowledge in the US.

It is basic knowledge. Which is why Trump doesn't know it, most likely.

Also possible that he simply didn't ever learn about it, though I don't know what the curriculum would've been like ~50 years ago.

Isn't Andrew Jackson his favorite president? Although in his case favorite might mean he likes how he looks in the 20$ bills.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 10, 2019, 02:26:28 pm
I doubt Donald knows what the Trail of Tears is.
Agree.  He's too stupid to have ever heard of it.

It's just that, being racist, he associates Native Americans (or Injuns, as he might say) with the wilderness and that's where trails are.


They teach it at the grade school level.  I'm pretty sure he's heard of it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2019, 02:39:18 pm
My guess is he was trying to do some totally ossum riff on war path.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 10, 2019, 02:53:59 pm
It's a Trail of Tears reference.

You're giving him too much credit.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 10, 2019, 03:22:14 pm
I remember we had a thread in the EUOT about what was the most evil thing America has done.  Euros were all over the place: Vietnam, Allende, Hiroshima, that sort of thing.  Americans were nearly unanimous, Trail of Tears.  It's not exactly obscure and this particular issue resonates with Americans.  All nations have events they aren't proud of, but the Trail of Tears stands out as particularly loathsome.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on February 10, 2019, 03:25:01 pm
I know what the Trail of Tears is, and I'm a furreiner.

Okay, first time I heard of it was while I lived in the US, but it seemed basic historic knowledge in the US.

It's not a topic you hear discussed, and Trump is functionally illiterate, so you know he's never read about it.  It's quite possible he doesn't know what it is and wasn't referring to it.  I think he is using trail as it is used in the movies.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on February 10, 2019, 03:50:41 pm
I remember we had a thread in the EUOT about what was the most evil thing America has done.  Euros were all over the place: Vietnam, Allende, Hiroshima, that sort of thing.  Americans were nearly unanimous, Trail of Tears.  It's not exactly obscure and this particular issue resonates with Americans.  All nations have events they aren't proud of, but the Trail of Tears stands out as particularly loathsome.

Mmmmm....  :hmm:

I guess for us it would be the expulsion of the jews/moriscos - can't really decide which one.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2019, 04:09:37 pm
My thread!  :showoff:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2019, 04:10:32 pm
But it was rate evil 1-10, not which is most evil. :contract:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on February 10, 2019, 04:14:46 pm
Given all the racist things Trump has said and done, why wouldn't he stoop to this Trail of Tears barb; still wouldn't be his most offensive moment either.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2019, 04:40:16 pm
Given all the racist things Trump has said and done, why wouldn't he stoop to this Trail of Tears barb; still wouldn't be his most offensive moment either.

I don't think anyone has suggested a Trail of Tears insult is beneath him.

His insults are 3rd grade level.  Lying mongers.  Cheating Celery.  Low testosterone Raz.  i can't remember a single time he's made a literary or historical reference in an insult.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on February 10, 2019, 04:41:51 pm
Pocahontas
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2019, 04:47:38 pm
He saw the Disney movie.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 10, 2019, 05:07:05 pm
I think he just types random words in all caps.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on February 10, 2019, 05:11:23 pm
Senator Amy Klobuchar just announced her run for the presidency. She's a Midwestern centrist who trounced her Republican opponent in 2018.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 10, 2019, 05:58:26 pm
Tulsi Gabbard has announced.

She's a racsit, homophobic kook who is going to go down in flames.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 10, 2019, 05:59:36 pm
Senator Amy Klobuchar just announced her run for the presidency. She's a Midwestern centrist who trounced her Republican opponent in 2018.

She would crush Trump, but I doubt she will win the primary, too centrist for the moment.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 10, 2019, 06:05:06 pm
I know what the Trail of Tears is, and I'm a furreiner.

Okay, first time I heard of it was while I lived in the US, but it seemed basic historic knowledge in the US.

It is basic knowledge. Which is why Trump doesn't know it, most likely.

Also possible that he simply didn't ever learn about it, though I don't know what the curriculum would've been like ~50 years ago.

His favorite president is Andrew Jackson though.

Also, he refrenced Wounded Knee in another tweet about Warren.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 10, 2019, 09:22:35 pm
Tulsi Gabbard has announced.

She's a racsit, homophobic kook who is going to go down in flames.

What has she done that's "racsit" [sic]?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 10, 2019, 10:18:49 pm
I think he just types random words in all caps.

He SURE does. I hate it. It reminds me of how clickbait is shaping culture and triggers my grumpy old man feelings.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 10, 2019, 10:29:22 pm
Tulsi Gabbard has announced.

She's a racsit, homophobic kook who is going to go down in flames.

What has she done that's "racsit" [sic]?

Apparently advocating non-intervention in Syria has gotten kudos from a couple white nationalists.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 10, 2019, 10:42:12 pm
That's the extent of what I found as well. Apparently, telling Duke and his followers to fuck off isn't enough to make her not racist.

I await any contrary evidence from Tim, though.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Zoupa on February 10, 2019, 10:47:23 pm
She's a weird combination of non-interventionist and economic populist. She said some pretty fucked up things in the past concerning gay people but has since recanted. She uses her military service as a prop.

All in all, the Dems can do better.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: 11B4V on February 11, 2019, 12:07:59 am
Tulsi Gabbard has announced.

She's a racsit, homophobic kook who is going to go down in flames.

What has she done that's "racsit" [sic]?

What he said.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on February 11, 2019, 08:21:15 am
Just googled Tulsi Gabbard.

I approve  :blush:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 11, 2019, 08:23:05 am
She's a weird combination of non-interventionist and economic populist.

So...similar to most American voters?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 11, 2019, 09:52:10 am
Apparently advocating non-intervention in Syria has gotten kudos from a couple white nationalists.

Yeah, I was just reading that white nationalists are generally pretty pro-Assad.  Didn't know that was a thing for them.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 11, 2019, 09:55:37 am
Apparently advocating non-intervention in Syria has gotten kudos from a couple white nationalists.

Yeah, I was just reading that white nationalists are generally pretty pro-Assad.  Didn't know that was a thing for them.

Maybe it has something to do with pro-Putin feelings?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Malthus on February 11, 2019, 10:18:46 am
Apparently advocating non-intervention in Syria has gotten kudos from a couple white nationalists.

Yeah, I was just reading that white nationalists are generally pretty pro-Assad.  Didn't know that was a thing for them.

Maybe it has something to do with pro-Putin feelings?

Dammit, you can't even find a decent White Nationalist these days.  :lol:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on February 11, 2019, 11:15:10 am
She seems pretty milquetoast but she veers a bit off in her opposition to foreign misadventures in Syria, say, so she's being smeared as this dictator-loving Russia puppet. Maybe a foretaste of what a shitshow the Dem primary will be like. Dems accusing Dems of being puppets of the Kremlin, etc.  :hmm:

Tim didn't come by his opinion naturally, it was assigned to him probably by these deranged #Resist twitter personalities he sometimes quotes here but he's very valuable as a weathervane. And there's millions just like him.

So Tulsi although she's the only one so far with any charisma that I've noticed is probably too anti-interventionist for the Democratic mainstream.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 11, 2019, 11:16:42 am
Yeah well...we'll see. Plenty of leftists hand-wring about bombing the poor Syrians and plenty of Democrats would rather money be spent on programs at home rather than foreign adventures.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on February 11, 2019, 11:18:21 am
Just googled Tulsi Gabbard.

I approve  :blush:

Being a hottie is her other prop.  :P

But I'd say she has gone beyond just being a "non-interventionist" where Syria is concerned...more like tipping into pro-Assad'ism, but is, by any measure, deplorable.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tamas on February 11, 2019, 11:26:38 am
Apparently advocating non-intervention in Syria has gotten kudos from a couple white nationalists.

Yeah, I was just reading that white nationalists are generally pretty pro-Assad.  Didn't know that was a thing for them.

Maybe it has something to do with pro-Putin feelings?

Dammit, you can't even find a decent White Nationalist these days.  :lol:

They always get moist for whom they perceive as the most dominating alpha male. Used to be Hitler, now they got Putin.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on February 11, 2019, 11:35:10 am
Yeah well...we'll see. Plenty of leftists hand-wring about bombing the poor Syrians and plenty of Democrats would rather money be spent on programs at home rather than foreign adventures.

Yeah, Gabbard challenges the bipartisan foreign policy consensus hence the highly coordinated flak she's getting. The way this is translated into prolespeak for the Tims is that she's pro-Assad or somesuch smear.

And you're absolutely right Valmy, there's definitely a constituency for her FP views I'd think. In both parties.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2019, 12:27:18 pm
Yeah, Gabbard challenges the bipartisan foreign policy consensus hence the highly coordinated flak she's getting.

God forbid we should have a bipartisan consensus about anything. Especially something as dubious and sinister as opposing the Assad regime. Sure the guy dropped chemicals and barrel bombs on his own people and murdered millions.  Sure he has allied himself with iran and Hezbollah.  But the guy's got a first rate moustache!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2019, 12:28:23 pm
And you're absolutely right Valmy, there's definitely a constituency for her FP views I'd think.

Perhaps but I don't think the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have a lot of votes in key primary states.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 11, 2019, 07:32:43 pm
Tulsi Gabbard has announced.

She's a racsit, homophobic kook who is going to go down in flames.

What has she done that's "racsit" [sic]?

What he said.

She's an anti mulsim Hindu nationalist who has defended Modi's conduct in the Gujarat massacre of 2002.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 11, 2019, 08:09:52 pm
Anti-Muslim and pro-Assad?  That's an interesting combo.  Though I guess Assad isn't a particularly observant Muslim.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 11, 2019, 08:15:24 pm
Is this where we argue about Muslims not being a race again?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2019, 08:25:55 pm
Is this where we argue about Muslims not being a race again?

I think we should take another look at the soda/pop map.

I thought timmy was spouting some more Slate nonsense but the homo thing at least checks out.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on February 11, 2019, 08:48:30 pm
Anti-Muslim and pro-Assad?  That's an interesting combo.  Though I guess Assad isn't a particularly observant Muslim.

Assad is an Alawite. That messes up many binary oppositions.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on February 11, 2019, 08:49:58 pm
Anti-Muslim and pro-Assad?  That's an interesting combo.  Though I guess Assad isn't a particularly observant Muslim.
Plenty of people talk the anti-Muslim talk, but few people in history have actually done more about it than Assad.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2019, 08:50:42 pm
She's native Hawaiian, unlikely a Hindu nationalist.

One clip I saw said she's half Samoan, half dot head Indian.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: 11B4V on February 11, 2019, 08:56:20 pm
She's native Hawaiian, unlikely a Hindu nationalist.

One clip I saw said she's half Samoan, half dot head Indian.

RACIST :bash:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 11, 2019, 08:57:09 pm
Assad is an Alawite.

Is that a distinction? Which sect gets to be the true Muslims?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 11, 2019, 08:58:24 pm
Is this where we argue about Muslims not being a race again?

I think we should take another look at the soda/pop map.

I thought timmy was spouting some more Slate nonsense but the homo thing at least checks out.

I never questioned the (former, possibly current) homophobic angle. Calling her a racist is just usual Timmay retardism.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2019, 09:00:59 pm
RACIST :bash:

racsit :contract:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 11, 2019, 09:13:26 pm
She's an anti mulsim Hindu nationalist who has defended Modi's conduct in the Gujarat massacre of 2002.

Yet she is also opposed to the Saudi war in Yemen that we seem desperate to support for some reason. I don't know man, a politician so openly opposed to the House of Saud is so refreshing that I might be able to overlook her dreams of a worldwide Hindu Empire.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 11, 2019, 09:16:08 pm
She's native Hawaiian, unlikely a Hindu nationalist.

One clip I saw said she's half Samoan, half dot head Indian.

Mea culpa, she really is a Hindu. Is the US ready for an openly non-Christian President?  :hmm:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 11, 2019, 09:22:27 pm
Mea culpa, she really is a Hindu. Is the US ready for an openly non-Christian President?  :hmm:

I think so :hmm: I mean Bernie came horrifyingly close and his religion really had nothing to do with him coming up short. But granted sorta-Jewish is one thing, Hindu is another.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: PDH on February 11, 2019, 09:38:43 pm
At least GOP Indians have the decency to be mostly Christian.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 11, 2019, 09:49:00 pm
Nikki :wub:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 11, 2019, 09:53:38 pm
Is this where we argue about Muslims not being a race again?
Fine, she's just a religious bigot.

Eddie, we have a non Christian president now, or are you going to argue with a straight face that the narcassistic nihilist in office believes in anything other than himself?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 11, 2019, 09:55:16 pm
Do you feel that you should maybe be less free-wheeling with terms like "racist" in the future?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Zoupa on February 11, 2019, 10:11:39 pm
From wikipedia:

Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household. Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry and an active lector at his Catholic church.[5] Her mother, who was born in Decatur, Indiana, is of European descent and a practicing Hindu. Tulsi chose Hinduism as her religion while she was a teenager.

So she's not red-dot Yi.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: HVC on February 11, 2019, 10:13:40 pm
Guess moms a hippie
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 11, 2019, 11:18:27 pm
Is this where we argue about Muslims not being a race again?
Fine, she's just a religious bigot.

Eddie, we have a non Christian president now, or are you going to argue with a straight face that the narcassistic nihilist in office believes in anything other than himself?

Key word- "openly". Undoubtedly we've had many atheists, agnostics and simply indifferent people in office, but they all pay lip service to Jehovah.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on February 12, 2019, 03:09:39 am
She's native Hawaiian, unlikely a Hindu nationalist.

One clip I saw said she's half Samoan, half dot head Indian.

Mea culpa, she really is a Hindu. Is the US ready for an openly non-Christian President?  :hmm:

You've already got one right now, so why not?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 12, 2019, 03:51:38 am
Anti-Muslim and pro-Assad?  That's an interesting combo.  Though I guess Assad isn't a particularly observant Muslim.


The Saudis are antisemitic and have a close working relationship with Israel.  You get all sorts of weirdness in the Middle East.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 12, 2019, 04:05:09 am
You've already got one right now, so why not?

Trump calls himself a Presbyterian.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on February 12, 2019, 04:16:08 am
Didn't he follow one of these weird prosperity gospel preachers?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on February 12, 2019, 04:41:11 am
You've already got one right now, so why not?

Trump calls himself a Presbyterian.

It's not like he hides his ignoring any kind of Christian morals, and the Christians seem fine with it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on February 12, 2019, 05:24:34 am
Mea culpa, she really is a Hindu. Is the US ready for an openly non-Christian President?  :hmm:

Thomas Jefferson was openly non-Christian.




Too soon?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 12, 2019, 08:21:02 am
As the only Languish poster who remembers the 1928 election, you should know how important religion is in politics.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 09:40:11 pm
https://www.yang2020.com/ (https://www.yang2020.com/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8)

So there I am wandering around on youtube, and I come across Andrew Yang for president. Couple of interesting things.

Thing 1: Has he traveled back in time to save Earth after we lost the robot war/descended into permanent fascism in the 27th Century? It seems sort of like he might have done.

Thing 2: Second Democratic primary contender I've seen on Rogan now after Tulsi Gabbard. Fascinating.

He actually really appealed to me, I liked so much of what he had to say, but obviously I'm not sure the US electorate is really ready to embrace a UBI platform candidate.

Either way, this is the best Democratic primary ever. Far wilder than the awful parading of Hillary around the country on the way to her coronation.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 13, 2019, 03:28:20 am
I'd vote for Yang in an instant if I thought he had a shot in hell, but until then...







(https://i.imgur.com/4orwloZ.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on February 13, 2019, 04:58:05 am
Either way, this is the best Democratic primary ever. Far wilder than the awful parading of Hillary around the country on the way to her coronation.

Yeah.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 13, 2019, 07:48:49 am
Either way, this is the best Democratic primary ever. Far wilder than the awful parading of Hillary around the country on the way to her coronation.

Yeah.

It looks that way now, but past experience suggests that a front-runner will emerge early on and capture the nomination easily.  The way the system is set up, it's designed for one candidate to pretty much have it wrapped up before most of the primaries have even taken place.  I'm hoping that won't be the case in 2020 (after all, the current system is what let Trump get the Republican nomination in 2016), but it's something to keep in mind. 

Something else to keep in mind in 2020 is that the Democratic party did make a rules change to reduce the influence of the superdelegates.  Not sure what or how much of an effect that will have.  It almost certainly would have helped Bernie in 2016, but not enough for him to have taken the nomination away from Hillary.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 13, 2019, 08:24:22 am
What is the benefit of a protracted, highly contested primary? Are we saying that leads to stronger candidates?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 13, 2019, 08:44:42 am
More entertaining.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2019, 09:11:06 am
We have more than enough entertainment in politics at this point.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 13, 2019, 09:13:52 am
I'd really prefer politics to be as boring as possible, thanks.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 13, 2019, 10:51:37 am
What is the benefit of a protracted, highly contested primary? Are we saying that leads to stronger candidates?

Well, the hope would be that it would help prevent a poor candidate from sewing up the nomination before most states have even held their primaries.  I will admit that it's not clear that things would actually work that way, but on a personal level I'm tired of voting in primaries knowing that it's a waste of time to vote for any of my party's Presidential candidates because someone already has the nomination pretty much locked up.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 13, 2019, 10:55:46 am
I have no clue why we have the primary system, it's pretty bizarre. I did find watching a candidate on youtube talk about his platform for 2 hours and fifteen minutes immensely refreshing though.

And I think we will probably end up with the most establishment Democrat whose platform will basically be business as usual but speaks in sentences and doesn't grab the pussy, and that'll be the campaign. "America, vote Broomfondle, I don't grab the pussy".

So nothing much will change.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 13, 2019, 11:49:06 am
I did find watching a candidate on youtube talk about his platform for 2 hours and fifteen minutes immensely refreshing though.

How come? Seems like a waste of time for all parties.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 13, 2019, 11:52:57 am
I did find watching a candidate on youtube talk about his platform for 2 hours and fifteen minutes immensely refreshing though.

How come? Seems like a waste of time for all parties.

Finding out about the candidates views and policy platform. Why does that seem like a waste of time?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: PDH on February 13, 2019, 11:59:08 am

Finding out about the candidates views and policy platform. Why does that seem like a waste of time?

Because the more we know about them, the less likely we are to vote for them...any of them.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 13, 2019, 12:00:28 pm

Finding out about the candidates views and policy platform. Why does that seem like a waste of time?

Because the more we know about them, the less likely we are to vote for them...any of them.

That as well. And the more unvarnished the media platform they appear on the better, which is why I liked the appearance on Rogan. Refreshing as I said.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2019, 01:05:22 pm
I have no clue why we have the primary system, it's pretty bizarre.

It seems much more natural to me than having candidates chosen for us in smoke filled rooms.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on February 13, 2019, 01:09:36 pm
I have no clue why we have the primary system, it's pretty bizarre.

It seems much more natural to me than having candidates chosen for us in smoke filled rooms.

What seems unnatural to me is that the primary system is run through the state's electoral system, and that the party itself doesn't control its own process.  It seems downright wacky that anyone can just "register" as a member of a party, and downright dangeous to have an open primary where anyone can show up and choose to vote for the leader of whatever party they want.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: frunk on February 13, 2019, 01:15:03 pm
What seems unnatural to me is that the primary system is run through the state's electoral system, and that the party itself doesn't control its own process.  It seems downright wacky that anyone can just "register" as a member of a party, and downright dangeous to have an open primary where anyone can show up and choose to vote for the leader of whatever party they want.

Party nominees for office aren't leaders of their parties, necessarily.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2019, 01:16:27 pm
What seems unnatural to me is that the primary system is run through the state's electoral system, and that the party itself doesn't control its own process.  It seems downright wacky that anyone can just "register" as a member of a party, and downright dangeous to have an open primary where anyone can show up and choose to vote for the leader of whatever party they want.

The first part I think you're misinformed about.  Primaries are run by the parties.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 13, 2019, 01:30:00 pm
I have no clue why we have the primary system, it's pretty bizarre.

It seems much more natural to me than having candidates chosen for us in smoke filled rooms.

Why are the rooms smoke filled? Is the trash can on fire? What the hell is happening in there? Jesus!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 13, 2019, 01:34:49 pm
I did find watching a candidate on youtube talk about his platform for 2 hours and fifteen minutes immensely refreshing though.

How come? Seems like a waste of time for all parties.

Finding out about the candidates views and policy platform. Why does that seem like a waste of time?

Oh you mean the thing that was like the only thing Hillary did? Endless spiels on her policies. :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 13, 2019, 01:37:22 pm

Oh you mean the thing that was like the only thing Hillary did? Endless spiels on her policies. :P

ah.... this is about Hillary. Oh Hillary.  :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 13, 2019, 01:42:05 pm

Oh you mean the thing that was like the only thing Hillary did? Endless spiels on her policies. :P

ah.... this is about Hillary. Oh Hillary.  :)

I'm just saying it isn't new. Even Establishment candidates do it. :D
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 13, 2019, 01:44:22 pm
and that the party itself doesn't control its own process.

That's not entirely true.  Besides, caucuses and super-delegates can make some primaries almost irrelevant.

Quote
It seems downright wacky that anyone can just "register" as a member of a party, and downright dangeous to have an open primary where anyone can show up and choose to vote for the leader of whatever party they want.

We like to be pretty casual about our affiliations.  And generally lazy.  If you had to do more than register, I'm guessing we'd have like 80-85% Independent voters. 

I'll agree that the open primary thing is a little odd, where it exists.  I'm not in favor of it.  I think you should have to change your registration a few months before the primary in order to vote in that party's primary.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2019, 01:51:32 pm
Why are the rooms smoke filled? Is the trash can on fire? What the hell is happening in there? Jesus!

Because powerful political fixers all smoke cigars.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 13, 2019, 02:00:36 pm
Why are the rooms smoke filled? Is the trash can on fire? What the hell is happening in there? Jesus!

Because powerful political fixers all smoke cigars.

Oh yes I had forgotten about that. Mostly because they are Lizards wearing human suits, and once they leave their base on the dark side of the moon they smoke "cigars" to provide them with a version of their own atmosphere.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2019, 02:13:29 pm
Stay away from the brown acid fromagia!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on February 13, 2019, 04:48:09 pm
The ugliest part of such a crowded primary is that we'll be forced to have a few of those pathetic 13(or whatever)-way debates.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2019, 06:29:11 pm
Automatic wage garnishment for student loans?

How underwater with Millenials do they wanna go?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/a-gop-proposal-would-snatch-your-student-loan-payment-right-from-your-paycheck.html?__source=facebook%7Cmain
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Zoupa on February 13, 2019, 06:41:39 pm
Millenials don't vote, and millenials with student loans were never going to vote republican anyway.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on February 13, 2019, 06:47:30 pm
I have no clue why we have the primary system, it's pretty bizarre.

It seems much more natural to me than having candidates chosen for us in smoke filled rooms.
I know that in the past, before we had primaries, that’s how it was, but do the big shots still fill the room with smoke in 2019?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2019, 06:52:25 pm
I know that in the past, before we had primaries, that’s how it was, but do the big shots still fill the room with smoke in 2019?

There's no reason to be in the room if they're not picking a candidate, so no.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2019, 07:17:01 pm
Millenials don't vote, and millenials with student loans were never going to vote republican anyway.

The oldest millenials will be 37-40 in 2020 depending on who you slice the generations. Of course they vote. In fact members of Generation Z are going to be voting in 2020.

(http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/FT_17.08.01_MillennialVote_1-1.png)

Plenty of white millenials with student loans that voted republicans in 2016.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: 11B4V on February 13, 2019, 07:46:41 pm
Millenials don't vote, and millenials with student loans were never going to vote republican anyway.

The oldest millenials will be 37-40 in 2020 depending on who you slice the generations. Of course they vote. In fact members of Generation Z are going to be voting in 2020.

(http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/FT_17.08.01_MillennialVote_1-1.png)

Plenty of white millenials with student loans that voted republicans in 2016.

Then they got what they wanted.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on February 14, 2019, 03:34:36 am
I have no clue why we have the primary system, it's pretty bizarre.

It seems much more natural to me than having candidates chosen for us in smoke filled rooms.
I know that in the past, before we had primaries, that’s how it was, but do the big shots still fill the room with smoke in 2019?

The smoke comes from their asses.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 14, 2019, 10:43:10 am
The Democratic field is minus one potential candidate today  :(

Quote
Lyndon LaRouche, Cult Figure Who Ran for President 8 Times, Dies at 96

Lyndon LaRouche, the quixotic, apocalyptic leader of a cultlike political organization who ran for president eight times, once from a prison cell, died on Tuesday. He was 96.

His death was announced on the website of his organization, La Rouche/Pac. The statement did not specify a cause or say where he died.

Defining what Mr. LaRouche stood for was no easy task. He began his political career on the far left and ended it on the far right. He said he admired Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan and loathed Hitler, the composer Richard Wagner and other anti-Semites, though he himself made anti-Semitic statements.

He was fascinated with physics and mathematics, particularly geometry, but called concerns about climate change “a scientific fraud.”

He condemned modern music as a tool of invidious conspiracies — he saw rock as a particularly British one — and found universal organizing principles in the music of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

Some called him a case study in paranoia and bigotry, his mild demeanor notwithstanding. One biographer, Dennis King, in “Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism” (1989), maintained that Mr. LaRouche and his followers were a danger to democratic institutions.

Mr. LaRouche denigrated a panoply of ethnic groups and organized religions. He railed against the “Eastern Establishment” and environmentalists, who he said were trying to wipe out the human race. Queen Elizabeth II of England was plotting to have him killed, he said. Jews had surreptitiously founded the Ku Klux Klan, he said. He described Native Americans as “lower beasts.”

Even so, Mr. LaRouche was able to develop alliances with farmers, the Nation of Islam, teamsters, abortion opponents and Klan adherents. Acolytes kept Mr. LaRouche’s political machine going by peddling his tracts and magazines in airports, and by persuading relatives and friends to donate large sums to help him fight his designated enemies.

He operated through a dizzying array of front groups, among them the National Democratic Policy Committee, through which he received millions of dollars in federal matching money in his recurring presidential campaigns. His forces also sponsored candidates at the state and local levels, including for school board seats.

His movement attracted national attention, especially in 1986, when two LaRouche followers, Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart, unexpectedly won the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor and secretary of state, respectively, in Illinois.

Adlai E. Stevenson III, the Democratic candidate for governor of Illinois that year, was appalled. He denounced the LaRouche group as “neo-Nazis” and refused to run with Mr. Fairchild and Ms. Hart, organizing a third-party bid instead. He, as well as the LaRouche supporters, lost to James R. Thompson, the Republican incumbent.

Some voters said they had voted for Mr. Fairchild and Ms. Hart because they had been endorsed by Mr. LaRouche’s National Democratic Policy Committee, which they thought was affiliated with the mainstream Democratic Party.

Critics of Mr. LaRouche said he had used that committee to deceive people abroad as well. In 1982, he managed to arrange a meeting with President José López Portillo of Mexico, evidently because Mexican officials thought Mr. LaRouche represented the Democratic Party.

“I’m as American as apple pie,” Mr. LaRouche once said.

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/02/13/us/13larouche2/13larouche2-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 14, 2019, 10:51:03 am
I remember the ObamaHitler stuff on UT campus a couple times a year. The anti-British paranoia was especially bizarre.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on February 14, 2019, 05:10:57 pm
The Democratic field is minus one potential candidate today 
Lyndon LaRouche, Cult Figure Who Ran for President 8 Times, Dies at 96


That's just what they want you to think.  :tinfoil:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 14, 2019, 05:13:04 pm
His enemies have finally silenced the truth.  :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on February 16, 2019, 11:27:21 pm
Warren's plan to tax the rich is probably unconstitutional (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/elizabeth-warrens-popular-plan-to-tax-the-rich-is-probably-unconstitutional/2019/02/14/60195bc4-2fec-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html?utm_term=.324df795b8d1)

Any american lawyer want to comment on this?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on February 16, 2019, 11:29:55 pm
We used to have a wealth tax in the past.  It was called inflation.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2019, 11:44:07 pm
We used to have a wealth tax in the past.  It was called inflation.

that's only a tax on the fixed income portion of wealth.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 17, 2019, 12:43:31 am
Last I checked, we still have inflation, though not at as high a level as at some times in the past.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Monoriu on February 17, 2019, 12:58:07 am
It is almost a miracle that most countries have not implemented a wealth tax on the rich. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 17, 2019, 11:43:27 am
Looks like William Weld is going to mount a primary challenge to Trump.  If no other at least theoretically electable Republican challenges Trump, I'll vote for Weld in the primaries, but I'm hoping someone else will emerge.  I'd prefer someone more conservative than Weld, plus the guy's even older than Trump.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 17, 2019, 12:17:55 pm
Need to come up with a catchphrase using his name, but I'll throw my preliminary support behind Weld.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 17, 2019, 12:22:01 pm
Meld with Weld?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on February 17, 2019, 01:02:40 pm
I'm going to laugh real hard if Weld actually over performs the extremely low expectations and embarrasses Donald in some shitty state primary.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on February 17, 2019, 01:02:55 pm
Need to come up with a catchphrase using his name, but I'll throw my preliminary support behind Weld.

Weld American a gate again.
 
?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2019, 01:08:05 pm
Stick to your polls mongers. :bleeding:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on February 17, 2019, 01:19:08 pm
Stick to your polls mongers. :bleeding:

Internet: everyone's a critic.   :rolleyes:

 :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 17, 2019, 01:30:42 pm
I feel compelled to back Weld?  :hmm:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on February 17, 2019, 01:32:53 pm
I feel compelled to back Weld?  :hmm:


Neil Young would almost certainly back him, especially if he promised to build an American ark, instead of a wall.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on February 17, 2019, 03:34:51 pm
When will Bernie announce?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 17, 2019, 06:09:19 pm
When will Bernie announce?

Isn't he still in? I think he can still win 2016.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 17, 2019, 06:09:37 pm
I'll throw a vote for Weld in the primary if he's the only contender.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2019, 06:13:29 pm
I had vowed to not vote Republican again for at least 10 years because of Trump, but if Weld gets any traction it would be fun to see the Trumpists (if any, Iowa City is not prime Trump territory) humphing in the caucus room.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on February 18, 2019, 03:51:13 am
Is Weld a well-known figure in the US? As a foreigner, I had no idea who he was, had to look it up.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 18, 2019, 04:21:10 am
Is Weld a well-known figure in the US? As a foreigner, I had no idea who he was, had to look it up.


Relatively so.  He's certainly more well known than Jimmy Carter was a year before the 1976 election or Bill Clinton a year before the 1992 election.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 18, 2019, 05:15:38 am
The main thing I know about him is that he was Gary Johnson's running mate. I'd forgotten that I was briefly resident in the state when he was governor - but that I wasn't all that politically aware at that age.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 18, 2019, 07:31:36 am
Is Weld a well-known figure in the US? As a foreigner, I had no idea who he was, had to look it up.


There as some murmuring that he should have been at the top of the Libertarian ticket instead of Johnson after 'a leppo,' but I hadn't heard about him until 2016--and I lived in the state that he used to govern.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on February 18, 2019, 10:14:04 am
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-appeals-men-fragile-masculinity-1236701

Quote
[...]

They then correlated the geopgrahic dispersion of these search topics in 2016 with how such areas voted in that year's election, finding "that support for Trump in the 2016 election was higher in areas that had more searches for topics such as 'erectile dysfunction.' Moreover, this relationship persisted after accounting for demographic attributes in media markets, such as education levels and racial composition, as well as searches for topics unrelated to fragile masculinity, such as 'breast augmentation' and 'menopause.'"

The researchers also checked relations between fragile masculinity and voting in 2008 and 2012, finding "that the correlation of fragile masculinity and voting in presidential elections was distinctively stronger in 2016" than it was when John McCain and Mitt Romney were Republican presidential candidates.

Similarly, in the over 390 House races which featured a Republican versus a Democrat, Republicans gained more support in areas with elevated search levels of terms related to fragile masculinity. "However, there was no significant relationship between fragile masculinity and voting in the 2014 or 2016 congressional elections. This suggests that fragile masculinity has now become a stronger predictor of voting behavior."

Knowles and DiMuccio noted that their findings should be considered with caveats. They said that fragile masculinity didn't decrease support for female candidates in 2018.

The researchers wrote that "the research reported here is correlational. We can’t be entirely sure that fragile masculinity is causing people to vote in a certain way. However, given that experimental work has identified a causal connection between masculinity concerns and political beliefs, we think the correlations we’ve identified are important."

They also noted that they cannot say whether fragile masculinity will guide voting after Trump is no longer a prominent political force.

Trump earned 52 percent of male votes and 41 percent of female votes in the 2016 presidential election, according to Edison Media Research exit polling. He performed well among white men and women. Non-white individuals favored Hillary Clinton by large margins.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tamas on February 18, 2019, 10:25:08 am
"Frustrated people vote fascist" doesn't sound too much of a groundbreaking concept.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: PDH on February 18, 2019, 10:50:18 am
At least they should have a rougher time fathering a new generation of fragile men.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2019, 11:53:07 am
Is Weld a well-known figure in the US? As a foreigner, I had no idea who he was, had to look it up.

He was well known about 20-25 years ago.  It would like be talking about Michael Hezeltine in the British context, although Weld never really reached as high office.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 18, 2019, 12:04:31 pm
I miss when Newsweek was a reliable (if slightly left of center) publication.  Now it might as well be Daily Kos or Mother Jones.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 18, 2019, 12:29:57 pm
I had vowed to not vote Republican again for at least 10 years because of Trump, but if Weld gets any traction it would be fun to see the Trumpists (if any, Iowa City is not prime Trump territory) humphing in the caucus room.

You are like that one lady at work who is perpetually crying because she's having a crisis with her boyfriend and swears shes really going to break up with him this time.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 18, 2019, 12:30:18 pm
So only white men are fragile in their masculinity? Along with 41% of women? I think they are confusing "being older" with "fragile".

What a garbage article.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: fromtia on February 18, 2019, 01:59:05 pm
I read the quote only. 'Erectile dysfunction' is a google search related to 'fragile masculinity" ? what a ridiculous thing to write. There is sort of a phenomenon of Democrat leaning media to try and pathologise people who voted for Trump which is hardly a winning strategy if they hope that the people who voted Obama in 08 and 12 , who then went for Trump can be brought back to a Democratic candidate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2019, 03:03:11 pm
There is no control at the individual characteristic level in the study, so for example - as Valmy points out - there is no control for age. All this may be capturing is that cranky old men are more likely to vote Trump which is hardly a shattering insight.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 18, 2019, 03:12:33 pm
I don't think "erectile dysfunction" was the only thing they searched for.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on February 19, 2019, 06:03:58 am
Yay, Bernie has decided to become a Democrat again... :mellow:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on February 19, 2019, 06:12:55 am
What are the chances of him taking the nod? I always think a large part of his success was just being the nonestablishment guy running against the quintessential party machine candidate, something that won't happen this time.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on February 19, 2019, 06:26:23 am
How many people have declared to be running for the Democratic primaries? It's going to be a quite crowded field.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on February 19, 2019, 06:26:49 am
Yay, Bernie has decided to become a Democrat again... :mellow:
He wants to make sure his good pal Donald stays in office :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on February 19, 2019, 06:47:13 am
This is the DNC primaries though...the super delegates will just select their favorite and shut him out again.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 19, 2019, 06:56:59 am
 Here comes Bernie! (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/676923000/bernie-sanders-enters-2020-presidential-campaign-no-longer-an-underdog)   :)

Quote
Bernie Sanders Enters 2020 Presidential Campaign, No Longer An Underdog


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is giving it another go, launching a second campaign for the White House four years after surprising Democrats with a strong bid for the party's 2016 nomination.

"We began the political revolution in the 2016 campaign, and now it's time to move that revolution forward," the independent senator told Vermont Public Radio in an interview airing Tuesday morning.

Sanders pointed to the Democratic Party's leftward shift as a reason for a second run. "It turns out that many of the ideas that I talked about – that health care is a right, not a privilege, and that we've got to move toward a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system: very, very popular. The idea that we have got to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour," he told Vermont Public Radio. "When I talked about making public colleges and universities tuition-free and lowering student debt, that was another issue that people said was too radical. Well, that's also happening around the country."
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on February 19, 2019, 06:58:35 am
Excerpts from his announcement speech, illustrated :P:

(https://i.imgur.com/96UWzDN.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tamas on February 19, 2019, 07:17:33 am
1/10
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 19, 2019, 07:27:12 am
That's as bad as Poll Cats.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on February 19, 2019, 08:02:38 am
Bernie will destroy us all.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 19, 2019, 08:35:30 am
Poll Cats, you say?  :menace:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 19, 2019, 10:36:07 am
How many people have declared to be running for the Democratic primaries? It's going to be a quite crowded field.

According to Wikipedia, 182, but most of them are just fringe types.  Wikipedia lists 10 as "notable" which seems to mean someone who has either actually held elective office or who have been included in opinion polls.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 19, 2019, 11:03:36 am
Poll Cats, you say?  :menace:

You sick bastard!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on February 19, 2019, 12:31:17 pm
I miss when Newsweek was a reliable (if slightly left of center) publication.  Now it might as well be Daily Kos or Mother Jones.

Heh, yes, here's a somewhat better article from Politico:

The One Trait That Predicts Trump Fever (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/16/donald-trump-support-2020-oostburg-wisconsin-chevy-chase-maryland-225161)

TLDR:  Trump sells an apocalyptic vision of America which appeals to white people who are disengaged in their communities.  Affluent people are more likely to be engaged in their communities; so were less likely to vote for Trump but even white people from lower socio-economic backgrounds who were engaged in their community rejected this view and didn't vote for Trump.

My personal favorite part:

Quote
If you wanted to predict which rural, Christian counties would buck the Trump train when they had a choice among Republicans like Ted Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, you could have done a lot worse than looking at a county’s Dutch population.

Looking at the Michigan map the counties with the most people claiming Dutch heritage (Kent and Ottawa) went Cruz in the primaries.  (Though they are not rural counties.)  The only other one that didn't go Trump was Washtenaw; home of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan, which went Kasich.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maladict on February 19, 2019, 01:31:31 pm
I miss when Newsweek was a reliable (if slightly left of center) publication.  Now it might as well be Daily Kos or Mother Jones.

Heh, yes, here's a somewhat better article from Politico:

The One Trait That Predicts Trump Fever (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/16/donald-trump-support-2020-oostburg-wisconsin-chevy-chase-maryland-225161)

TLDR:  Trump sells an apocalyptic vision of America which appeals to white people who are disengaged in their communities.  Affluent people are more likely to be engaged in their communities; so were less likely to vote for Trump but even white people from lower socio-economic backgrounds who were engaged in their community rejected this view and didn't vote for Trump.

My personal favorite part:

Quote
If you wanted to predict which rural, Christian counties would buck the Trump train when they had a choice among Republicans like Ted Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, you could have done a lot worse than looking at a county’s Dutch population.

Looking at the Michigan map the counties with the most people claiming Dutch heritage (Kent and Ottawa) went Cruz in the primaries.  (Though they are not rural counties.)  The only other one that didn't go Trump was Washtenaw; home of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan, which went Kasich.


Quote
the strong community that the Dutch are known for, even centuries after they immigrated to the United States.
lolwut?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 19, 2019, 01:37:48 pm
You don't feel embraced by your loving Dutch community?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on February 19, 2019, 01:40:12 pm
Excerpts from his announcement speech, illustrated :P :




I thought Jack Chick was dead.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maladict on February 19, 2019, 02:46:03 pm
You don't feel embraced by your loving Dutch community?

I've never met any of them, maybe they all emigrated. Sounds like a friendly enough bunch of religious zealots stuck in the 19th century, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 19, 2019, 02:48:39 pm
You don't feel embraced by your loving Dutch community?

I've never met any of them, maybe they all emigrated. Sounds like a friendly enough bunch of religious zealots stuck in the 19th century, for what it's worth.

Surely a few Dutch people are still left in the Netherlands.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 19, 2019, 03:26:18 pm
You don't feel embraced by your loving Dutch community?

I've never met any of them, maybe they all emigrated. Sounds like a friendly enough bunch of religious zealots stuck in the 19th century, for what it's worth.

Surely a few Dutch people are still left in the Netherlands.

None that are in strong communities though :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2019, 03:32:24 pm
Dutch history kind of amuses me.  It's almost as if as soon as the emigrants left for South Africa and the US the people who remained said "let's drop that Dutch Reformed nonsense and start smoking pot."  Like all the uptight Dutch left.  Sort of an inversion of the normal dynamic of emigration/immigration.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 19, 2019, 03:34:26 pm
 :hmm: Is it, though? All the Huguenot emigrants and Puritans that left were typically the oppressed extremists rather than the oppressed moderates, from my understanding.

Ditto the 1848 generation.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2019, 03:37:58 pm
:hmm: Is it, though? All the Huguenot emigrants and Puritans that left were typically the oppressed extremists rather than the oppressed moderates, from my understanding.

Ditto the 1848 generation.

1848 were all wild eyed revolutionaries.  That's not uptight.

Puritans and Hugueonots are the exception that proves the rule. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 19, 2019, 03:44:29 pm
I liked August Willich, US officer in the Civil War and 48er, who once tried to kill Karl Marx for being too right wing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 19, 2019, 03:46:14 pm
Damn it, Augie. You had one job!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 19, 2019, 03:51:08 pm
Damn it, Augie. You had one job!

The plot involved him publicly insulting Marx and challenging him to a duel in which he, and a French associate of his whose name I forget, were to kill him. But Marx instead sent an somebody to duel in his place. Foiled again!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on February 19, 2019, 03:52:14 pm
I liked August Willich, US officer in the Civil War and 48er, who once tried to kill Karl Marx for being too right wing.

Failed hero.  :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on February 19, 2019, 03:57:45 pm
Dutch history kind of amuses me.  It's almost as if as soon as the emigrants left for South Africa and the US the people who remained said "let's drop that Dutch Reformed nonsense and start smoking pot."  Like all the uptight Dutch left.  Sort of an inversion of the normal dynamic of emigration/immigration.

There is no normal dynamic of emigration. Nomads leave because that's what they do and sedentaries leave to settle. Extremists leave because they want their little utopias and theocracies. Poor people leave to have better lives. Marginals leave because they are marginalized. Bloodthirsty adventurers leave to kill others. Pacifists leave to escape violence. Bourgeois leave to escape revolutions and revolutionaries leave to escape repression.

English Puritans wanted political control of their own society, which they could not get in the old hierarchies of the Netherlands, of which they remained outsiders. French Huguenots were fleeing Catholic persecution, and settled in the Netherlands, and then followed the extension of family networks through the British and Dutch Empire.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on February 19, 2019, 03:59:07 pm
I liked August Willich, US officer in the Civil War and 48er, who once tried to kill Karl Marx for being too right wing.

Failed hero.  :(

Never took you for someone who'd champion a more radical left-wing utopia.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 19, 2019, 04:01:51 pm
I liked August Willich, US officer in the Civil War and 48er, who once tried to kill Karl Marx for being too right wing.

I'm skeptical of this account.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on February 19, 2019, 04:22:03 pm
Here comes Bernie! (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/676923000/bernie-sanders-enters-2020-presidential-campaign-no-longer-an-underdog)   :)

Quote
Bernie Sanders Enters 2020 Presidential Campaign, No Longer An Underdog


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is giving it another go, launching a second campaign for the White House four years after surprising Democrats with a strong bid for the party's 2016 nomination.

"We began the political revolution in the 2016 campaign, and now it's time to move that revolution forward," the independent senator told Vermont Public Radio in an interview airing Tuesday morning.

Sanders pointed to the Democratic Party's leftward shift as a reason for a second run. "It turns out that many of the ideas that I talked about – that health care is a right, not a privilege, and that we've got to move toward a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system: very, very popular. The idea that we have got to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour," he told Vermont Public Radio. "When I talked about making public colleges and universities tuition-free and lowering student debt, that was another issue that people said was too radical. Well, that's also happening around the country."

 :showoff:

Trump vs. Bernie would be a great timeline.

I suggest Minsky gets assigned Bernie, Habbaku gets Kamala Harris and Yi takes Tulsi Gabbard. Derspiess gets Klobuchar and either FunkMonk or Berkut gets Trump this time around.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 19, 2019, 05:28:22 pm
I liked August Willich, US officer in the Civil War and 48er, who once tried to kill Karl Marx for being too right wing.

Failed hero.  :(

Never took you for someone who'd champion a more radical left-wing utopia.

Cute.

Anyway Augie was a Cincinnatian for a while. Was even Hamilton County Auditor.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2019, 05:31:16 pm
I suggest Minsky gets assigned Bernie, Habbaku gets Kamala Harris and Yi takes Tulsi Gabbard. Derspiess gets Klobuchar and either FunkMonk or Berkut gets Trump this time around.

What does this mean?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on February 19, 2019, 05:32:27 pm
Are we doing squares or something? If so, I'd like a re-draw.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Monoriu on February 19, 2019, 06:36:16 pm
Trump vs Sanders would be the ultimate evil vs evil. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 19, 2019, 07:16:06 pm
Neither can top Xi.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on February 19, 2019, 07:24:44 pm
Trump vs Sanders would be the ultimate evil vs evil. 

Yeah, sort of like the Eastern Front.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 19, 2019, 07:27:53 pm
Trump vs Sanders would be the ultimate evil vs evil. 

Yeah, sort of like the Eastern Front.

That is a.....frighteningly spot on analogy :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on February 19, 2019, 07:28:30 pm
I liked August Willich, US officer in the Civil War and 48er, who once tried to kill Karl Marx for being too right wing.

I'm skeptical of this account.

I love colorful Civil War anecdotes so it might not be as exciting as I remembered.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 05, 2019, 04:40:53 am
More bad news for Trump:


Quote
Hillary Clinton rules out 2020 presidential run

Hillary Clinton has ruled out a second US presidential run in 2020.

"I'm not running, but I'm going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe," Mrs Clinton told New York's News 12 TV channel.

As the Democratic candidate in 2016, Mrs Clinton was widely expected to become the first female US president, before a shock defeat by Mr Trump.

Asked by News 12 if she would run again for any public office in future, she said: "I don't think so."

The interview is the first time Mrs Clinton has definitively rebutted speculation that she might take on Mr Trump again in 2020.

She said she had spoken to some of the declared 2020 Democratic candidates. "I've told every one of them, don't take anything for granted," she said.

Mrs Clinton was the first female presidential nominee for a major US party in the nation's history. Her ascension to the top office was widely seen as all but guaranteed, but she was dogged by accusations of being overly reliant on wealthy donors, too close to Wall Street and out of touch with younger voters.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47453302 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47453302)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2019, 05:42:19 am
But is she considering a third run?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on March 05, 2019, 06:54:52 am
But is she considering a third run?

Yeah, she might figure that Trump will be re-elected, and she can run in 2024 without having to run against an incumbent.  She'll only be 77 then.

;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 05, 2019, 07:00:38 am
Quote
Asked by News 12 if she would run again for any public office in future, she said: "I don't think so."
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 05, 2019, 07:24:40 am
But is she considering a third run?

Yeah, she might figure that Trump will be re-elected, and she can run in 2024 without having to run against an incumbent.  She'll only be 77 then.

;)

I meant in 2020. :contract:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on March 07, 2019, 04:27:50 pm
But is she considering a third run?

Yeah, she might figure that Trump will be re-elected, and she can run in 2024 without having to run against an incumbent.  She'll only be 77 then.

;)

I meant in 2020. :contract:

Sorry, missed that you were joking.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on March 07, 2019, 08:27:16 pm
Poor Hil.  She would have been a good President.  Too bad she's got so much baggage and so many people hate her for some strange reason.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2019, 10:06:51 pm
It's not a question of that anymore. She's not a viable candidate, even people who have sympathy for her don't want to roll those dice again after what happened last time.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 07, 2019, 10:22:58 pm
It's not a question of that anymore. She's not a viable candidate, even people who have sympathy for her don't want to roll those dice again after what happened last time.

:yes:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 08, 2019, 12:15:58 pm
It's not a question of that anymore. She's not a viable candidate, even people who have sympathy for her don't want to roll those dice again after what happened last time.

:yes:

Yep, she has to wear the fact she is the one who lost to Trump.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 08, 2019, 01:01:36 pm
But it wasn't her fault.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 08, 2019, 01:02:26 pm
But it wasn't her fault.

The buck stops with her. She was our leader and she failed. Next up.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 08, 2019, 01:50:45 pm
No, no, no.  It was everyone else's fault.  Shame on you.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 08, 2019, 06:08:36 pm
:yawn:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on March 11, 2019, 12:26:02 pm
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/433410-trump-campaign-adviser-dismisses-white-house-diversity-question-how

Quote
Trump campaign adviser dismisses White House diversity question, asks about black people in Lincoln admin

Trump 2020 campaign adviser Katrina Pierson on Sunday dismissed a question about diversity within President Trump's administration by asking how many black people worked in former President Lincoln's administration.

"I’m not going to participate in the attempt to make this all about race. It's ridiculous," Pierson, who is African-American, said during an appearance on MSNBC. "How many black people were in Abraham Lincoln’s West Wing?”

Pierson invoked Lincoln after Rev. Al Sharpton pressed her on how many black people work inside the White House. The question led to a heated exchange, with Pierson accusing Sharpton of attempting to paint the president as a racist.

"Everything has to be made about race, reverend. ... I’m not going to participate in the attempt to continue to paint this president as racist," Pierson said.

Sharpton then asked how Trump can appeal to black voters without hiring African-Americans within his administration. Pierson replied that there are "plenty of black people working in the West Wing" before bringing up the lack of diversity inside Lincoln's White House.

"Is Abraham Lincoln a racist because he didn't have a black person in his West Wing? This is insane. It's an insane discussion," Pierson added.

Activist David Brock later remarked that the lack of diversity inside the White House is a stark contrast to the diverse batch of Democratic candidates running for president in 2020.

Trump has faced widespread scrutiny from Democrats on issues related to race since he launched his 2016 campaign. Several 2020 presidential candidates, including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have labeled the president a racist.

In March 2018, many on social media criticized the lack of diversity among White House interns after the administration released a photo of the mostly white class.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 11, 2019, 12:32:26 pm
A compelling and well thought out argument. How many black people were in the Qin Emperor's court? Are you saying China is racist? I think my case has been made -_-
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 11, 2019, 12:38:43 pm
Elizabeth Warren is trying as hard as she can to make new friends.
I'm not convinced breaking up the tech giants is THE solution to everything.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 11, 2019, 12:39:22 pm
Yeah, I don't really want to be living in the 19th century.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on March 11, 2019, 01:04:28 pm
"Is Abraham Lincoln a racist because he didn't have a black person in his West Wing? This is insane. It's an insane discussion," Pierson added.

By today's standards (based on his own statements, though they may not have been very controversial at the time), he almost certainly was.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 11, 2019, 01:07:54 pm
"Is Abraham Lincoln a racist because he didn't have a black person in his West Wing? This is insane. It's an insane discussion," Pierson added.

By today's standards (based on his own statements, though they may not have been very controversial at the time), he almost certainly was.

I knew somebody was going to bring that up. Naturally I think we can argue a bit about that but the fact he had no black people in his administration does not make him a racist. It was 1861, he couldn't have hired one even if he desperately wanted to.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 11, 2019, 09:54:26 pm
Yeah, I don't really want to be living in the 19th century.

How does that follow?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 11, 2019, 10:42:17 pm
The argument for breaking up the tech giants is to avoid repeating the late 19th century experience of a highly concentrated "tech" sector. (with energy, rail transport and steel being the technology sectors of era).
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 11, 2019, 10:53:49 pm
The argument for breaking up the tech giants is to avoid repeating the late 19th century experience of a highly concentrated "tech" sector. (with energy, rail transport and steel being the technology sectors of era).

Yes, I very much get the argument - and I actually support it. Much like then, their size and influence give these corporations considerable power (arguably, much more than the steel, and rail of the time) without the political accountability. The US survived the breaking up of S.O., it should survive the break up of Facebook, or Google.

I thought garbon was rejecting the anti-trust argument on the ground of "not wanting to live in the 19th century". 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on March 11, 2019, 11:41:10 pm
Problem is that tech giants are natural monopolies in a way that steel giants weren't.  Network effects, fixed costs of software development, data collection, all of these dynamics lead to situations where the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts.  This concentration of economic power is a threat that has to be addressed, but I think breakups will just deal a lot of damage for no gain.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2019, 11:58:49 pm
Problem is that tech giants are natural monopolies in a way that steel giants weren't.  Network effects, fixed costs of software development, data collection, all of these dynamics lead to situations where the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts.  This concentration of economic power is a threat that has to be addressed, but I think breakups will just deal a lot of damage for no gain.
Facebook doesn't need to own instagram or whatsapp to function.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 12, 2019, 03:52:05 am
Yeah, I don't really want to be living in the 19th century.

How does that follow?

Viper posted shortly before me. I was replying to Syt and V.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 12, 2019, 08:10:22 am
Yeah I thought garbon was talking about Abe there.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Malthus on March 12, 2019, 08:39:37 am
Yeah I thought garbon was talking about Abe there.

Interesting thought experiment: would Americans rather have a resurrected honest Abe as President, if you could bring him back from the dead, complete with his 19th century attitudes towards everything and a complete lack of any knowledge of the issues and problems of the 21st century - or Trump?  ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on March 12, 2019, 08:44:46 am
Yeah I thought garbon was talking about Abe there.

Interesting thought experiment: would Americans rather have a resurrected honest Abe as President, if you could bring him back from the dead, complete with his 19th century attitudes towards everything and a complete lack of any knowledge of the issues and problems of the 21st century - or Trump?  ;)

No contest, Abe all the way. I assume he'd willing to listen and learn about the new century he found himself in, something Trump is unwilling to do.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 12, 2019, 08:50:16 am
Yeah I thought garbon was talking about Abe there.

Interesting thought experiment: would Americans rather have a resurrected honest Abe as President, if you could bring him back from the dead, complete with his 19th century attitudes towards everything and a complete lack of any knowledge of the issues and problems of the 21st century - or Trump?  ;)

Abe. Hell I would take Thomas Jefferson, even if we would have to lock him up for sex with a minor.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on March 12, 2019, 09:57:20 am
Of course Lincoln.

That doesn't mean much. I would trade Trump in for a magic eight ball. He is actively malicious, so as long as his replacement is not actually *trying* to destroy the country, it would be an improvement. Literally not having a President at all would be a better President than Trump.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on March 12, 2019, 10:04:45 am
Literally not having a President at all would be a better President than Trump.

#Monarchy2020
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 12, 2019, 10:07:12 am
Britain would love for us to rejoin to take the sting out of Brexit.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on March 12, 2019, 10:07:51 am
I welcome Britain joining NAFTA.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on March 12, 2019, 12:18:36 pm
Lincoln was a man of his times and it's always weird to me we feel the need to hyperventilate and judge people dead for multiple generations for the consequence of their birth. But Lincoln was also intelligent and intellectually curious, and a tireless reader. Trump gets tired of reading after a few sentences which is why his daily intelligence brief is delivered as a comic strip now. Trump is actually a reactionary in opposition to most of the positive developments that have occurred in his lifetime.

I have little doubt with a time machine and some time to get up to speed, Lincoln would be a vastly better President than DJT in 2020.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on March 12, 2019, 12:26:07 pm
I welcome Britain joining NAFTA.

I'd welcome Britain as the 51st state (or as 51-54th).  Maybe even just to spite Tim by beating out PR.  :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on March 12, 2019, 12:28:40 pm
Yeah I thought garbon was talking about Abe there.

Interesting thought experiment: would Americans rather have a resurrected honest Abe as President, if you could bring him back from the dead, complete with his 19th century attitudes towards everything and a complete lack of any knowledge of the issues and problems of the 21st century - or Trump?  ;)

No contest, Abe all the way. I assume he'd willing to listen and learn about the new century he found himself in, something Trump is unwilling to do.

Agree.  There is plenty one can take from Lincoln's speeches that would make him a horrible racist today...but I agree he had the wisdom and intellectual curiosity that would easily turn that around if thrust into the today.

But with our gotcha media climate, he'd still suffer for things said deep in his past, no matter any newfound views.  :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on March 12, 2019, 12:33:45 pm
It would be funny to see how fast Fox and the modern Republicans repudiated him.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 12, 2019, 12:34:50 pm
I welcome Britain joining NAFTA.

I'd welcome Britain as the 51st state (or as 51-54th).  Maybe even just to spite Tim by beating out PR.  :P

You think the UK is having trouble now with the Northern Ireland question because of Brexit?  Just imagine trying to introduce a US-EU land border across Ireland.

Not to mention the whole point of Brexit was for the UK to reclaim power from Brussels.  Within the USA Washington DC would have far more control over day-to-day life than Brussels ever did.

Plus imagine the redistricting fun!  Right now the US is capped at 435 congresspeople.  If you keep that cap a whole bunch of existing congressmen will lose their jobs.  If you don't, you're suddenly adding 90-some new congressmen.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 12, 2019, 12:36:40 pm
Agree.  There is plenty one can take from Lincoln's speeches that would make him a horrible racist today...

Sure. But remember the context. He was seen as dangerously and radically pro-black at the time. His opponents tried to tie him down on that issue to discredit him and he was trying to position himself as a moderate. I do have to ask what, outside of the Lincoln-Douglas debates what speeches in particularly are you referring to?

So yeah he was horribly racist by the standards of our time but he was probably way ahead of the 1860s. And being William Lloyd Garrison wasn't going to win any elections.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 12, 2019, 12:38:47 pm
Agree.  There is plenty one can take from Lincoln's speeches that would make him a horrible racist today...

Sure. But remember the context. He was seen as dangerously and radically pro-black at the time. His opponents tried to tie him down on that issue to discredit him and he was trying to position himself as a moderate. I do have to ask what, outside of the Lincoln-Douglas debates what speeches in particularly are you referring to?

So yeah he was horribly racist by the standards of our time but he was probably way ahead of the 1860s. And being William Lloyd Garrison wasn't going to win any elections.

If Obama and Clinton were allowed to "evolve" their opinion of gay marriage, I'm pretty sure unfrozen Lincoln would be able to get away with repudiating some things he said 150 years ago.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on March 12, 2019, 01:22:06 pm
Agree.  There is plenty one can take from Lincoln's speeches that would make him a horrible racist today...

Sure. But remember the context. He was seen as dangerously and radically pro-black at the time. His opponents tried to tie him down on that issue to discredit him and he was trying to position himself as a moderate. I do have to ask what, outside of the Lincoln-Douglas debates what speeches in particularly are you referring to?

So yeah he was horribly racist by the standards of our time but he was probably way ahead of the 1860s. And being William Lloyd Garrison wasn't going to win any elections.

You pretty much have disarmed me, sir.  :P

But actually, we agree.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on March 12, 2019, 02:01:48 pm
You think the UK is having trouble now with the Northern Ireland question because of Brexit?  Just imagine trying to introduce a US-EU land border across Ireland.

No problem;  we can just build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.  ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on March 12, 2019, 03:05:13 pm
I welcome Britain joining NAFTA.

I'd welcome Britain as the 51st state (or as 51-54th).  Maybe even just to spite Tim by beating out PR.  :P
Can we rename it Airstrip One?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 12, 2019, 03:27:20 pm
You think the UK is having trouble now with the Northern Ireland question because of Brexit?  Just imagine trying to introduce a US-EU land border across Ireland.

No problem;  we can just build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.  ;)

That would make the DUP vote for Trump in droves.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on March 12, 2019, 09:47:22 pm
If Obama and Clinton were allowed to "evolve" their opinion of gay marriage, I'm pretty sure unfrozen Lincoln would be able to get away with repudiating some things he said 150 years ago.
I think gay marriage is the exception, because I suspect the vast majority of supporters evolved during their lifetime.  It doesn't seem to work that way with racism.  The moment some piece of writing from 1850 would surface, Abe would be done for, regardless of how quickly and earnestly he apologizes and asks for forgiveness.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on March 13, 2019, 01:58:32 am
If Obama and Clinton were allowed to "evolve" their opinion of gay marriage, I'm pretty sure unfrozen Lincoln would be able to get away with repudiating some things he said 150 years ago.
I think gay marriage is the exception, because I suspect the vast majority of supporters evolved during their lifetime.  It doesn't seem to work that way with racism.  The moment some piece of writing from 1850 would surface, Abe would be done for, regardless of how quickly and earnestly he apologizes and asks for forgiveness.
It has already been used against the other 200 year old members of government, right?  I mean we have precedent for such situations.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on March 13, 2019, 04:11:30 am
But with our gotcha media climate, he'd still suffer for things said deep in his past, no matter any newfound views.  :P

Those early Lincoln tweets are a bummer!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on March 13, 2019, 07:23:11 am
It has already been used against the other 200 year old members of government, right?
We can only speculate.  None of today's Democratic Party leaders had racist writings turn up.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tamas on March 13, 2019, 07:31:35 am
I welcome Britain joining NAFTA.

I'd welcome Britain as the 51st state (or as 51-54th).  Maybe even just to spite Tim by beating out PR.  :P

You think the UK is having trouble now with the Northern Ireland question because of Brexit?  Just imagine trying to introduce a US-EU land border across Ireland.

Not to mention the whole point of Brexit was for the UK to reclaim power from Brussels.  Within the USA Washington DC would have far more control over day-to-day life than Brussels ever did.

Plus imagine the redistricting fun!  Right now the US is capped at 435 congresspeople.  If you keep that cap a whole bunch of existing congressmen will lose their jobs.  If you don't, you're suddenly adding 90-some new congressmen.

The UK after losing their EU votes and full membership WILL become de facto satellite/second-rate partner of a bigger entity. Question is if that'll be EU (soft Brexit), US (hard Brexit), or something like India (finding a new form for the Commonwealth as a reaction to hard Brexit).
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 13, 2019, 07:51:46 am
It has already been used against the other 200 year old members of government, right?
We can only speculate.  None of today's Democratic Party leaders had racist writings turn up.

Which racist writings are we referring to?

I mean few current Democratic Politicians also are directly responsible for the legal end of slavery and federal recognition of citizenship for black people. And none of them lost their lives in the process either...
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 14, 2019, 07:50:14 am
Good to see Beto is running... :rolleyes:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2019, 08:00:14 am
Good to see Beto is running... :rolleyes:
Well Biden seems reluctant to declare and Harris doesn't seem to be catching fire, so the moderate lane is wide open.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2019, 09:40:07 am
Good to see Beto is running... :rolleyes:

Wish he was running for Senate. Ah well.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 14, 2019, 10:10:01 am
Good to see Beto is running... :rolleyes:

Yeah, pretty much my reaction.

Wish he was running for Senate. Ah well.

Yep,

"One moment of impatience may ruin a whole life"
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 14, 2019, 02:42:35 pm
Good to see Beto is running... :rolleyes:
Well Biden seems reluctant to declare and Harris doesn't seem to be catching fire, so the moderate lane is wide open.

What have Harris and Beto said or done to distinguish themselves from the other candidates as the moderate wing?  :hmm:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 14, 2019, 02:44:34 pm
Good to see Beto is running... :rolleyes:
Well Biden seems reluctant to declare and Harris doesn't seem to be catching fire, so the moderate lane is wide open.

What have Harris and Beto said or done to distinguish themselves from the other candidates as the moderate wing?  :hmm:

I don't think Harris counts as the "moderate wing" at all.  She's been pulling hard left from what I understand.

Beto is from Texas, so as Congressman he had to be more centrist, plus has avoided taking any specific policy positions so far.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2019, 02:58:48 pm
I don't know any of Harris' policy positions.

The one clear cut moderate is Klobuchar, the chick from Minnesota (Wisconsin?).
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2019, 03:02:29 pm
Beto is from Texas, so as Congressman he had to be more centrist

That is not how Congressional Districts work, BB. They do not represent entire states. But please explain how a 30+ point winner was having his feet held to the fire that forced him to take specific positions in the 16th district since you are such an expert.

Quote
plus has avoided taking any specific policy positions so far.

Well he did just announce today.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2019, 03:06:29 pm
hard left

WTF does this mean? How often do I have to make fun of you for this before you explain what "hard left" means?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2019, 03:07:26 pm
What have Harris and Beto said or done to distinguish themselves from the other candidates as the moderate wing?  :hmm:

I don't know, we haven't even had a debate yet. But there probably is stuff on twitter someplace.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 14, 2019, 03:55:25 pm
hard left

WTF does this mean? How often do I have to make fun of you for this before you explain what "hard left" means?

Far left?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 14, 2019, 04:09:08 pm
Extremist labels tell you as much about the speaker as the subject.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2019, 04:11:33 pm
hard left

WTF does this mean? How often do I have to make fun of you for this before you explain what "hard left" means?

Far left?

Is she calling for the overthrow of the Capitalist system and the dictatorship of the Proletariat?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 14, 2019, 04:14:23 pm
Ask Beeb.  But she does seem to have moved a little to the left since she announced her candidacy.  You kind of have to as a Dem candidate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 14, 2019, 04:22:49 pm
Ask Beeb.  But she does seem to have moved a little to the left since she announced her candidacy.  You kind of have to as a Dem candidate.

How so?  I thought the criticism of her by the people BB would characterize as "hard left" is that she is right wing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 14, 2019, 04:29:01 pm
hard left

WTF does this mean? How often do I have to make fun of you for this before you explain what "hard left" means?

Hard left, far left - I don't mean it as a pejorative.  The opposite of the middle or centre-left.

It seems to me that Harris could have positioned herself as a more centre-left figure, but instead:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-kamala-harris-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-9-issues

-supports Medicare for all/getting rid of private health insurance
-free college for all
-wants to "re-examine" ICE
-have a national pre-Kindergarten program

Those all sounds like she's running up against Bernie and company on the left side of the Democratic party.

As for Beto, you're certainly closer to him than I am.  And as I think about it it was noted during his Senate run that he didn't run away from some leftist positions, like on immigration or guns.

But nevertheless, he may only have just announced, but

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/beto-wants-be-like-obama-announced-more-like-trump/584965/

This pretty good (and positive!) article makes a point of pointing out that Beto has not announced any policy on anything.  Maybe he's going to start embracing the "Green New Deal" and start calling for ICE to be abolished, but it sounds like he's going more for an Obama-like ambiguity to try to appeal to both centrists and the (just for you) Hard Left(tm).
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2019, 04:35:41 pm
Borrowing a bit from an old Economist article, the Democrats have enjoyed the advantage of hiding their incoherent and illogical immigration policies behind toddler stalags and Teh Wall.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 14, 2019, 04:42:21 pm
-supports Medicare for all/getting rid of private health insurance
-free college for all
-wants to "re-examine" ICE
-have a national pre-Kindergarten program

Its not free college "for all", it is a means test.  Pretty similar to the kind of financial aid, bursury system we have here.  The one big difference between our systems is that all our students (rich and poor) receive a highly subsidized university education.  The Harris proposal has some merit in terms of fairness.

what sane person would not want to re-examine what the Trump administration has created with ICE?  And why is that hard left?


As for preschool and single payor health care - as said in other threads, it is continually mystifying why that sort of thing is perceived to be "hard left" and not simply good centrist public policy.  It shows just how "hard right" the American political discourse is.

Valmy has, I think, got the right approach.  Labels like hard left and hard right should be reserved for people who are proposing public policy that is extreme. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 14, 2019, 04:43:09 pm
Borrowing a bit from an old Economist article, the Democrats have enjoyed the advantage of hiding their incoherent and illogical immigration policies behind toddler stalags and Teh Wall.

Which article was that?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 14, 2019, 04:48:39 pm
-supports Medicare for all/getting rid of private health insurance
-free college for all
-wants to "re-examine" ICE
-have a national pre-Kindergarten program

Its not free college "for all", it is a means test.  Pretty similar to the kind of financial aid, bursury system we have here.  The one big difference between our systems is that all our students (rich and poor) receive a highly subsidized university education.  The Harris proposal has some merit in terms of fairness.

what sane person would not want to re-examine what the Trump administration has created with ICE?  And why is that hard left?


As for preschool and single payor health care - as said in other threads, it is continually mystifying why that sort of thing is perceived to be "hard left" and not simply good centrist public policy.  It shows just how "hard right" the American political discourse is.

Valmy has, I think, got the right approach.  Labels like hard left and hard right should be reserved for people who are proposing public policy that is extreme.

-No, it's free college for anyone with incomes of less than $125,000.  Thats dramatically more generous then what you would get in Canada, which is mostly in the form of loans.
-Trump didn't create ICE.  ICE is just Immigration and Customs Enforcement - similar to our own CBSA.  Controlling immigration and customs is kind of important if you're running a sovereign country.
-national universal preK program would be a huge cost, and we have nothing like it in Canada (studies on its effectiveness are pretty mixed too)
-and I don't wish to debate health care, but single payor would be a dramatic change in the US - and is dramatically more change than what Obama himself brought in just a few years ago.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 14, 2019, 04:57:42 pm
If you want proof that Beto is seen as a more centrist figure: David French at National Review is rooting for him:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/in-the-woke-war-against-beto-root-for-beto/
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 14, 2019, 04:57:54 pm
-supports Medicare for all/getting rid of private health insurance
-free college for all
-wants to "re-examine" ICE
-have a national pre-Kindergarten program

Its not free college "for all", it is a means test.  Pretty similar to the kind of financial aid, bursury system we have here.  The one big difference between our systems is that all our students (rich and poor) receive a highly subsidized university education.  The Harris proposal has some merit in terms of fairness.

what sane person would not want to re-examine what the Trump administration has created with ICE?  And why is that hard left?


As for preschool and single payor health care - as said in other threads, it is continually mystifying why that sort of thing is perceived to be "hard left" and not simply good centrist public policy.  It shows just how "hard right" the American political discourse is.

Valmy has, I think, got the right approach.  Labels like hard left and hard right should be reserved for people who are proposing public policy that is extreme.

-No, it's free college for anyone with incomes of less than $125,000.  Thats dramatically more generous then what you would get in Canada, which is mostly in the form of loans.
-Trump didn't create ICE.  ICE is just Immigration and Customs Enforcement - similar to our own CBSA.  Controlling immigration and customs is kind of important if you're running a sovereign country.
-national universal preK program would be a huge cost, and we have nothing like it in Canada (studies on its effectiveness are pretty mixed too)
-and I don't wish to debate health care, but single payor would be a dramatic change in the US - and is dramatically more change than what Obama himself brought in just a few years ago.

- Yeah, that is kind of what means tested means  :P  It is not university for all as you asserted.  The cost of US college tuition is such that people earning less than that cannot afford to send their kids without incurring large amounts of debt.  You are ignoring that fact that tuition in Canada is heavily subsidized by the tax payer already - for both rich and poor.  Creating a means tested system makes more sense.

- you are right, Trump did not create ICE but what sane person would not carefully look at what it has become under his administration?

- We have it in BC.  I keep forgetting you are in Texas North

- Yes, it would be a significant change.  But it is not hard left to propose it.  It is hard right to oppose it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 14, 2019, 05:20:11 pm
public policy that is extreme. 
and how do you define extreme?  isn't it variable, depending on the context?

What is considered extreme in English Canada is the norm in France.
What is considered normal in Sweden is extreme in the US.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 14, 2019, 05:24:26 pm
-national universal preK program would be a huge cost, and we have nothing like it in Canada (studies on its effectiveness are pretty mixed too)
hey!  we're still in Canada!
:P

though not totally universal anymore.  It's been adjusted for revenue. Makes more sense.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2019, 05:29:26 pm
Full context on Harris' ICE statement:

Quote
"I think there’s no question that we’ve got to critically reexamine ICE and its role and the way it is being administered and the work it is doing," Harris said. "And we need to probably think about starting from scratch because there's a lot that is wrong with the way that it's conducting itself. And we need to deal with that."

"First of all, I don't think that the government should be in the position of separating families and that is clearly what is part of what's happening at ICE and DHS," she continued. "You look at what's happening, again, in terms of how they're conducting their perspective on asylum seekers, that is a real problem and is contrary to all of the spirit and the reason that we even have the asylum rules and laws in the first place."

"Their mission, I think, is very much in question and has to be reexamined," she said. 

That statement in context seems pretty reasonable to me.

The "reexamination" is of the agency's mission and policy not of whether there should be an enforcement agency.
 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2019, 05:34:49 pm
Full context on Harris' ICE statement:

Quote
"I think there’s no question that we’ve got to critically reexamine ICE and its role and the way it is being administered and the work it is doing," Harris said. "And we need to probably think about starting from scratch because there's a lot that is wrong with the way that it's conducting itself. And we need to deal with that."

"First of all, I don't think that the government should be in the position of separating families and that is clearly what is part of what's happening at ICE and DHS," she continued. "You look at what's happening, again, in terms of how they're conducting their perspective on asylum seekers, that is a real problem and is contrary to all of the spirit and the reason that we even have the asylum rules and laws in the first place."

"Their mission, I think, is very much in question and has to be reexamined," she said. 

That statement in context seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yes and no.  No in that the real target of her criticism should have been Donald, who had the legal authority to order criminalization of illegal border crossings, not ICE.  By making it about ICE's mission she's pandering to the abolish ICE loons.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 14, 2019, 05:38:23 pm
Yes and no.  No in that the real target of her criticism should have been Donald, who had the legal authority to order criminalization of illegal border crossings, not ICE.  By making it about ICE's mission she's pandering to the abolish ICE loons.

I am one of those loons. ICE's leadership has shown repeatedly it was more than willing to overstep its authority, bargain with an authoritarian president, protect the worst of its members, show utter contempt for elected officials, and generally speaking gleefully enforce cruel policies.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2019, 05:39:59 pm
I am one of those loons. ICE's leadership has shown repeatedly it was more than willing to overstep its authority, bargain with an authoritarian president, protect the worst of its members, show utter contempt for elected officials, and generally speaking gleefully enforce cruel policies.

Howdy loon.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 14, 2019, 05:44:52 pm
Howdy loon.

Don't worry, I think your political preferences are similarly damaging. At least, you can sleep safely knowing I can't vote in this country. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2019, 05:47:01 pm
I don't think it all can be put on Trump.  ICE itself was the result of "starting from scratch" - splitting the old INS into different agencies and creating single focused enforcement agency. But a problem with narrow focus is that it can create narrow mentalities.  Enforcement of the law also means abiding by the law, and that in turn means things like taking America's legal obligations towards refugees seriously and upholding their rights. That's a mission where ICE long ago seems to have lost the script.  Similarly not all the problems with family separation at the border can be put entirely at Trump's door.

Trump has been a toxic influence and a key instigator of the worst abuses but it didn't take that much pushing to instigate.  There was no equivalent of a Mattis or Gary Cohen at ICE or DHS to push back or divert.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2019, 05:51:28 pm
Don't worry, I think your political preferences are similarly damaging. At least, you can sleep safely knowing I can't vote in this country.

You do understand, don't you, that abolishing ICE is tantamount to unlimited immigration?  Do you honestly think that's a reasonable policy?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 14, 2019, 05:52:04 pm
I don't think it all can be put on Trump.  ICE itself was the result of "starting from scratch" - splitting the old INS into different agencies and creating single focused enforcement agency. But a problem with narrow focus is that it can create narrow mentalities.  Enforcement of the law also means abiding by the law, and that in turn means things like taking America's legal obligations towards refugees seriously and upholding their rights. That's a mission where ICE long ago seems to have lost the script.  Similarly not all the problems with family separation at the border can be put entirely at Trump's door.

Trump has been a toxic influence and a key instigator of the worst abuses but it didn't take that much pushing to instigate.  There was no equivalent of a Mattis or Gary Cohen at ICE or DHS to push back or divert.

Exactly. Everyone I know who wants ICE to be abolished do not hold that opinion based on Trump, or because they favor open borders (some do, out of utopian commitment), but because they agency's mission, and execution, has been so thoroughly  corrupted that reform will only muddy the issue without changing much. Trump has only made the rot more visible.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 14, 2019, 05:55:46 pm
Don't worry, I think your political preferences are similarly damaging. At least, you can sleep safely knowing I can't vote in this country.

You do understand, don't you, that abolishing ICE is tantamount to unlimited immigration?  Do you honestly think that's a reasonable policy?

No, it's not. The USA had an immigration policy, and forms of enforcement, before ICE and will likely have one after. See above: I am sure you can find some people whose thoughts on ICE are easy to caricature, but everyone I know who call for the abolition of ICE do so to favor a complete re-foundation of USA immigration policy without the distorting lens of this rotten institution, and create hopefully, a more humane form of enforcement. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2019, 06:10:14 pm
No, it's not. The USA had an immigration policy, and forms of enforcement, before ICE and will likely have one after. See above: I am sure you can find some people whose thoughts on ICE are easy to caricature, but everyone I know who call for the abolition of ICE do so to favor a complete re-foundation of USA immigration policy without the distorting lens of this rotten institution, and create hopefully, a more humane form of enforcement.

And it's just coincidental that the people who have publicly called for the abolition of ICE have stopped at that point?

You and Joan may have a point about administrative reform. I reserve judgement.  My narrative has been it's just the same INS doing INS stuff, except Trump decided to criminalize.  But I'm willing to consider evidence as it's presented that some of the suffering was caused by new bureaucratic culture, and not just by the chaos generated by ill-conceived and rushed political grandstanding.

However until "those abolish ICE loons" start qualifying their positions with the stuff you mentioned then I will continue to think of them as loons.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 14, 2019, 06:11:33 pm
Controlling immigration and customs is kind of important if you're running a sovereign country..

While I don't disagree it is interesting to point out that while customs collection historically was a major function of the US national government, with one major exception, the US did not have an immigration control policy to speak of for a century.  The one exception of course was the Alien and Sedition Act, regarded now and at the time as a constitutional abomination.

The constitution does not confer any enumerated power to control immigration (as opposed to naturalization, which is specifically mentioned).  The first major immigration control legislation since 1798 was the horribly racist Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880s.  It was upheld as constitutional in a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning was rather dubious, to put it lightly.  That case BTW remains the foundational precedent for all subsequent exercises of immigration control legislation.  Yet you will be shocked, shocked! to find out that conservative champions of constitutional strict construction and original intent seem to have no issues at all with Congress authorizing highly coercive legislation despite a lack of any contemporaneous evidence that the constitutional founders thought that such a power existed in the constitution and despite the subsequent grounding of that authority in a vague and untethered doctrine of inherent sovereign power.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 14, 2019, 06:17:09 pm
However until "those abolish ICE loons" start qualifying their positions with the stuff you mentioned then I will continue to think of them as loons.

You have a capacious understanding of loon. I'll be sure to return the favor. You and I have very different understanding of what politics ought to be, and how political change is enacted.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 14, 2019, 06:35:14 pm
Howdy loon.

Don't worry, I think your political preferences are similarly damaging. At least, you can sleep safely knowing I can't vote in this country. 
as a US resident but non citizen, are you allowed to donate money to Donald Trump's campaign or is that a right reserved to Chinese and Russians?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 14, 2019, 06:37:10 pm
Don't worry, I think your political preferences are similarly damaging. At least, you can sleep safely knowing I can't vote in this country.

You do understand, don't you, that abolishing ICE is tantamount to unlimited immigration?  Do you honestly think that's a reasonable policy?
repeal&replace! ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 14, 2019, 07:53:09 pm
Don't worry, I think your political preferences are similarly damaging. At least, you can sleep safely knowing I can't vote in this country.

You do understand, don't you, that abolishing ICE is tantamount to unlimited immigration?  Do you honestly think that's a reasonable policy?

Yes. America's open borders in the 19th century is what made this country great
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 14, 2019, 08:26:45 pm
We had mostly empty land to steal.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on March 14, 2019, 08:41:17 pm
Howdy loon.

Don't worry, I think your political preferences are similarly damaging. At least, you can sleep safely knowing I can't vote in this country.
But I can! :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 14, 2019, 09:32:15 pm
Don't worry, I think your political preferences are similarly damaging. At least, you can sleep safely knowing I can't vote in this country.

You do understand, don't you, that abolishing ICE is tantamount to unlimited immigration?  Do you honestly think that's a reasonable policy?

Yes. America's open borders in the 19th century is what made this country great
A few Indian tribes may disagree though, as Ed pointed out.

And the situation was very different back then.  There were no drug barons shipping illegal products in the US (were there even illegal products back then?), not much illegal immigration (I guess?), not many smugglers, not much human trafficking from eastern europe, etc, etc.
The ennemies of the US were Nation States, not a bunch of loosely affiliated fighters shooting gatling guns in theaters and suicide bombing public places.
It's not like AQ/ISIS/etc would stop attacking the US just because they would allow every muslim in the world to enter the country without papers.

Oex views on this seems pragmatical, I do not know to what extent they are shared by what Yi calls the "anti ICE loons".
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on March 14, 2019, 09:57:42 pm
There was plenty of smuggling of goods going on.  Human trafficking in the slave trade.  Plenty of weapons being smuggled in to "terrorist" groups or as you referred to them, loosely affiliated fighters (aka Native Americans as the United States would have viewed them). 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 14, 2019, 10:17:19 pm
Prior to 1875 you couldn't illegally immigrate to the US.  After 1875 you couldn't immigrate to the US if you were a Chinese woman.  Then it was extended to Chinese men, then Japanese and eventually all of Asia.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2019, 10:30:57 pm
There was plenty of smuggling of goods going on.  Human trafficking in the slave trade.  Plenty of weapons being smuggled in to "terrorist" groups or as you referred to them, loosely affiliated fighters (aka Native Americans as the United States would have viewed them). 

None of that has anything to do with immigration though. Presuming we are talking about illegal human trafficking (post-1808 internationally anyway) well we had a navy working on that. I am not really aware of any arms embargo on the native nations but even if there was one the Feds had no agents or anything to enforce such a thing.

Why are we talking about this? I thought this was the "US Election 2020" thread not the "US Election 1820" thread.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2019, 10:40:29 pm
Why are we talking about this? I thought this was the "US Election 2020" thread not the "US Election 1820" thread.

Because of Timmy's claim that unfettered immigration worked then, so it would work now.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 14, 2019, 11:23:53 pm
Why are we talking about this? I thought this was the "US Election 2020" thread not the "US Election 1820" thread.

Because of Timmy's claim that unfettered immigration worked then, so it would work now.

Ah. Does any country currently have unfettered immigration? I guess Somalia is not too worried about who sneaks in or out.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 14, 2019, 11:41:41 pm
Ah. Does any country currently have unfettered immigration? I guess Somalia is not too worried about who sneaks in or out.

No. Because "fettered" immigration has gone hand-in-hand with the increasing surveillance capacity of states over their borders, and their citizens. But to anyone who has ever consulted registers of US immigration in the 19th century, it's pretty clear that officers processing the cases were more than willing to turn a blind eye to information made-up on the spot, to invent names to fit categories, etc. The notion of state control was much more contested even from within state agents, than it can be now, where so many borders and immigration officers see themselves as the rampart against the invading hordes of potential enemies. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 15, 2019, 08:16:55 am
Human trafficking in the slave trade.
Slavery was still legal in a many States.

Quote
Plenty of weapons being smuggled in to "terrorist" groups or as you referred to them, loosely affiliated fighters (aka Native Americans as the United States would have viewed them). 
Well. technically, this was disputed territory, and the US didn't always claimed all their lands, it was a gradual expansion.  If they live on unceded territory and get weapons from Mexicans or British, that doesn't really count as importing illegal weapons in the US.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Malthus on March 15, 2019, 08:18:49 am
The New Colossus 

By Emma Lazarus 

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 15, 2019, 10:22:48 am
In the 19th century smuggling was all about avoiding taxes.  There were very few restrictions on what sort of goods could be brought into the country.  So "illegal weapons" weren't a problem since they didn't actually exist.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2019, 10:29:38 am
Slavery was still legal in a many States.

Still illegal to trade slaves internationally though. And a weird complicated legal grey area when moving them between states as well.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2019, 11:42:58 am
Prior to 1875 you couldn't illegally immigrate to the US. 

That's correct in terms of national law.  I believe some of the states had immigration laws prior to 1875.  At least New York state did, although the main purposes of those laws was (a) to protect immigrants from being preyed upon by fraudsters and criminals that used to skulk about the docks and (2) to quarantine arrivals suffering from infectious diseases.

It's fair to say the before the Civil War the idea that the national government had the constitutional power to regulate entry of human beings into the country would have seemed outlandish.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2019, 11:48:47 am
Here is a cotemporary account from 1866 of the Castle Garden immigration station in New York harbor.  I think it forms an interesting contrast to the "welcome" immigrants can expect today from ICE:

Quote
All being ready, the emigrants proceed in a body up the corridor into the interior of the building, their boxes and baggage being removed to the luggage warehouses, and here they range themselves in order on the seats. In front of them, and in the centre of the building, which is lit by a glass dome, stand a staff of some dozen gentlemen, all busily engaged in making arrangements for facilitating the movements and promoting the settlement of the newly-arrived emigrants. Each emigrant, man, woman and child, passes up in rotation to the Bureau, and gives to the registrar his or her name and destination, as a check upon the return of the Captain of the vessel, who gives the name, place of birth, age and occupation. One of the leading officers connected with the Bureau of Information then mounts a rostrum, and addressing the assembled emigrants, tells them that such as are not otherwise provided for, or prepared to pay for their accommodation, can find shelter under the roof of that building; that advice and information of the best and most reliable kind can be had relative to tickets for railway and steamer to take them East, West, North or South; as to the best means of obtaining employment, for which a register is kept in the Intelligence Department of the Institution; also as to the best and most expeditious routes to take, with facilities for corresponding with friends, and of changing money at the Bureau of Exchange. The Intelligence Department is largely resorted to by emigrants, inasmuch as there they can obtain information as to probable situations without fee, for which outside they are asked $2 by the employment agents. A careful supervision is exercised by the office as to the suitability and respectability of the parties on both sides. All this is well and wisely done for the protection of the emigrant, who would otherwise, if let to himself, become the prey of sharpers, boarding-house "runners", "scalpers", leafers, et id genus omne. Such as are ill or invalid are at once sent to the State Hospital, where they receive the best of medical treatment and general attention. A tolerable estimate may be formed of the work and labor devolving on the establishment, when it is remembered that during the past month of November, 17,280 emigrants had arrived at Castle Garden, or a grand total of 219,830 to that date since the beginning of the year, while according to the latest return made up to Thursday last, the total number of arrivals from January to Dec. 5, had reached the enormous number of 222,494, being an increase of 26,142 over the corresponding period of the preceding year--all permeating and passing through the great artery of life and labor at Castle Garden. The advantages conferred by the regulations of the institution are developed every day in the shield of protection that, by means of its advice, information and police, it confers on the unsuspecting emigrant and on the unprotected female, the friendless, the orphan and the widow.

Such is Castle Garden as a great national refuge for the emigrant from all lands. It has nothing to parallel it on the continent of Europe. It stands alone in its noble and utilitarian character.

http://members.tripod.com/~L_Alfano/castle.htm
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2019, 11:52:02 am
Of course, there are certain realities and practicalities that separate the present day from the 1860s.  But I would like to think that human decency and basic humanistic values have not degenerated too much since then.  It should be possible to have an immigration that is both "tough" in terms of enforcing legal restrictionw without having to be complete assholes to our fellow human beings.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 15, 2019, 01:56:49 pm
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrailMinorHapuku-max-1mb.gif)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on March 15, 2019, 03:01:18 pm
Of course, there are certain realities and practicalities that separate the present day from the 1860s.  But I would like to think that human decency and basic humanistic values have not degenerated too much since then.  It should be possible to have an immigration that is both "tough" in terms of enforcing legal restrictionw without having to be complete assholes to our fellow human beings.

FWIW, I'll restate my position that I think we should do away with quotas and let in anyone after rigorously screening out criminals, terrorists, those with serious communicable diseases, and perhaps a few other categories.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Monoriu on March 15, 2019, 05:25:57 pm
I like the Canadian way.  I still remember when my family went through the point system form.  You get points for speaking English, being young, having the required skills, and just plain having the cash. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2019, 05:36:44 pm
You don't get points for speaking French? Tabarnak!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Monoriu on March 15, 2019, 05:39:06 pm
You don't get points for speaking French? Tabarnak!

If I remember correctly it was 6 points for English and another 6 points for French.  My father scored 6 on English and 0 on French.  Got through in the end  :showoff:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on March 15, 2019, 06:28:40 pm
0? Not even kissing?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 16, 2019, 02:40:56 am
I'm becoming more and more convinced that our 2019 exists entirely within an 80s cyberpunk novel.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-beto-short-exclusive/exclusive-beto-orourke-belonged-to-major-hacker-group-as-a-teenager-idUSKCN1QW28H (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-beto-short-exclusive/exclusive-beto-orourke-belonged-to-major-hacker-group-as-a-teenager-idUSKCN1QW28H)

Quote
Beto O'Rourke belonged to major hacker group as a teenager

SAN FRANCISCO(Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke belonged to one of the best-known groups of computer hackers as a teenager, Reuters revealed today.

In an exclusive interview with this reporter for a forthcoming book about the group, the former U.S. congressman from Texas confirmed that as a youth in El Paso, he belonged to the hacking group known as the Cult of the Dead Cow. He also acknowledged that, during those teenage years, he stole long-distance phone service to participate in electronic discussions. Others in the group committed the same offense and got off with warnings; the statute of limitations ran out long ago.

In the group, O’Rourke wrote online essays under the pseudonym “Psychedelic Warlord” that could provide fodder for political supporters and foes alike. One mocked a neo-Nazi, while another was a short piece of fiction from a killer’s point of view.



Quote
I need a butt-shine, 
Right now 
You are holy, 
Oh, sacred Cow 
I thirst for you, 
Provide Milk. 

Buff my balls,
Love the Cow,
Good fortune for those that do.
Love me, breathe my feet,
The Cow has risen.

Wax my ass, 
Scrub my balls. 
The Cow has risen, 
Provide Milk. 

-Beto O'Rourke, age 16
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on March 16, 2019, 03:47:05 am
:)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on March 16, 2019, 09:34:00 am
President of the United States Mr. Psychedelic Warlord. I guess it's the next step after Trump  :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 17, 2019, 06:28:10 am
Old Man Misspeaks
Quote
Joe Biden appeared to announce his candidacy for the 2020 US election, before immediately correcting himself.

The former vice-president made the slip while addressing 1,000 Democrats at a dinner in his home state of Delaware.

He said his record was the most progressive "of anyone running for the United-" before correcting himself and saying, "anybody who would run".

The audience stood up and chanted "run Joe run", while Mr Biden crossed himself and said, "I didn't mean it!"

Addressing party brokers and leaders in the city of Dover, Mr Biden, 76, said that it was time to restore the country's "backbone", but that they needed political consensus to move beyond what he called today's "mean", "petty" and "vicious" political landscape.

"I'm told I get criticised by the new left," he said, referring to a group of popular new left-wing Democrats that includes congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "I have the most progressive record of anybody running for the United- "

He then corrected himself, saying: "Anybody who would run."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47601121 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47601121)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on March 17, 2019, 02:05:58 pm
RUN JOE RUN
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 17, 2019, 11:49:28 pm
Quote
Gillibrand launches presidential bid
Kirsten Gillibrand has become the latest US Democrat to join a crowded race to be the party's candidate for the 2020 presidential election.

The 52-year-old senator for New York announced her bid in an online video released on Sunday.

In the video launching her bid, Ms Gillibrand takes aim at President Donald Trump, saying: "Brave doesn't pit people against each other. Brave doesn't put money over lives. Brave doesn't spread hate. Cloud truth. Build a wall. That's what fear does."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47605490 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47605490)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 18, 2019, 07:53:43 am
Aren't there too many candidates?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 18, 2019, 08:07:02 am
Aren't there too many candidates?

Maybe, but this is a better problem than having 2 like we did in 2016.

Anyway it will be months before we know how many candidates we actually have.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 18, 2019, 08:40:48 am
Aren't there too many candidates?

Maybe, but this is a better problem than having 2 like we did in 2016.

Anyway it will be months before we know how many candidates we actually have.
Ok. I'm just too used to the Canadian system where 7-8 candidates to lead a party are a very rare occurence.  :)

I thought it could dilute the message, or split the party, but you know more than I do and it is your party :)
As long as Donald Duck is out of the picture, I don't care at all if Satan leads your country.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 18, 2019, 08:43:57 am
Aren't there too many candidates?

Maybe, but this is a better problem than having 2 like we did in 2016.

Anyway it will be months before we know how many candidates we actually have.
Ok. I'm just too used to the Canadian system where 7-8 candidates to lead a party are a very rare occurence.  :)

I thought it could dilute the message, or split the party, but you know more than I do and it is your party :)
As long as Donald Duck is out of the picture, I don't care at all if Satan leads your country.

This is the impact of the internet I think. The idea of tons of candidates trying to become viable by going to the same well of limited contribution dollars would have been a trainwreck just a decade ago. But now you really can launch a whole national brand on peanuts.

But by the time we talking about the important Primary dates next year it will be a smaller pool. I mean it is hard to finish 12th in New Hampshire and convince people you are the person to be President.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on March 18, 2019, 09:23:30 am
There are what, 15 Dem candidates now who have declared to run? How many do you guys estimate that will be left standing once the "real" primary race begins? Around 10?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 18, 2019, 09:41:42 am

Ok. I'm just too used to the Canadian system where 7-8 candidates to lead a party are a very rare occurence.  :)

I thought it could dilute the message, or split the party, but you know more than I do and it is your party :)
As long as Donald Duck is out of the picture, I don't care at all if Satan leads your country.

US political parties are much more loosely organized than those in Westminster-type systems.  Anyone is free to run as a candidate for any party (or none) in the US system.  It is tougher in the Democratic Party for an insurgent to win the nomination, because the unelected super-delegates can ignore primary results, but anyone can still run, if they are eligible for the office.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 18, 2019, 09:55:55 am
But the Super-Delegates do not vote until the convention, long after the insurgent could really be stopped by a gate-keeping process. For that reason we have yet to see them actually block an insurgent who won the primaries as it would be very politically destructive. It is one of those theoretical things, like the Electoral College getting together and deciding to just vote in somebody random instead of who won the Presidential election, that could happen but I doubt will ever actually occur.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 10:19:17 am
Aren't there too many candidates?

Maybe, but this is a better problem than having 2 like we did in 2016.

Anyway it will be months before we know how many candidates we actually have.
Ok. I'm just too used to the Canadian system where 7-8 candidates to lead a party are a very rare occurence.  :)

I thought it could dilute the message, or split the party, but you know more than I do and it is your party :)
As long as Donald Duck is out of the picture, I don't care at all if Satan leads your country.

Imagine what would happen if Canadian political parties picked their leaders based on individual elections in each Province and Territory.  Then imagine if the first two primaries were in PEI and Alberta with the primaries in Ontario, Quebec and BC at the middle to end of the process.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on March 18, 2019, 10:29:39 am
There are what, 15 Dem candidates now who have declared to run? How many do you guys estimate that will be left standing once the "real" primary race begins? Around 10?

Sounds right. Though that 10 will be swiftly winnowed down to 3-5 after the first handful of primaries/caucuses.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 10:55:51 am
Aren't there too many candidates?

Maybe, but this is a better problem than having 2 like we did in 2016.

Anyway it will be months before we know how many candidates we actually have.
Ok. I'm just too used to the Canadian system where 7-8 candidates to lead a party are a very rare occurence.  :)

I thought it could dilute the message, or split the party, but you know more than I do and it is your party :)
As long as Donald Duck is out of the picture, I don't care at all if Satan leads your country.

Imagine what would happen if Canadian political parties picked their leaders based on individual elections in each Province and Territory.  Then imagine if the first two primaries were in PEI and Alberta with the primaries in Ontario, Quebec and BC at the middle to end of the process.

You should really check out when California votes in the 2020 Democratic Primary season.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 18, 2019, 11:12:00 am
You should really check out when California votes in the 2020 Democratic Primary season.


That is new though.

Also I thought Alberta was one of the bigger provinces, hardly comparable to Iowa or New Hampshire.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on March 18, 2019, 11:12:23 am
IIRC, superdelegates have been neutered. They won't vote on the first ballot at the Democratic Convention this time.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 11:16:07 am
You should really check out when California votes in the 2020 Democratic Primary season.


That is new though.

Also I thought Alberta was one of the bigger provinces, hardly comparable to Iowa or New Hampshire.

Alberta is - it's #4 in terms of population.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 18, 2019, 11:33:17 am
Also I thought Alberta was one of the bigger provinces, hardly comparable to Iowa or New Hampshire.

There’s only 10 provinces and three are really small.

Or perhaps CC’s point was that any primary in Alberta would struggle to represent national trends.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 11:38:48 am
You should really check out when California votes in the 2020 Democratic Primary season.


That is new though.

Also I thought Alberta was one of the bigger provinces, hardly comparable to Iowa or New Hampshire.

Alberta is essentially a rural province that has tar sands in the North.  In my example, PEI is New Hampshire and Alberta is Iowa.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 11:39:18 am
Also I thought Alberta was one of the bigger provinces, hardly comparable to Iowa or New Hampshire.

There’s only 10 provinces and three are really small.

Or perhaps CC’s point was that any primary in Alberta would struggle to represent national trends.

Yes, exactly.  :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on March 18, 2019, 12:32:08 pm
IIRC, superdelegates have been neutered. They won't vote on the first ballot at the Democratic Convention this time.

Can still depend on the state though.  I believe the Washington state DP policy basically ignores the state primary results and selects their candidate preference internally. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2019, 12:39:47 pm
Maybe, but this is a better problem than having 2 like we did in 2016.

We started out with more than 2.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 18, 2019, 01:23:25 pm
IIRC, superdelegates have been neutered. They won't vote on the first ballot at the Democratic Convention this time.

Given that they haven't been a decisive factor, the crying about them is quite odd. Actually, I believe it was Bernie last time asking them to vote contrary to the results of individual state primaries.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 18, 2019, 04:24:54 pm
Maybe, but this is a better problem than having 2 like we did in 2016.

We started out with more than 2.

And most of these candidates won't do any better than Webb and Chafee.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2019, 04:36:44 pm
Klobuchar has signed off on Teh Green New Deal.  There goes my lone centrist.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2019, 06:29:05 pm
Signed off?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 18, 2019, 06:43:15 pm
Klobuchar has signed off on Teh Green New Deal.  There goes my lone centrist.

Quote
"I'm in favor of (the Green New Deal) simply because I see it as a framework to jump-start a discussion," Klobuchar told CNN's Anderson Cooper on "Anderson Cooper 360." She added that that was how Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts characterized his long-term plan with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to reduce emissions and combat climate change.

I see this as pragmatism.  She doesn't like it, she doesn't want all part of it, but she can't say it because the left wing Democrats will equal her with Trump.

You are still safe to vote for her, as of now :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2019, 06:44:14 pm
@Joan

Expressed support for, came out in favor of, said she liked
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maximus on March 18, 2019, 07:36:25 pm
Quote
"I'm in favor of (the Green New Deal) simply because I see it as a framework to jump-start a discussion," Klobuchar told CNN's Anderson Cooper on "Anderson Cooper 360." She added that that was how Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts characterized his long-term plan with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to reduce emissions and combat climate change.
That's all it's ever been as far as I'm aware. No part of it is binding? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 09:55:21 pm
@Joan

Expressed support for, came out in favor of, said she liked

Yeah, it would be terrible to have a President who wants to take action to save the planet.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2019, 10:08:43 pm
@Joan

Expressed support for, came out in favor of, said she liked

Looks closer to damned with faint praise.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2019, 10:22:48 pm
Looks closer to damned with faint praise.

Yeah, I just caught two lines on NPR and that linked text puts a different spin on things.

Still not as desireable as saying "reducing emissions is important and we shouldn't have to bribe you selfish fucks to vote for it."
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 18, 2019, 10:47:24 pm
I'm not entirely clear as to what the "Green New Deal" is.  Some sort of infrastructure project?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on March 19, 2019, 04:20:03 am
Quote
"I'm in favor of (the Green New Deal) simply because I see it as a framework to jump-start a discussion," Klobuchar told CNN's Anderson Cooper on "Anderson Cooper 360." She added that that was how Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts characterized his long-term plan with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to reduce emissions and combat climate change.
That's all it's ever been as far as I'm aware. No part of it is binding? Correct me if I'm wrong.

No more binding than any other political sloganeering, no. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 19, 2019, 04:53:38 am
IIRC, superdelegates have been neutered. They won't vote on the first ballot at the Democratic Convention this time.

Did not know that. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on March 19, 2019, 07:37:52 am
I'm not entirely clear as to what the "Green New Deal" is.  Some sort of infrastructure project?

I'm unsure as well. At this point it means many different things to many different people. There is nothing that is concrete about it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 19, 2019, 07:45:56 am
I'm not entirely clear as to what the "Green New Deal" is.  Some sort of infrastructure project?

I'm unsure as well. At this point it means many different things to many different people. There is nothing that is concrete about it.


Good. Concrete isn't very good for the environment. :P

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-is-tipping-us-into-climate-catastrophe-its-payback-time-cement-tax
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on March 19, 2019, 08:33:38 am
I'm not entirely clear as to what the "Green New Deal" is.  Some sort of infrastructure project?

I'm unsure as well. At this point it means many different things to many different people. There is nothing that is concrete about it.


Good. Concrete isn't very good for the environment. :P

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-is-tipping-us-into-climate-catastrophe-its-payback-time-cement-tax

Was every a fan of the poetry either.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 19, 2019, 10:37:50 am
I'm not entirely clear as to what the "Green New Deal" is.  Some sort of infrastructure project?

I'm unsure as well. At this point it means many different things to many different people. There is nothing that is concrete about it.

Here is the text of the resolution

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-congress-green-new-deal-resolution-introduced-by-rep-alexandra-ocasio-cortez/


Note the preamble is based entirely on the science that one can only reject by being a climate change denier.  Note also that the call to the sort of mobilization of resources akin to what was necessary to win WWII - very similar to what we on Languish discussed would be necessary not that long ago.

The substantive resolution is aspirational in the sense that it identifies a number of things that can be done by government to keep temperature increase below 2 degrees of warming.



Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 19, 2019, 10:48:45 am
Thanks CC.  I'll read it when I come back from therapy. :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 11:16:50 am
I'm not entirely clear as to what the "Green New Deal" is.  Some sort of infrastructure project?

I'm unsure as well. At this point it means many different things to many different people. There is nothing that is concrete about it.

Here is the text of the resolution

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-congress-green-new-deal-resolution-introduced-by-rep-alexandra-ocasio-cortez/


Note the preamble is based entirely on the science that one can only reject by being a climate change denier.  Note also that the call to the sort of mobilization of resources akin to what was necessary to win WWII - very similar to what we on Languish discussed would be necessary not that long ago.

The substantive resolution is aspirational in the sense that it identifies a number of things that can be done by government to keep temperature increase below 2 degrees of warming.

The word "aspirational" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.  AOC's GND calls for things that are just plain impossible, like:

-retrofitting all existing buildings
-moving to 100% renewable, zero-emission power generation in 10 years

It also contains things that have nothing to do with the environment, such as:

-ensuring all jobs are union jobs
-guaranteeing jobs for all
-guaranteeing health care for all

And that's having to carefully comb through and find actual, deliverable promises made in the GND, and not the masses of feel-good word salad

I have never denied the realities of global warming, and firmly support efforts to deal with the situation.  But leftists like AOC are just as bad as rightists who just flat-out deny climate change.  AOC and the GND seem to just portray climate change as an opportunity to implement a whole grab-back of left-wing policies.

Given the seriousness of climate change, all options need to be considered, including those that are problematic for both right and left.  For the right, it is going to involve  taxes and government regulation.  But for the left, it means we're going to have to look at nuclear.  Jobs are going to be lost.  Private industry is going to have a role.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 19, 2019, 11:20:50 am
Except tax and regulations are attacked by the right as "distorting the market" so I don't see how those are right wing solutions. The right wing solution seems to be to pretend we don't care about emissions while actually doing little hidden thing about it. Sort of like watching porn or something.

Because those huge wars we fought and diverting billions of dollars and leaning our entire foreign policy into keeping fossil fuel prices low never "distorted the market". I don't get that part.

Like you I want a solution that more narrowly focuses on energy, but let's not pretend that is the right wing solution. That is your solution, one I wish the rest of the right would get on board with.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 11:29:04 am
Except tax and regulations are attacked by the right as "distorting the market" so I don't see how those are right wing solutions. The right wing solution seems to be to pretend we don't care about emissions while actually doing little hidden thing about it. Sort of like watching porn or something.

Because those huge wars we fought and diverting billions of dollars and leaning our entire foreign policy into keeping fossil fuel prices low never "distorted the market". I don't get that part.

No, those were meant as things we'll have to do that right wingers won't like.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 19, 2019, 12:13:18 pm
I'm not entirely clear as to what the "Green New Deal" is.  Some sort of infrastructure project?

I'm unsure as well. At this point it means many different things to many different people. There is nothing that is concrete about it.

Here is the text of the resolution

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-congress-green-new-deal-resolution-introduced-by-rep-alexandra-ocasio-cortez/


Note the preamble is based entirely on the science that one can only reject by being a climate change denier.  Note also that the call to the sort of mobilization of resources akin to what was necessary to win WWII - very similar to what we on Languish discussed would be necessary not that long ago.

The substantive resolution is aspirational in the sense that it identifies a number of things that can be done by government to keep temperature increase below 2 degrees of warming.

The word "aspirational" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.  AOC's GND calls for things that are just plain impossible, like:

-retrofitting all existing buildings
-moving to 100% renewable, zero-emission power generation in 10 years

It also contains things that have nothing to do with the environment, such as:

-ensuring all jobs are union jobs
-guaranteeing jobs for all
-guaranteeing health care for all

And that's having to carefully comb through and find actual, deliverable promises made in the GND, and not the masses of feel-good word salad

I have never denied the realities of global warming, and firmly support efforts to deal with the situation.  But leftists like AOC are just as bad as rightists who just flat-out deny climate change.  AOC and the GND seem to just portray climate change as an opportunity to implement a whole grab-back of left-wing policies.

Given the seriousness of climate change, all options need to be considered, including those that are problematic for both right and left.  For the right, it is going to involve  taxes and government regulation.  But for the left, it means we're going to have to look at nuclear.  Jobs are going to be lost.  Private industry is going to have a role.

Carefully comb?  It is a short document.  And I am not sure what your quibble is with the aspirational aspect of the document.  It is sure a lot better than the proposition that everything is fine but even if it isn't the private sector will eventually find a solution.

While the Right has moved away somewhat from outright climate change denial it still has yet to grapple with the fact that if we don't prevent warming of 1.5 the economy is pretty much screwed and at 2 degress the planet is pretty much screwed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2019, 02:05:04 pm
The word "aspirational" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.  AOC's GND calls for things that are just plain impossible, like:

-retrofitting all existing buildings
-moving to 100% renewable, zero-emission power generation in 10 years

It's "upgrading all existing buildings" - that is definitely feasible in 10 years, depending on exactly what is entailed in an upgrade.  It's very typical for a commercial building to have at least some renovation over a 10 year period - really it's more unusual for that not to happen.

"100% renewable, zero-emission power generation in 10 years" is admittedly not feasible. It could be done in 20 years if you struck the "renewable" part and committed to a big nuclear construction program as part of the mix.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 02:11:04 pm
The word "aspirational" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.  AOC's GND calls for things that are just plain impossible, like:

-retrofitting all existing buildings
-moving to 100% renewable, zero-emission power generation in 10 years

It's "upgrading all existing buildings" - that is definitely feasible in 10 years, depending on exactly what is entailed in an upgrade.  It's very typical for a commercial building to have at least some renovation over a 10 year period - really it's more unusual for that not to happen.

"100% renewable, zero-emission power generation in 10 years" is admittedly not feasible. It could be done in 20 years if you struck the "renewable" part and committed to a big nuclear construction program as part of the mix.

Here's the exact language:

Quote
upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

Sure, a policy of wanting to upgrade buildings sounds fine.  But "all existing buildings?"  to achieve "maximal" not just energy efficiency, but safety affordability, comfort and durability?

I think waiving your hands and saying it's "aspirational" doesn't cover a proposed policy plan that is so clearly a work of fantasy.


Agreed on the timeframe and nuclear's role.  Renewable energy is awesome and going to take larger and larger portions of our energy mix, but there are going to be times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on March 19, 2019, 02:53:25 pm
:)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 19, 2019, 03:02:25 pm
Renewable energy is awesome and going to take larger and larger portions of our energy mix, but there are going to be times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Good thing those are not the only alternative forms of energy; that storage capacity has increased dramatically; and costs for all of this are decreasing.

But carry on with the wind blowing the night following day.  They sound like great talking points.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on March 19, 2019, 03:04:08 pm
But....nuclear fusion is just around the corner.  :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2019, 03:16:43 pm
I'm not entirely clear as to what the "Green New Deal" is.  Some sort of infrastructure project?

I'm unsure as well. At this point it means many different things to many different people. There is nothing that is concrete about it.

Here is the text of the resolution

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-congress-green-new-deal-resolution-introduced-by-rep-alexandra-ocasio-cortez/


Note the preamble is based entirely on the science that one can only reject by being a climate change denier.  Note also that the call to the sort of mobilization of resources akin to what was necessary to win WWII - very similar to what we on Languish discussed would be necessary not that long ago.

The substantive resolution is aspirational in the sense that it identifies a number of things that can be done by government to keep temperature increase below 2 degrees of warming.

leftist cloud shoveling mostly.

Quote
to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—
(i) clean air and water;
See, right here, it's a problem.
Clean air is already problematic because, you know, forest fires tend to drastically reduce air quality.  Should the govt compensate citizen for that?
Clean water, ok, but where does it extend?  I don't have an aquaduct, I have a well.  Is it the govt responsibility to make sure my well is ok at all times?  Should the govt pay for my water cleaning system?  Should the city pay to give me an aqueduct with one house per 200m?

Quote
(ii) climate and community resiliency;
What is that?

Quote
(iii) healthy food;
What is that?  What is healthy?  What if I want to eat unhealthy from time to time?

Quote
(iv) access to nature; and
Again, what is that?  Should my private lands be open to city dwellers?  Should there be "free" natural parks for everyone to enjoy?  How do we pay for that?

Quote
(v) a sustainable environment; and
That is a nice goal, but it's way too broad to be any kind of policy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: 11B4V on March 19, 2019, 05:37:43 pm
So basically a bunch of generalized bullshit
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2019, 05:51:58 pm
So basically a bunch of generalized bullshit

I think the best way to think of it is a bunch of free money thrown at people that has nothing do with climate change, plus some climate change stuff, so that more people will be in favor of climate change stuff.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 19, 2019, 05:59:47 pm
Renewable energy is awesome and going to take larger and larger portions of our energy mix, but there are going to be times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

That is what storage is going to take care of. Natural Gas is the stopgap.

I admire you nuke guys a bunch but I really doubt we can do that.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 19, 2019, 06:06:52 pm
When is the great centrist green plan coming out?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 19, 2019, 06:09:00 pm
When is the great centrist green plan coming out?

Can it also be a vague list of generalized aspirations? If so just give me a few minutes.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2019, 06:18:01 pm
When is the great centrist green plan coming out?

The first one came out about 15 years ago.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 19, 2019, 08:09:41 pm
So basically a bunch of generalized bullshit

Quote
Whereas the October 2018 report entitled ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC’’ by the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that—

human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century;

Fact

Quote
a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure

Fact

Quote
global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;

Fact

Quote
more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year
2100;

Fact

Quote
wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western
United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;

Fact

Quote
a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;

Fact


Quote
more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050;

Fact

Quote
a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the
United States;

Fact

Quote
global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from
2010 levels by 2030; and
net-zero emissions by 2050;

Fact



So, what are you going to do about it.  Why not read the details?

like:

Quote
building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;
 

There are a lot of initiatives for storm proving, flood proving, wide fire prevention etc etc etc. that need to be funded.  Seems short sighted in the extreme not to prepare for the changes that are already here and which will become worse in the very near future.


Quote
repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—
(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;
(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;
(iii) by reducing the risks posed by flooding and other climate impacts; and
(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;


This is just common sense.  What is the argument against eliminating green house emissions as much as feasible.  Well, unless you deny the climate change is man made that is.
What is your beef about provided access to clean water?  You live in a first world nation - right?  What could possibly be wrong with reducing flood risks and other climate change impacts.  As with the first set of goals, that is just prudent planning.  And what could be possibly wrong with ensuring that all future infrastructure is designed and built with the impact of climate change in mind?  You don't seriously advocate designing and building structure that ignore that do you?

The list goes on in that regard.  The main beef the right seems to have it is too ambitious.  But see my signature link.  We are running out of time.  Complacency is going to ruin us.  You need to panic.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 19, 2019, 08:26:40 pm
I don't think predictions can be facts.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2019, 09:55:45 pm
I admire you nuke guys a bunch but I really doubt we can do that.
nukes are great to end global warming :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2019, 10:18:25 pm
There are a lot of initiatives for storm proving, flood proving, wide fire prevention etc etc etc. that need to be funded.  Seems short sighted in the extreme not to prepare for the changes that are already here and which will become worse in the very near future.
Nobody here doubts that climate change is real and manmade (well, ok, maybe not "100%" but very close) and that it requires actions and not talk.


Quote
repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—
(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;
Great!  Now, were to we start?  We shut down coal plants and ask provinces&states to import hydro power?  You have to convince the voters of these place first, that there is an alternative.

It's the equivalent of saying "let's kille all the lawyers and we will have peace for all men of goodwill".  Doesn't work that way.

Quote
(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;
Again, how does that work outside of cities?
I certainly don't want my water polluted, but what if I'm build in a place where there is no clean water.  Will the govt pay me to get clean water?

Quote
(iii) by reducing the risks posed by flooding and other climate impacts;
That is sensible.

But what of cities who authorize buildings in floodable zones?  Say, last great flooding around Montreal, lots of places were former marshes, below the St-Lawrence level, drained so that these cities could expand and collect more taxes.

If we're talking of concrete actions, and let's assume that was Canada we were discussing here, how do you stop cities from zoning how they want?  You have a provincial government who's more than happy to have bigger cities and more income taxes coming in from prosperous building contractors, corrupt mayors and a few corrupt politicians too.   You have the Federal govt decide what is best in a field where they have no expertise?

See, I agree it has to be done.  But I don't find it well articulated.

Quote
(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;
Common sense, allright, but what if it does not touch climate change at all?  Do they make it about climate change?

Quote
You don't seriously advocate designing and building structure that ignore that do you?
How fare are you willing to take this?  Change how roads are built so they could withstand heat in excess of 50C?  If an infrastructure bill consists of giving money to State (or Provinces in our case) so they can invest it in what they want, how do you decide of the finer details?  The central authority takes over all of the spending?

See, there is this very neat little infrastructure project in Quebec city right now.  The city wants to build a tramway that links most of the city together with its existing bus network and adds a few SRBs were demand is too low for a tram and too high for regular buses.  The provincial govt coerced the city into expanding its network a little further up north to cover the existing new developments* and link with the city on the other side of the St-Lawrence river.  So now, the Feds do not want to pay their share out of the infrastructure project because they wish to use the "green fund project" instead, for wich Quebec has other plans to "greenify" our economy.

The same kind of things is going to happen in the US with such a vague plan as is happening in Canada with vague plans.  Spending money for the pleasure of spending money from a "green fund" does not make an effective tool to fight against climate change.


*Again there is a problem: the city is always happy to expand its territory, damn if it must chop down trees, forests, drain swamps, but it never wants to extend all services over there because it "promotes urban spread" and displeases the left.  That is a real problem that will have to be adressed at some point.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on March 20, 2019, 01:43:35 am
I don't think predictions can be facts.

Attitudes like this is why I think we're doomed, and I'm glad I won't be around for the worst of it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 20, 2019, 02:36:21 am
The attitude that choices today impact results tomorrow? If anything, I'd say it's the opposite. Fatalism can easily be an excuse to do nothing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2019, 08:09:46 am
You can take issue over the details and presentation of the GND resolution but what is being proposed is far superior than the fiddle while Rome burns alternative currently on offer.

It's like health care - the TrumpGop dumps endlessly on Obamacare, savages single payer, but when it came to propose something else they came up with nothing.

Right now the Republicans stand for nothing other than tax cuts for passive real estate partnerships, lax gun laws, abortion restrictions, and pouring concrete on the Mexican border.


Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 20, 2019, 08:23:04 am
When is the great centrist green plan coming out?

Would you like to hear my rightwing green plan?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 20, 2019, 08:27:56 am
When is the great centrist green plan coming out?

Would you like to hear my rightwing green plan?

Does it involve over-watering your lawn so the grass is bright green?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 20, 2019, 08:30:50 am
No, but we do that anyway :wub:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2019, 08:31:16 am
You can take issue over the details and presentation of the GND resolution but what is being proposed is far superior than the fiddle while Rome burns alternative currently on offer.

It's like health care - the TrumpGop dumps endlessly on Obamacare, savages single payer, but when it came to propose something else they came up with nothing.

Right now the Republicans stand for nothing other than tax cuts for passive real estate partnerships, lax gun laws, abortion restrictions, and pouring concrete on the Mexican border.

Were the offers for cap 'n' trade and carbon tax withdrawn?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 20, 2019, 10:42:15 am
Nobody here doubts that climate change is real and manmade (well, ok, maybe not "100%" but very close) and that it requires actions and not talk.

Perhaps not, but I have serious doubts some comprehend the seriousness.   It does not matter that climate change deniers finally and reluctantly accept the science that the warming is man made if they also reject the science regarding what will happen if we get above 1.5 degrees of warming - and how quickly that will come if we do nothing.

And yes this requires action.  What do you think the resolution calls for? You need to push politicians to act.  Time is too short to sit on the sidelines on this issue and certainly too short to quibble about the optimum plan.



Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2019, 11:19:59 am
Nobody here doubts that climate change is real and manmade (well, ok, maybe not "100%" but very close) and that it requires actions and not talk.

Perhaps not, but I have serious doubts some comprehend the seriousness.   It does not matter that climate change deniers finally and reluctantly accept the science that the warming is man made if they also reject the science regarding what will happen if we get above 1.5 degrees of warming - and how quickly that will come if we do nothing.

And yes this requires action.  What do you think the resolution calls for? You need to push politicians to act.  Time is too short to sit on the sidelines on this issue and certainly too short to quibble about the optimum plan.

If this plan was about to be signed into law I would be excited. The quibbling is that it is packaged as something no Republican would ever sign off on, which makes it unlikely to ever become law and unlikely to lead to action. Even if the Democrats all were consulted with and agreed that this was the plan (which it doesn't seem like they were) Trump would veto and it would immediately die. If in 2021 the Democrats win the White House and the Senate and hold the House AND get everybody in their caucus to agree to it then we could pass it...and hope the Supreme Court doesn't rule it unconstitutional.

I think this law was proposed not because it was thought it would actually become law but because it would bring its authors political glory and advantage. If it was proposed to be politically feasible and actually do something about the problem it would look different. That's my opinion. However, obviously I am in favor of any solution that actually gets done which is vastly superior to any theoretically better solution we only talk about.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 20, 2019, 11:24:28 am
The problem is, any plan that is currently politically feasible under the current political make up of your government is not going to be enough.  We are at the point that massive effort is required to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming.

Politics needs to change if this is going to get done.  The Resolution makes that point.  Voters in your country need to start understanding the reality of what we are facing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2019, 11:51:25 am
The problem is, any plan that is currently politically feasible under the current political make up of your government is not going to be enough.  We are at the point that massive effort is required to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming.

Politics needs to change if this is going to get done.  The Resolution makes that point.  Voters in your country need to start understanding the reality of what we are facing.

It will never accomplish that, if that is its goal.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 20, 2019, 11:53:22 am
The problem is, any plan that is currently politically feasible under the current political make up of your government is not going to be enough.  We are at the point that massive effort is required to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming.

Politics needs to change if this is going to get done.  The Resolution makes that point.  Voters in your country need to start understanding the reality of what we are facing.

It will never accomplish that, if that is its goal.

Then we are screwed
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grey Fox on March 20, 2019, 12:07:59 pm
Massive amount of economic hardship is going to happen. We can only choose where & how. Even if we do nothing, it will happen.

We need to reduce humanity's resource consumption by an incredible amount.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: PDH on March 20, 2019, 12:44:26 pm
I said it before, I'll say it again - I am glad I never had kids who would inherit this mess.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on March 20, 2019, 12:58:37 pm
Massive amount of economic hardship is going to happen. We can only choose where & how. Even if we do nothing, it will happen.

We need to reduce humanity's resource consumption by an incredible amount.

Except nobody wants to do that, and everyone says, "Well, what good does it do, if only I/my country does it?"
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 20, 2019, 01:07:59 pm
When is the great centrist green plan coming out?

Would you like to hear my rightwing green plan?


Is it the same plan conservatives have in dealing with the Alt-Right?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 20, 2019, 01:18:46 pm
I think this law was proposed not because it was thought it would actually become law but because it would bring its authors political glory and advantage. If it was proposed to be politically feasible and actually do something about the problem it would look different. That's my opinion. However, obviously I am in favor of any solution that actually gets done which is vastly superior to any theoretically better solution we only talk about.
This is exactly what I'm thinking :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grey Fox on March 20, 2019, 01:23:36 pm
Massive amount of economic hardship is going to happen. We can only choose where & how. Even if we do nothing, it will happen.

We need to reduce humanity's resource consumption by an incredible amount.

Except nobody wants to do that, and everyone says, "Well, what good does it do, if only I/my country does it?"

Lots of people are going to be moving to Canada, I guess.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2019, 01:26:39 pm
The problem is, any plan that is currently politically feasible under the current political make up of your government is not going to be enough.  We are at the point that massive effort is required to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming.

Politics needs to change if this is going to get done.  The Resolution makes that point.  Voters in your country need to start understanding the reality of what we are facing.

It will never accomplish that, if that is its goal.

Then we are screwed

Expecting everybody to embrace left wing social policy as a requirement to change our energy mix is indeed an expectation that will screw us.

Or not, maybe next year we see that the public is eager for a Green New Deal. But that seems like a big risk to take when the stakes are this high.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 20, 2019, 01:29:14 pm
The problem is, any plan that is currently politically feasible under the current political make up of your government is not going to be enough.  We are at the point that massive effort is required to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming.

Politics needs to change if this is going to get done.  The Resolution makes that point.  Voters in your country need to start understanding the reality of what we are facing.

It will never accomplish that, if that is its goal.

Then we are screwed

Expecting everybody to embrace left wing social policy as a requirement to change our energy mix is indeed an expectation that will screw us.

Or not, maybe next year we see that the public is eager for a Green New Deal. But that seems like a big risk to take when the stakes are this high.

That most of those measures are viewed as "left wing" is telling and a very good indication we are indeed doomed.  Unless of course the rest of the planet can make up for US folly.  Go back are read that provisions I quoted above.  What is left wing about that?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 20, 2019, 01:53:26 pm
Massive amount of economic hardship is going to happen. We can only choose where & how. Even if we do nothing, it will happen.

We need to reduce humanity's resource consumption by an incredible amount.

Except nobody wants to do that, and everyone says, "Well, what good does it do, if only I/my country does it?"

Lots of people are going to be moving to Canada, I guess.
everything will be a giant swamp in summer :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2019, 01:54:18 pm
Were the offers for cap 'n' trade and carbon tax withdrawn?

What offers?  The White House doesn't support any of that stuff.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 20, 2019, 01:54:34 pm
Were the offers for cap 'n' trade and carbon tax withdrawn?

Cap and trade was too moderate.  Rejected by the left and the right.  Those looking for the unicorn of a "moderate GND" fail to understand that moderates are interested in results and so avoid creating massive packages to sneak crap policies into law by lining them to necessary policies.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 20, 2019, 01:58:30 pm
That most of those measures are viewed as "left wing" is telling and a very good indication we are indeed doomed.  Unless of course the rest of the planet can make up for US folly.  Go back are read that provisions I quoted above.  What is left wing about that?

look at this from a management point of view.

You manage a lawyer firm, specialized in criminal law.  You set yourself an objective: 100% of our cases must be rejected or end in a not guilty verdict because it is our responsibility to provide the best defense for our clients.

It is a worthy goal.  But how do you achieve this, really?  Is that a realistic goal to achieve?  Should you expect that a lawyer in your firm never makes a mistakes and defies all odds to win his/her case?

Establish a well achievable and measurable goal.  Ask your staff to provide the best defense and negotiate reasonable plea deals considering the facts at hands.  If you go on your grand stand principle, you lose.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 20, 2019, 02:06:23 pm
When is the great centrist green plan coming out?

Would you like to hear my rightwing green plan?


Is it the same plan conservatives have in dealing with the Alt-Right?

No.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Malthus on March 20, 2019, 02:10:20 pm


That most of those measures are viewed as "left wing" is telling and a very good indication we are indeed doomed.  Unless of course the rest of the planet can make up for US folly.  Go back are read that provisions I quoted above.  What is left wing about that?

The problem with the Green New Deal is that it is expressly stated in the document that the environmental crisis is so interrelated with other crises that it should be solved as an interrelated whole - and, of course, this is the left-wing position.

As such, it is not objectionable; however, it is perfectly possible to believe that (for example) we are facing a huge environmental crisis, without believing that the answer must be to embrace left-wing policies as a whole.

To add substance, here are the goals as stated in the document:

Quote
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
1.it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

1.to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

2.to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

3.to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

4.to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—
(i) clean air and water;
 (ii) climate and community resiliency;
 (iii) healthy food;
 (iv) access to nature; and
 (v) a sustainable environment; and

5.to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);

All worthy goals no doubt; but not all of them about the environment by any means. Some of them are potentially directly contradictory (for example, if the overriding goal is to reduce emissions, that may make it more difficult to achieve the "creation of millions of jobs", let alone have resources to engage in the promotion of justice and equity - points 2 and 5).

The problem is that this isn't a call to austerity, but a call to do all things for all people - reduce emissions, promote equity, guarantee jobs, guarantee healthcare and economic security for all, guarantee unionization rights, etc. Again, all worthy goals, but possibly contradictory (it seems more likely that taking the hard steps necessary to reduce emissions etc. will lead to less economic security - at least in the short run - which is why austerity is never popular).

Why is this a problem? Well for two reasons.

First is that it isn't going to appeal to those who don't share the same social goals, even if they care just as much about the environment. Fair enough, a lot of the US right has made it plain they prefer to stick their heads in the sand about the environment anyway, so I suppose it can be said there is no point to pandering to them.

Second is more serious - that it makes it appear to be a proposal for radical social change, that promises that not only can the US have its cake, it can eat it too - or better, having its cake and eating it too are "interrelated" and so necessary. That there can be no environmental solution without (say) undoing historical racial injustice, guaranteeing universal healthcare, decent jobs for all, etc. As stated in the preamble, the whole point is a "top-down" mobilization of resources, akin to the "New Deal", to create social and economic change guaranteed to be positive:

"Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal is a historic opportunity—
1.to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;
2.to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and
3.to counteract systemic injustices:"

Again, this isn't a call to austerity, but to social and economic "mobilization", from the top-down - a very left-wing position.








Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on March 20, 2019, 02:13:01 pm
Promising rainbow-shitting unicorns worked for the UK. Why not the US?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2019, 02:19:46 pm
The problem is, any plan that is currently politically feasible under the current political make up of your government is not going to be enough.  We are at the point that massive effort is required to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming.

Politics needs to change if this is going to get done.  The Resolution makes that point.  Voters in your country need to start understanding the reality of what we are facing.

It will never accomplish that, if that is its goal.

Then we are screwed

Expecting everybody to embrace left wing social policy as a requirement to change our energy mix is indeed an expectation that will screw us.

Or not, maybe next year we see that the public is eager for a Green New Deal. But that seems like a big risk to take when the stakes are this high.

Yep. An unpalatable approach won't help anyone.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on March 20, 2019, 02:39:35 pm
So what's the alternative?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2019, 02:39:54 pm
That most of those measures are viewed as "left wing" is telling and a very good indication we are indeed doomed.  Unless of course the rest of the planet can make up for US folly.  Go back are read that provisions I quoted above.  What is left wing about that?

I will quote some provisions:

Quote
to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

I mean this is fine, even if it basically includes everybody except middle and upper class suburban and urban (excluding those in deindustrialized urban areas I guess) white males over the age of 40. But what does this mean? Reparations? Something highly controversial like that? Let's just slip it into our climate change resolution. Now I am not opposed to measures that can help create a more just and equitable society I just question if this is the place to do it. In any case it most certainly is a left wing social policy goal and not something directly related to emissions.

Quote
spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

Quote
enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—

(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and

(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;

Quote
ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies

These all strike me as protectionist measures that could actually make transitioning to renewable sources more expensive which seems at odds with the goal of making energy cheaper. That is not explicitly left wing but completely reorienting our trade policy seems a bit out of the bounds of emissions.

There are numerous mentions of community and public ownership. Favoring unions in a way that looks like it will be in direct opposition to numerous state laws.

This:

Quote
guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States

I mean obviously we all want everybody to have access to that sort of thing, but guaranteeing a job like that? How? That is a pretty socialist goal. How can you not see that as left wing or are appalled and disgusted that I might find it as such?

It seems designed to make big social justice and economic justice goals and tying them all up with emissions policies which makes me nervous. Many people hate that stuff, particularly when it comes to the Feds doing anything about it. I am not super excited to have that so explicitly tied up in fighting climate change.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2019, 02:42:12 pm
So what's the alternative?

I don't know. Does Austria's plan require it to leave the EU and completely change its trade goals while guaranteeing a high paying job for everybody? Is there no other way forward?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 20, 2019, 02:43:39 pm
My favorite part was “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

Is that still in this perfect proposal?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2019, 02:44:20 pm
So what's the alternative?

Do what is often done in politics, make smaller more palatable bills? Avoiding pre-loading pork in?

Proposing a radical overhaul of society when one's side doesn't have any chance of it passing? What does that do besides 'starting a conversation' at best?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2019, 02:44:53 pm
My favorite part was “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

Is that still in this perfect proposal?

No.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on March 20, 2019, 02:46:58 pm
So what's the alternative?

I don't know. Does Austria's plan require it to leave the EU and completely change its trade goals while guaranteeing a high paying job for everybody? Is there no other way forward?

No, scientists have determined that Austria will in no way be able to reach its Paris Accord goals at this point.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on March 20, 2019, 02:48:05 pm
So what's the alternative?

Do what is often done in politics, make smaller more palatable bills? Avoiding pre-loading pork in?

Proposing a radical overhaul of society when one's side doesn't have any chance of it passing? What does that do besides 'starting a conversation' at best?

Do you think that's sufficient at this point?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 20, 2019, 02:57:30 pm
I want something pretty radical, it is true. I want Donald Trump to get up there and say how he and his super team of the best people are going to achieve zero emissions by any means necessary and will succeed bigly and we all cheer and join together and knock this shit out in record time and stun the world. If you think we can do this without the Republicans when they run over half the states then you are deluding yourself. They have to be onboard.

I want a plan where we develop energy storage and renewable resources along with usage of highly efficient combined cycle natural gas plants for what cannot be done using renewable sources. I want regulations requiring all new vehicles to be electric. I want buy back programs to get gas using vehicles off the road. I want to see investment in technology to take CO2 out of the air somehow. I want it all to be done yesterday. If this is a matter of life and death, and it is, then we need to be mobilized in this way to take care of it.

Of course it is very inconvenient that the Congress decided to run giant deficits for several decades which makes a response like this very problematic (not to mention something on a New Deal or World War II level).
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2019, 03:15:28 pm
So what's the alternative?

Do what is often done in politics, make smaller more palatable bills? Avoiding pre-loading pork in?

Proposing a radical overhaul of society when one's side doesn't have any chance of it passing? What does that do besides 'starting a conversation' at best?

Do you think that's sufficient at this point?

Is nothing better in your estimation?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 20, 2019, 03:17:13 pm
When is the great centrist green plan coming out?

Would you like to hear my rightwing green plan?


Is it the same plan conservatives have in dealing with the Alt-Right?

No.



Yeah, that would be weird if your plan was to ally with Climate Change.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on March 20, 2019, 03:21:44 pm
Yeah, that would be weird if your plan was to ally with Climate Change.

:rolleyes:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on March 20, 2019, 03:24:56 pm
So what's the alternative?

Do what is often done in politics, make smaller more palatable bills? Avoiding pre-loading pork in?

Proposing a radical overhaul of society when one's side doesn't have any chance of it passing? What does that do besides 'starting a conversation' at best?

Do you think that's sufficient at this point?

Is nothing better in your estimation?

It's probably going to lead to very similar outcomes.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 20, 2019, 03:28:59 pm
So what's the alternative?

Do what is often done in politics, make smaller more palatable bills? Avoiding pre-loading pork in?

Proposing a radical overhaul of society when one's side doesn't have any chance of it passing? What does that do besides 'starting a conversation' at best?

Do you think that's sufficient at this point?

Is nothing better in your estimation?

It's probably going to lead to very similar outcomes.

Then why bother with anything in politics? :hmm:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 20, 2019, 04:19:21 pm
I want regulations requiring all new vehicles to be electric.

Once I can get this baby electric, I'll support your motion :)
(https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/chevrolet/silverado-3500hd/2018/td/2018_chevrolet_silverado-3500hd_f34_td_226181_1600.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 20, 2019, 04:27:08 pm


That most of those measures are viewed as "left wing" is telling and a very good indication we are indeed doomed.  Unless of course the rest of the planet can make up for US folly.  Go back are read that provisions I quoted above.  What is left wing about that?

The problem with the Green New Deal is that it is expressly stated in the document that the environmental crisis is so interrelated with other crises that it should be solved as an interrelated whole - and, of course, this is the left-wing position.

As such, it is not objectionable; however, it is perfectly possible to believe that (for example) we are facing a huge environmental crisis, without believing that the answer must be to embrace left-wing policies as a whole.

To add substance, here are the goals as stated in the document:

Quote
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
1.it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

1.to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

2.to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

3.to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

4.to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—
(i) clean air and water;
 (ii) climate and community resiliency;
 (iii) healthy food;
 (iv) access to nature; and
 (v) a sustainable environment; and

5.to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);

All worthy goals no doubt; but not all of them about the environment by any means. Some of them are potentially directly contradictory (for example, if the overriding goal is to reduce emissions, that may make it more difficult to achieve the "creation of millions of jobs", let alone have resources to engage in the promotion of justice and equity - points 2 and 5).

The problem is that this isn't a call to austerity, but a call to do all things for all people - reduce emissions, promote equity, guarantee jobs, guarantee healthcare and economic security for all, guarantee unionization rights, etc. Again, all worthy goals, but possibly contradictory (it seems more likely that taking the hard steps necessary to reduce emissions etc. will lead to less economic security - at least in the short run - which is why austerity is never popular).

Why is this a problem? Well for two reasons.

First is that it isn't going to appeal to those who don't share the same social goals, even if they care just as much about the environment. Fair enough, a lot of the US right has made it plain they prefer to stick their heads in the sand about the environment anyway, so I suppose it can be said there is no point to pandering to them.

Second is more serious - that it makes it appear to be a proposal for radical social change, that promises that not only can the US have its cake, it can eat it too - or better, having its cake and eating it too are "interrelated" and so necessary. That there can be no environmental solution without (say) undoing historical racial injustice, guaranteeing universal healthcare, decent jobs for all, etc. As stated in the preamble, the whole point is a "top-down" mobilization of resources, akin to the "New Deal", to create social and economic change guaranteed to be positive:

"Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal is a historic opportunity—
1.to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;
2.to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and
3.to counteract systemic injustices:"

Again, this isn't a call to austerity, but to social and economic "mobilization", from the top-down - a very left-wing position.

There is no doubt parts that are left wing.  But that is why I referred to the parts I quoted, like building suitable infrastructure.  Storm proofing etc.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 20, 2019, 05:34:33 pm
Yeah, that would be weird if your plan was to ally with Climate Change.

 :rolleyes:


Remember how important it was for Obama to say "Radical Islamic terrorism"?  I wonder why it's not as important for Conservative politicians to say "Radical Right-wing Terrorism".
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 20, 2019, 06:02:03 pm
The problem with the Green New Deal is that it is expressly stated in the document that the environmental crisis is so interrelated with other crises that it should be solved as an interrelated whole - and, of course, this is the left-wing position.

Yes. It is the left-wing position. What's the right-wing position? What's the centrist position?

The right's position appears to be non-existent. Or wait. Or actively harm any effort in the name of economic development (which does indeed show that these crisis seem interrelated...) The centrist position appears to be to wait for criticize either stance as too radical, insisting upon pace, rather than substance.

I am all for nitpicking at the Green New Deal to make it better, or stagger it to a more manageable pace, or whatever. But that requires an effort in good faith to better the deal, which in turn requires a sense of the stakes. So far, the point seems to simply label anything ambitious as unrealistic and wait for Godot the Centrist God.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maximus on March 20, 2019, 06:07:27 pm
I think this law was proposed not because it was thought it would actually become law but because it would bring its authors political glory and advantage. If it was proposed to be politically feasible and actually do something about the problem it would look different. That's my opinion. However, obviously I am in favor of any solution that actually gets done which is vastly superior to any theoretically better solution we only talk about.
Or it's an attempt to open a conversation and drag the overton window toward doing something significant about the climate.

...which it appears to have done, on languish at least.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 20, 2019, 06:10:43 pm
The right's position appears to be non-existent. Or wait. Or actively harm any effort in the name of economic development (which does indeed show that these crisis seem interrelated...) The centrist position appears to be to wait for criticize either stance as too radical, insisting upon pace, rather than substance.

As the climate debate has developed, my concern over preventing warming of more than 1.5 degrees has positioned me firmly within the left wing.  Who would have thought it  :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2019, 06:27:11 pm
But that requires an effort in good faith to better the dea

Drop the New Deal and leave the Green.  Done.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 20, 2019, 06:30:38 pm
Drop the New Deal and leave the Green.  Done.

What does that mean?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2019, 06:37:24 pm
Drop the New Deal and leave the Green.  Done.

What does that mean?

Is this a serious question?  Eliminate the parts of the proposal that don't have anything at all to do with climate change, like free college.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on March 20, 2019, 07:01:20 pm
Drop the New Deal and leave the Green.  Done.

What does that mean?

Is this a serious question?  Eliminate the parts of the proposal that don't have anything at all to do with climate change, like free college.

Students endlessly smoking dope in the dorms is a low carbon outcome.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 20, 2019, 07:02:59 pm
Is this a serious question?  Eliminate the parts of the proposal that don't have anything at all to do with climate change, like free college.

Of course it's a serious question. I suspect you draw the line between things that don't have anything to do with climate change somewhat differently than I do.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2019, 07:07:22 pm
Of course it's a serious question. I suspect you draw the line between things that don't have anything to do with climate change somewhat differently than I do.

This could be interesting.  I draw the line at measures that reduce carbon emissions.  Where do you draw the line?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 20, 2019, 07:31:38 pm
The problem with the Green New Deal is that it is expressly stated in the document that the environmental crisis is so interrelated with other crises that it should be solved as an interrelated whole - and, of course, this is the left-wing position.

Yes. It is the left-wing position. What's the right-wing position? What's the centrist position?

The right's position appears to be non-existent. Or wait. Or actively harm any effort in the name of economic development (which does indeed show that these crisis seem interrelated...) The centrist position appears to be to wait for criticize either stance as too radical, insisting upon pace, rather than substance.

you said yourself, in another debate, the left does not want to follow the right for independance talks.  and that's the same with environmental issues.  Anything a rightwing or centrist proposes is never good, never enough.

Nuclear plants?  No, they must all be shutdown.  Just as the pro-environment leftist PQ did.  Because, you know, there is a certain risk the St-Lawrence river could have a tsunami near Bécancour and create a nuclear meltdown at the plant (and that is not an invention from me).

Transport nuclear waste from Ontario over the St-Lawrence?  NO!  We will destroy our river!  Never mind the truth about the risks.

Build small electric damns for self sufficient energy projects?  NO!  People from Montreal drove 5hrs in their big gaz powered cars to protests against the destruction of rivers.

Build a big hydro electric damn?  NO!  We can't destroy a river!  Let's build windmills that costs 2x more to operate than the price we get for our electricity exports.

Let's use Canadian oil instead of Nigerian oil... No wait, that's very, very bad.

And then you complain centrists and rightwingers don't have any position on environmental issues.  :roll:

The last time something significant was done for the environment, it was Mulroney and Bush Sr.  Two rightwingers.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 20, 2019, 07:50:57 pm
Of course it's a serious question. I suspect you draw the line between things that don't have anything to do with climate change somewhat differently than I do.

This could be interesting.  I draw the line at measures that reduce carbon emissions.  Where do you draw the line?

Indeed, very interesting.  It shows how limiting your simple rhetoric is. What about all the measures needed to address the change that is already upon us, like flood and storm mitigation measures?  Is that New Deal or Green?  Hard to say since you have defined Green so narrowly.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 20, 2019, 09:10:54 pm
I can see where Yi is coming from.  If climate change is as serious a problem as the scientific community claims (and I see no reason to doubt them), then getting legislation through to improve the situation should be primary importance.  Putting other contentious issues into the same law reduces the chance of that law getting passed).
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2019, 05:25:13 am
Indeed, very interesting.  It shows how limiting your simple rhetoric is. What about all the measures needed to address the change that is already upon us, like flood and storm mitigation measures?  Is that New Deal or Green?  Hard to say since you have defined Green so narrowly.

Storm and flood mitigation measures already exist.  Do you believe that these existing measures are Green, or New Deal?

It would be interesting indeed to see you answer Yi's question of "Where do you draw the line?" rather than simply criticizing where he draws the line.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Malthus on March 21, 2019, 07:37:48 am
The problem with the Green New Deal is that it is expressly stated in the document that the environmental crisis is so interrelated with other crises that it should be solved as an interrelated whole - and, of course, this is the left-wing position.

Yes. It is the left-wing position. What's the right-wing position? What's the centrist position?

The right's position appears to be non-existent. Or wait. Or actively harm any effort in the name of economic development (which does indeed show that these crisis seem interrelated...) The centrist position appears to be to wait for criticize either stance as too radical, insisting upon pace, rather than substance.

I am all for nitpicking at the Green New Deal to make it better, or stagger it to a more manageable pace, or whatever. But that requires an effort in good faith to better the deal, which in turn requires a sense of the stakes. So far, the point seems to simply label anything ambitious as unrealistic and wait for Godot the Centrist God.

If you've read what I wrote, you already know what I think of the right's position, particularly in the US!  :lol:

To repeat what I posted before:

Quote
Fair enough, a lot of the US right has made it plain they prefer to stick their heads in the sand about the environment anyway, so I suppose it can be said there is no point to pandering to them.

The centrist position is one of austerity - that is, to admit that reducing emissions and taking other measures to reduce climate change is going to be economically and socially painful to everyone, but that this pain must be borne, because the alternative is so much worse.

Not as attractive as peddling the idea that we can (no, *must*, because these things are inherently interrelated!) build a left-wing utopia in defiance of all political realities if we are to have a chance of combatting climate change, but there you have it - reality is often unpalatable. So much better to use the occasion of a crisis to push for one's own preferred social policy, even if it is effectively a prescription for doing nothing rather than something. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 21, 2019, 08:40:32 am
The centrist position is one of austerity - that is, to admit that reducing emissions and taking other measures to reduce climate change is going to be economically and socially painful to everyone, but that this pain must be borne, because the alternative is so much worse.

Not as attractive as peddling the idea that we can (no, *must*, because these things are inherently interrelated!) build a left-wing utopia in defiance of all political realities if we are to have a chance of combatting climate change, but there you have it - reality is often unpalatable. So much better to use the occasion of a crisis to push for one's own preferred social policy, even if it is effectively a prescription for doing nothing rather than something.

That “centrist” position is no more, no less, ill-defined and pie in the sky than the left-wing position, and certainly no less ideologically driven, albeit in its favorite guise of “reality”. What does austerity really mean in an age of increasing inequality? And in an age where democracy is already fragilized ? Is it budget reduction? How will that help fight climate change? Or is it a reduction in consumption? An overhaul of the regulatory framework to punish waste? Yet to be invented new technologies?  Should we wait for the market to come up with them? Who will bear the brunt of these yet to be defined measures of austerity? And if austerity means a drastic overhaul of our economies of waste and over-consumption, well that doesn’t sound centrist at all.

Austerity doesn’t seem to mean much, beyond the usual points of deficit fighting, which hardly targeted at addressing the causes of climate change. The point of the left wing utopia is not to use the Trojan horse of environmentalism as a pretext to change unrelated social policy. It’s because any fight to address climate change will necessarily involve the allocation of resources to both enact change, and mitigate the worst, and that is necessarily a matter of political economy. The left wing position
considers  the environmental crisis as a direct result of our consumerist society, and posits, certainly not without cause, that environmental change will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people in our societies, and certainly on the planet - and as the crisis mounts, so will the pressures on our political systems.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2019, 09:04:58 am
That “centrist” position is no more, no less, ill-defined and pie in the sky than the left-wing position, and certainly no less ideologically driven, albeit in its favorite guise of “reality”. What does austerity really mean in an age of increasing inequality? And in an age where democracy is already fragilized ?

I love the smell of buzzwords in the morning!  Smells like... bullshit.  The meaning of austerity in this context isn't unclear:
Quote
enforced or extreme economy especially on a national scale
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/austerity (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/austerity)  Pretending words don't have their meanings seems a favorite tactic of the radical left and right.

Quote
Is it budget reduction? How will that help fight climate change? Or is it a reduction in consumption? An overhaul of the regulatory framework to punish waste? Yet to be invented new technologies?  Should we wait for the market to come up with them? Who will bear the brunt of these yet to be defined measures of austerity? And if austerity means a drastic overhaul of our economies of waste and over-consumption, well that doesn’t sound centrist at all.

Discussion is so much more intellectually pleasing when the tactics of one side don't consist merely of asking a bunch of questions that are either redundant or rhetorical.

Quote
Austerity doesn’t seem to mean much, beyond the usual points of deficit fighting, which hardly targeted at addressing the causes of climate change. The point of the left wing utopia is not to use the Trojan horse of environmentalism as a pretext to change unrelated social policy. It’s because any fight to address climate change will necessarily involve the allocation of resources to both enact change, and mitigate the worst, and that is necessarily a matter of political economy. The left wing position considers  the environmental crisis as a direct result of our consumerist society, and posits, certainly not without cause, that environmental change will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people in our societies, and certainly on the planet - and as the crisis mounts, so will the pressures on our political systems.

Yes, of course the argument of the extreme left is that you can't solve any of the world's problems unless you adopt all of the hard left's hobbyhorse policies.  It's a classic Trojan Horse strategy and it has been pretty spectacularly unsuccessful.  The best thing about the GND is that it may make the rational leftists realize that their leadership is simply incapable of presenting workable and feasible national policy, and convince them that the problem can only be tackled by developing compromise solutions targeted at the actual problem, in cooperation with the center and center-right.

Sure, a program of social austerity to free up the resources necessary to combat global warming will most harm those who have the least.  But, those will also be those hardest-hit by continued inaction while the left holds its breathe until they get everything on their agenda.  The poor are screwed either way.  The path of the left will cause that increased suffering to last indefinitely, while the path of the centrists will at least make the increased suffering temporary.

The left's desire for moral purity isn't worth the cost.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 21, 2019, 09:14:35 am
Indeed, very interesting.  It shows how limiting your simple rhetoric is. What about all the measures needed to address the change that is already upon us, like flood and storm mitigation measures?  Is that New Deal or Green?  Hard to say since you have defined Green so narrowly.

Storm and flood mitigation measures already exist.  Do you believe that these existing measures are Green, or New Deal?

Belief has nothing to with it.  If you care to read the resolution you will see it includes building more mitigation infrastructure.  Yi’s simplistic definition does not include those efforts.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Malthus on March 21, 2019, 09:34:25 am
The centrist position is one of austerity - that is, to admit that reducing emissions and taking other measures to reduce climate change is going to be economically and socially painful to everyone, but that this pain must be borne, because the alternative is so much worse.

Not as attractive as peddling the idea that we can (no, *must*, because these things are inherently interrelated!) build a left-wing utopia in defiance of all political realities if we are to have a chance of combatting climate change, but there you have it - reality is often unpalatable. So much better to use the occasion of a crisis to push for one's own preferred social policy, even if it is effectively a prescription for doing nothing rather than something.

That “centrist” position is no more, no less, ill-defined and pie in the sky than the left-wing position, and certainly no less ideologically driven, albeit in its favorite guise of “reality”. What does austerity really mean in an age of increasing inequality? And in an age where democracy is already fragilized ? Is it budget reduction? How will that help fight climate change? Or is it a reduction in consumption? An overhaul of the regulatory framework to punish waste? Yet to be invented new technologies?  Should we wait for the market to come up with them? Who will bear the brunt of these yet to be defined measures of austerity? And if austerity means a drastic overhaul of our economies of waste and over-consumption, well that doesn’t sound centrist at all.

Austerity doesn’t seem to mean much, beyond the usual points of deficit fighting, which hardly targeted at addressing the causes of climate change. The point of the left wing utopia is not to use the Trojan horse of environmentalism as a pretext to change unrelated social policy. It’s because any fight to address climate change will necessarily involve the allocation of resources to both enact change, and mitigate the worst, and that is necessarily a matter of political economy. The left wing position
considers  the environmental crisis as a direct result of our consumerist society, and posits, certainly not without cause, that environmental change will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people in our societies, and certainly on the planet - and as the crisis mounts, so will the pressures on our political systems.

Austerity's meaning in this context is pretty clear - taking money that could be spent on other things, and spending it instead to combat this problem. In any way possible. Reducing energy use, adoption of more expensive (but more environmentally friendly) technologies of power generation, etc. etc.

Of course, this will make the situation worse for those with the least, because if there is less money to go around, there will be less money for social spending - a fact conspicuous by its absence in this proposal!

Rather, the language of the proposal is all about opportunity, as follows:

Quote
Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);

Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States—
1.by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world; and
2.by acting as a threat multiplier;

Whereas the Federal Government-led mobilizations during World War II and the New Deal created the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen, but many members of frontline and vulnerable communities were excluded from many of the economic and societal benefits of those mobilizations; and

Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal is a historic opportunity—
1.to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;
2.to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and
3.to counteract systemic injustices:

The message is clear: climate change is a disaster that will exacerbates inequalities and is a major threat (no argument here); in the past, a massive disaster was met with a massive plan, the "New Deal", to combat it, which created a new middle class as a result - but the benefits of this plan passed many 'frontline and vulnerable communities' by; and so this current crisis creates an opportunity - no, a "historic opportunity" - to repeat history and get it right this time! By which, they mean 'to enact their wish-list of social policies'.

There is no mention whatsoever that 'this threat will require massive pain to combat, so it is necessary to work out a sensible plan of pain-allocation so that the pain doesn't break society's most vulnerable'. On the contrary. According to this document, the plan to combat climate change will not create pain at all, but benefits all around. Jobs will be created, "unprecedented" prosperity and security achieved, and systemic injustices counteracted! - all not despite the costs required to combat climate change, but rather, because of the costs required to combat climate change.

How wonderful if true, who could not support a plan that promises nothing but benefits to everyone?  While they are at it, I'd also like a perpetual motion machine. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 21, 2019, 09:35:08 am
Yes, of course the argument of the extreme left is that you can't solve any of the world's problemsunless you adopt all of the hard left's hobbyhorse policies.

Strawman.

Quote
Sure, a program of social austerity to free up the resources necessary to combat global warming will most harm those who have the least.  But, those will also be those hardest-hit by continued inaction while the left holds its breathe until they get everything on their agenda.  The poor are screwed either way.  The path of the left will cause that increased suffering to last indefinitely, while the path of the centrists will at least make the increased suffering temporary.

This is no less wishful thinking than what you denounce. Austerity as principle means nothing unless the resources freed are committed to something. Until that is specified, there is no plan, only some vague appeal to prudence. And the recent past is not wholly convincing that adopting austerity first will suddenly create amazing environmental consciousness among political actors.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 21, 2019, 09:48:02 am
How wonderful if true, who could not support a plan that promises nothing but benefits to everyone?  While they are at it, I'd also like a perpetual motion machine.

I think we simply read this thing too differently. It’s meant to be an aspirational document, aimed at combatting years of fear-mongering that any environmental reform would be too costly, too terrible to even begin to enact. It has led to the sort of political impasse we are in. You want something which would rather send as its aspiration a message of discipline and self-restraint, one aimed once again at social programs.  We have heard this message time and again, and it hasn’t produced the amazing benefits it promised.  I tend to think such an aspirational message of restraint is bound to be politically much more damaging than the first one. I am all for restraint, and for restricting our considerable appetite for waste. Let’s start with those who have a surplus of unecessary things, rather than those who depend on social programs to survive.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on March 21, 2019, 10:51:32 am
I can see where Yi is coming from.  If climate change is as serious a problem as the scientific community claims (and I see no reason to doubt them), then getting legislation through to improve the situation should be primary importance.  Putting other contentious issues into the same law reduces the chance of that law getting passed).

Yeah otherwise it just becomes another part of the ongoing Culture War theatrics.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Malthus on March 21, 2019, 10:59:01 am
How wonderful if true, who could not support a plan that promises nothing but benefits to everyone?  While they are at it, I'd also like a perpetual motion machine.

I think we simply read this thing too differently. It’s meant to be an aspirational document, aimed at combatting years of fear-mongering that any environmental reform would be too costly, too terrible to even begin to enact. It has led to the sort of political impasse we are in. You want something which would rather send as its aspiration a message of discipline and self-restraint, one aimed once again at social programs.  We have heard this message time and again, and it hasn’t produced the amazing benefits it promised.  I tend to think such an aspirational message of restraint is bound to be politically much more damaging than the first one. I am all for restraint, and for restricting our considerable appetite for waste. Let’s start with those who have a surplus of unecessary things, rather than those who depend on social programs to survive.

I did not say I wanted a message "aimed once again at social programs". What I said was, any actual measures taken to combat this problem would prove costly, thus reducing the amounts available for any other purposes - for example, social programs.

I'd be all for spreading the pain fairly and equitably, taking concrete measures to ensure that the payment to fix this disaster is progressive, so that the burden falls on the well-off and not on society's poorest.

What I'm not for, is failing to admit that there will be pain at all, but instead an "opportunity" to enact all sorts of unrelated social reforms - because such a failure smacks of wishful thinking, of pie-in-the-sky fantasy. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 11:11:26 am
I liked how the bill promised to invest in infrastructure and expand electrical capacity all while reducing the use of eminent domain.

Quote
I'd be all for spreading the pain fairly and equitably, taking concrete measures to ensure that the payment to fix this disaster is progressive, so that the burden falls on the well-off and not on society's poorest.

Indeed. Austerity does not only mean cutting spending it also means increases in taxes.

The bill directly references the New Deal and World War II which were times of severe austerity including things like ration cards.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2019, 11:27:25 am
Storm and flood mitigation measures already exist.  Do you believe that these existing measures are Green, or New Deal?

Belief has nothing to with it.  If you care to read the resolution you will see it includes building more mitigation infrastructure.  Yi’s simplistic definition does not include those efforts.

Yi
's simplistic definition does not need to, since mitigation infrastructure has been, is, and will be constructed without being labelled either Green or New deal.

Your simplistic assumption that everything in the GND is unique to it does not include reality.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2019, 11:57:13 am


Strawman.

Not if you actually read the document.  What left wing group has been left out?

Quote
This is no less wishful thinking than what you denounce. Austerity as principle means nothing unless the resources freed are committed to something. Until that is specified, there is no plan, only some vague appeal to prudence. And the recent past is not wholly convincing that adopting austerity first will suddenly create amazing environmental consciousness among political actors.

 :lol:  So promising everything to everyone is "wholly convincing" but noting that austerity will be required to accomplish a reduction in greenhouse gasses is "not wholly convincing?"  Okay. 

BTW, what is "Austerity as principle" and why do you bring it up?  "Austerity as principle" means nothing as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 21, 2019, 11:58:18 am
Storm and flood mitigation measures already exist.  Do you believe that these existing measures are Green, or New Deal?

Belief has nothing to with it.  If you care to read the resolution you will see it includes building more mitigation infrastructure.  Yi’s simplistic definition does not include those efforts.

Yi
's simplistic definition does not need to, since mitigation infrastructure has been, is, and will be constructed without being labelled either Green or New deal.

Your simplistic assumption that everything in the GND is unique to it does not include reality.

Yeah, NYC has proposed a rather large mitigation strategy that falls outside the GND.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 21, 2019, 12:17:24 pm
Storm and flood mitigation measures already exist.  Do you believe that these existing measures are Green, or New Deal?

Belief has nothing to with it.  If you care to read the resolution you will see it includes building more mitigation infrastructure.  Yi’s simplistic definition does not include those efforts.

Yi
's simplistic definition does not need to, since mitigation infrastructure has been, is, and will be constructed without being labelled either Green or New deal.


I do not share your certainty.  There are many within American State and Federal governmental structures who do not think it is necessary because well, its all a Chinese hoax.

Quote
Your simplistic assumption that everything in the GND is unique to it does not include reality.

At this point I once again remind myself that dialogue with you is pointless. 

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 21, 2019, 12:27:09 pm
Grumbler can be very tedious at times.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on March 21, 2019, 12:53:31 pm
Wrap it up Dems. It's over before it started.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/trump-economy-election-1230495

Quote
How Trump is on track for a 2020 landslide

President Donald Trump has a low approval rating. He is engaging in bitter Twitter wars and facing metastasizing investigations.

But if the election were held today, he’d likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide, according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losses.

...

“The economy is just so damn strong right now and by all historic precedent the incumbent should run away with it,” said Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of TrendMacrolytics, a research firm whose model correctly predicted Trump’s 2016 win when most opinion polls did not. “I just don’t see how the blue wall could resist all that.”

Models maintained by economists and market strategists like Luskin tend to ignore election polls and personal characteristics of candidates. Instead, they begin with historical trends and then build in key economic data including growth rates, wages, unemployment, inflation and gas prices to predict voting behavior and election outcomes.

Yale economist Ray Fair, who pioneered this kind of modeling, also shows Trump winning by a fair margin in 2020 based on the economy and the advantage of incumbency.

“Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy — and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election — that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin,” winning 54 percent of the popular vote to 46 for the Democrat, he said. Fair’s model also predicted a Trump win in 2016 though it missed on Trump’s share of the popular vote.

...

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and a regular Trump critic, has been road-testing a dozen different economic models for the 2020 race. At this point, Trump wins in all 12 — and quite comfortably in most of them. The Moody’s models look at economic trends at the state level.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2019, 12:58:57 pm
I do not share your certainty.  There are many within American State and Federal governmental structures who do not think it is necessary because well, its all a Chinese hoax.

So it's a conspiracy by some vague cabal of "American State and Federal governmental structures"?   :lol:

Quote
At this point I once again remind myself that dialogue with you is pointless.

How could you possibly know?  You don't engage in dialogue.  All I see from you is a series of monologues interspersed with the odd ad hom.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on March 21, 2019, 01:01:23 pm
Wrap it up Dems. It's over before it started.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/trump-economy-election-1230495

Quote
How Trump is on track for a 2020 landslide

President Donald Trump has a low approval rating. He is engaging in bitter Twitter wars and facing metastasizing investigations.

But if the election were held today, he’d likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide, according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losses.

...

“The economy is just so damn strong right now and by all historic precedent the incumbent should run away with it,” said Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of TrendMacrolytics, a research firm whose model correctly predicted Trump’s 2016 win when most opinion polls did not. “I just don’t see how the blue wall could resist all that.”

Models maintained by economists and market strategists like Luskin tend to ignore election polls and personal characteristics of candidates. Instead, they begin with historical trends and then build in key economic data including growth rates, wages, unemployment, inflation and gas prices to predict voting behavior and election outcomes.

Yale economist Ray Fair, who pioneered this kind of modeling, also shows Trump winning by a fair margin in 2020 based on the economy and the advantage of incumbency.

“Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy — and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election — that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin,” winning 54 percent of the popular vote to 46 for the Democrat, he said. Fair’s model also predicted a Trump win in 2016 though it missed on Trump’s share of the popular vote.

...

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and a regular Trump critic, has been road-testing a dozen different economic models for the 2020 race. At this point, Trump wins in all 12 — and quite comfortably in most of them. The Moody’s models look at economic trends at the state level.

Does historic precedent even mean anything anymore at this point?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 01:05:31 pm
Meh we did pretty well in 2018 in similar conditions.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 21, 2019, 01:22:03 pm
I do not share your certainty.  There are many within American State and Federal governmental structures who do not think it is necessary because well, its all a Chinese hoax.
And this Green New Deal will fight that belief?  Color me skeptical.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 21, 2019, 01:22:56 pm
Wrap it up Dems. It's over before it started.

I said he would be re-elected. Nothing new here.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on March 21, 2019, 01:29:04 pm
Wrap it up Dems. It's over before it started.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/trump-economy-election-1230495

Quote
How Trump is on track for a 2020 landslide

President Donald Trump has a low approval rating. He is engaging in bitter Twitter wars and facing metastasizing investigations.

But if the election were held today, he’d likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide, according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losses.

...

“The economy is just so damn strong right now and by all historic precedent the incumbent should run away with it,” said Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of TrendMacrolytics, a research firm whose model correctly predicted Trump’s 2016 win when most opinion polls did not. “I just don’t see how the blue wall could resist all that.”

Models maintained by economists and market strategists like Luskin tend to ignore election polls and personal characteristics of candidates. Instead, they begin with historical trends and then build in key economic data including growth rates, wages, unemployment, inflation and gas prices to predict voting behavior and election outcomes.

Yale economist Ray Fair, who pioneered this kind of modeling, also shows Trump winning by a fair margin in 2020 based on the economy and the advantage of incumbency.

“Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy — and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election — that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin,” winning 54 percent of the popular vote to 46 for the Democrat, he said. Fair’s model also predicted a Trump win in 2016 though it missed on Trump’s share of the popular vote.

...

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and a regular Trump critic, has been road-testing a dozen different economic models for the 2020 race. At this point, Trump wins in all 12 — and quite comfortably in most of them. The Moody’s models look at economic trends at the state level.

Does historic precedent even mean anything anymore at this point?

Imagine unemployment at 3%. Wage growth continues accelerating. I'm your average joe who happened to vote for Trump because I didn't like Hillary. Now I'm thinking, hey, I got a good job now and I'm making way more than I did 4 or 5 years ago. Hell yeah I'm voting for Trump again. USAUSAUSA

Now think of that same dude if unemployment jumps to around 6% or 7%. Maybe I just got laid off my job, or someone else I know. AIl the economic news seems kinda bad. I might be inclined to vote for Trump again but how motivated will I really be to go stand in a line for 2 hours just to own the libs?

Donald may have changed a lot of things but fundamentals still bear some weight. Just some food for thought for the Democrats. 2020 is not going to be a Democratic layup.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 21, 2019, 01:30:33 pm
Meh we did pretty well in 2018 in similar conditions.

But off-year elections are always good for the party not in power.  So that's consistent with historic trends.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 21, 2019, 01:33:33 pm
I do not share your certainty.  There are many within American State and Federal governmental structures who do not think it is necessary because well, its all a Chinese hoax.
And this Green New Deal will fight that belief?  Color me skeptical.

I was talking about the simplistic nature of Yi’s definition of Green and the misplaced certainty Grumbler has that mitigating infrastructure will be built in any event.  But I grant you that gets lost when conversing with a troll like Grumbles.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 02:01:36 pm
Meh we did pretty well in 2018 in similar conditions.

But off-year elections are always good for the party not in power.  So that's consistent with historic trends.

Well time for some new trends.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 02:08:53 pm
I have been saying for years that I hope the economy booms and we still buck the trends and beat him anyway. I am aware it would theoretically be better politically for a complete and total disaster befell my people but that is not acceptable. So while I appreciate BBs and Vipers smugness on this topic I still think we can beat the odds here. Because it is Trump and the normal rules do not apply.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 21, 2019, 02:10:04 pm
I have been saying for years that I hope the economy booms and we still buck the trends and beat him anyway. I am aware it would theoretically be better politically for a complete and total disaster befell my people but that is not acceptable. So while I appreciate BBs and Vipers smugness on this topic I still think we can beat the odds here. Because it is Trump and the normal rules do not apply.

My greatest hope for the US and the world is that the US does well economically and returns to sanity in its politics.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2019, 02:10:09 pm
Wrap it up Dems. It's over before it started.

It's true the economic models strongly indicate that if the macro numbers stay the same, Trump would win easily.

Of course the same models also predict he should have an approval rating at or near 60% now.

Trump has overturned all the usual verities of American politics, often in ways that have benefitted him.  But in this case, it works to his detriment - he isn't getting full electoral "credit" for the economy and he probably won't in 2020. 

The economy under Trump hasn't be performing any better than it did in Obama's second term.  Historically that doesn't matter because the model shows the incumbent wins as long as the economy is doing decently, even if there isn't a clear improvement trend.  But what these models are really capturing is that people will prefer the status quo as long as the status quo seems OK.  Trump is always at war with the status quo - he is running an insurgent campaign even as an incumbent.  Voters who are essentially satisfied with how things are and in normal times would reflexively vote for the incumbent are therefore in play.  We just saw this dynamic in play in the midterms when affluent suburban voters turned sharply away from the GOP.

Republican strategists get this which is why they are pounding the Ocasio-Cortez bogeywoman strategy. They are trying to paint the Democrats as the disruptive force and the GOP as the safe hand.  But Trump keeps undermining this strategy tweet by crazy tweet.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 21, 2019, 02:16:10 pm
I have been saying for years that I hope the economy booms and we still buck the trends and beat him anyway. I am aware it would theoretically be better politically for a complete and total disaster befell my people but that is not acceptable. So while I appreciate BBs and Vipers smugness on this topic I still think we can beat the odds here. Because it is Trump and the normal rules do not apply.

How am I being smug?  I'm still #NeverTrump
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 02:19:19 pm
I have been saying for years that I hope the economy booms and we still buck the trends and beat him anyway. I am aware it would theoretically be better politically for a complete and total disaster befell my people but that is not acceptable. So while I appreciate BBs and Vipers smugness on this topic I still think we can beat the odds here. Because it is Trump and the normal rules do not apply.

How am I being smug?  I'm still #NeverTrump

I think Viper is #NeverTrump as well but hey then say fatalism then.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2019, 02:26:46 pm
I have been saying for years that I hope the economy booms and we still buck the trends and beat him anyway. I am aware it would theoretically be better politically for a complete and total disaster befell my people but that is not acceptable. So while I appreciate BBs and Vipers smugness on this topic I still think we can beat the odds here. Because it is Trump and the normal rules do not apply.

How am I being smug?  I'm still #NeverTrump

You're not one of the idiot Americans who elected him.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 21, 2019, 02:27:06 pm
I have been saying for years that I hope the economy booms and we still buck the trends and beat him anyway. I am aware it would theoretically be better politically for a complete and total disaster befell my people but that is not acceptable. So while I appreciate BBs and Vipers smugness on this topic I still think we can beat the odds here. Because it is Trump and the normal rules do not apply.

How am I being smug?  I'm still #NeverTrump

I think Viper is #NeverTrump as well but hey then say fatalism then.

I'm hoping for Trump's defeat, but it's always possible for the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Imagine a Sanders-Warren ticket perhaps.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 21, 2019, 02:27:36 pm
I have been saying for years that I hope the economy booms and we still buck the trends and beat him anyway. I am aware it would theoretically be better politically for a complete and total disaster befell my people but that is not acceptable. So while I appreciate BBs and Vipers smugness on this topic I still think we can beat the odds here. Because it is Trump and the normal rules do not apply.

How am I being smug?  I'm still #NeverTrump

You're not one of the idiot Americans who elected him.

Hey!  I cast my very important non-citizen non-vote for HIllary. :mad:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on March 21, 2019, 02:52:11 pm
I have been saying for years that I hope the economy booms and we still buck the trends and beat him anyway. I am aware it would theoretically be better politically for a complete and total disaster befell my people but that is not acceptable. So while I appreciate BBs and Vipers smugness on this topic I still think we can beat the odds here. Because it is Trump and the normal rules do not apply.

How am I being smug?  I'm still #NeverTrump

I think Viper is #NeverTrump as well but hey then say fatalism then.

I'm hoping for Trump's defeat, but it's always possible for the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Imagine a Sanders-Warren ticket perhaps.

I can't imagine them pairing up.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on March 21, 2019, 02:53:12 pm
I don't want to imagine it.  I have strong dislike of Sanders.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 02:55:23 pm
Imagine a Sanders-Warren ticket perhaps.

Oh so suddenly it goes from a longshot to a sure victory unless the Dems fuck it up eh? :P

I mean I would love to think that people would rebel against some kind of radical pairing like that, but in these days of weirdness that ticket might smash all before it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on March 21, 2019, 03:06:35 pm
The problem with the Green New Deal is that it is expressly stated in the document that the environmental crisis is so interrelated with other crises that it should be solved as an interrelated whole - and, of course, this is the left-wing position.

Yes. It is the left-wing position. What's the right-wing position? What's the centrist position?

The right's position appears to be non-existent. Or wait. Or actively harm any effort in the name of economic development (which does indeed show that these crisis seem interrelated...) The centrist position appears to be to wait for criticize either stance as too radical, insisting upon pace, rather than substance.

you said yourself, in another debate, the left does not want to follow the right for independance talks.  and that's the same with environmental issues.  Anything a rightwing or centrist proposes is never good, never enough.

Nuclear plants?  No, they must all be shutdown.  Just as the pro-environment leftist PQ did.  Because, you know, there is a certain risk the St-Lawrence river could have a tsunami near Bécancour and create a nuclear meltdown at the plant (and that is not an invention from me).

Transport nuclear waste from Ontario over the St-Lawrence?  NO!  We will destroy our river!  Never mind the truth about the risks.

Build small electric damns for self sufficient energy projects?  NO!  People from Montreal drove 5hrs in their big gaz powered cars to protests against the destruction of rivers.

Build a big hydro electric damn?  NO!  We can't destroy a river!  Let's build windmills that costs 2x more to operate than the price we get for our electricity exports.

Let's use Canadian oil instead of Nigerian oil... No wait, that's very, very bad.

And then you complain centrists and rightwingers don't have any position on environmental issues.  :roll:

The last time something significant was done for the environment, it was Mulroney and Bush Sr.  Two rightwingers.

Bingo.

The left is unwilling to decouple their ideology from the solution.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 21, 2019, 03:08:59 pm
Imagine a Sanders-Warren ticket perhaps.

Oh so suddenly it goes from a longshot to a sure victory unless the Dems fuck it up eh? :P

I mean I would love to think that people would rebel against some kind of radical pairing like that, but in these days of weirdness that ticket might smash all before it.

I have to think that the Dem candidate is going to be the favourite.  But it is neither a longshot or a sure victory - it's somewhere in the middle.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on March 21, 2019, 03:21:50 pm
It's hard to believe America would elect Trump twice, isn't it? :)


 :ph34r:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 21, 2019, 03:27:59 pm
As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, there is no ideologically neutral solution. Any solution to the climate crisis is going to involve the allocation of resources, and this is inherently a political process, necessarily involving political choice which no amount of technocracy is ever going to neutralize. On both left, or right, those choices can be informed or uninformed, radical or moderate. To wait for a magical neutral plan to emerge from nowhere, and which would offer itself free from political choices, is to condemn oneself to inaction at worst, and some measure of intellectual illusion at best.

I am all for alternate plans to the GND, provided they address they take the crisis seriously, and consider it for the systemic issue that it is. And if it is such a major crisis, we have to expect that it will create tremendous pressures upon our political institutions, some of which we may not especially be keen on.

I think it is much better to be aware and lucid of the political slant, and therefore, the political consequences (write large - I don't care about partisan politics on this), of any proposed measure.  So far, the alternatives that I have seen appear to pin most of their hopes on technology that do not yet exist.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 03:50:35 pm
As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, there is no ideologically neutral solution. Any solution to the climate crisis is going to involve the allocation of resources, and this is inherently a political process, necessarily involving political choice which no amount of technocracy is ever going to neutralize. On both left, or right, those choices can be informed or uninformed, radical or moderate. To wait for a magical neutral plan to emerge from nowhere, and which would offer itself free from political choices, is to condemn oneself to inaction at worst, and some measure of intellectual illusion at best.

Look I am well aware no magical plans are coming. I am in favor of the plan that will happen. I don't see this plan ever happening so I want another plan. And, as I have pointed it, it is so radical it seems crafted to be unacceptable and not practical. Now maybe only a magical plan could be passed because no plan at all will ever be acceptable so why not just go nuts? However, we have been making progress in emissions to the point that now we are triggering a significant backlash and a reaction that makes me worried about not having the work we have done rolled back. Radical plans like this that my opponents can use to mobilize right wing opposition might be more of a hindrance than a help. It might stiffen and rally resistance to trying to solve emissions problems. Now I could ultimately be wrong, but I am worried.

Quote
I am all for alternate plans to the GND, provided they address they take the crisis seriously, and consider it for the systemic issue that it is. And if it is such a major crisis, we have to expect that it will create tremendous pressures upon our political institutions, some of which we may not especially be keen on.

I think it is much better to be aware and lucid of the political slant, and therefore, the political consequences (write large - I don't care about partisan politics on this), of any proposed measure.  So far, the alternatives that I have seen appear to pin most of their hopes on technology that do not yet exist.

Are you implying that the GND will somehow solve this problem without using any new technology or engineering? Because:

Quote
making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries

it is pretty explicit that that must happen...vaguely. But also this is a list of aspirations, as has been said, and political goals that we would need to work details out on later, not some sort of blueprint to solve the existing crisis with existing technology.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2019, 03:52:56 pm
As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, there is no ideologically neutral solution. Any solution to the climate crisis is going to involve the allocation of resources, and this is inherently a political process, necessarily involving political choice which no amount of technocracy is ever going to neutralize.

All true, but at the same time reality imposes its own technical constraints that can't be ignored.  Just as the right wing cannot simply wish away inconvenient realities like the warming planet and human contributions to that, the left can't wish away the real technical difficulties involved in radically changing the existing energy mix.  Just as the right wing can't will technological fixes like CCS into existence when the technology simply isn't there yet, the left also can't imagine completely effective storage solutions technologies into premature existence either.

Historically it takes a very long time to significantly change the energy generation mix.  It's like trying to turn a even larger and slower Titanic to avoid a double size iceberg.  You can only pull the wheel so far over and there is no way to go back and time to start pulling earlier.  Neither magical thinking nor ideological security blankets is going to get you around that iceberg. There are two things in particular that the Left must confront:

1) A moon shot level commitment to carbon reduction is going to be very expensive and those resources have to come from somewhere.  In the US context as elsewhere, that allocation has to be politically feasible and achievable in the context of a country that leans more to the right than many of its OECD peers.

2)I don't see how one gets near zero carbon electrical generation in the time scales being discussed without nuclear.  I say that as a skeptic of nuclear, particularly the economics of construction which are very problematic and the issues raised with the procurement, use and disposal of fuel.  But a technically realistic proposal needs significant non-intermittant sources of power and nuclear is the only obvious candidate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 03:55:55 pm
I don't see why combined cycle natural gas plants cannot be used as a stop gap. They are very efficient and low emissions. Nukes are just never going to happen.

I also think we are closer on storage than a lot of people think, it is already being used after all. Technology has been moving much faster than I would have dared dream back in 2007.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Malthus on March 21, 2019, 03:58:49 pm
As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, there is no ideologically neutral solution. Any solution to the climate crisis is going to involve the allocation of resources, and this is inherently a political process, necessarily involving political choice which no amount of technocracy is ever going to neutralize. On both left, or right, those choices can be informed or uninformed, radical or moderate. To wait for a magical neutral plan to emerge from nowhere, and which would offer itself free from political choices, is to condemn oneself to inaction at worst, and some measure of intellectual illusion at best.

I am all for alternate plans to the GND, provided they address they take the crisis seriously, and consider it for the systemic issue that it is. And if it is such a major crisis, we have to expect that it will create tremendous pressures upon our political institutions, some of which we may not especially be keen on.

I think it is much better to be aware and lucid of the political slant, and therefore, the political consequences (write large - I don't care about partisan politics on this), of any proposed measure.  So far, the alternatives that I have seen appear to pin most of their hopes on technology that do not yet exist.

First, everyone's plans (including, it should be added, this one) involve using current tech and attempting, insofar as possible, developing new tech. Of the current tech the most obvious candidate is nuclear - a bit of a problem as many on the Left are radically against nuclear power.

It isn't fair to complain that the alternatives all rely on unknown tech - as the GND is basically an aspirational document that sets goals, but doesn't contain details as to how they will be achieved (and itself states that new tech is part of the solution).

I mean, who can object to "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible", one of the GND provisions? That's a goal, not a plan as to how to achieve that goal!  :lol:

Much of this plan (including that goal) is totally unobjectionable, and would not vary based on ideology. Find someone who is sane* who objects to "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible".

*Sane defined as basing opinions on the science

Second, certainly the allocation of resources will be a political issue. The problem with the GND is, as I've pointed out, that it simply avoids the glaring issues involved: that a huge investment in going green will be hugely expensive and onerous. It's a positively Trump-level unwillingness to admit unpleasant facts.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on March 21, 2019, 04:11:50 pm
Wrap it up Dems. It's over before it started.

It's true the economic models strongly indicate that if the macro numbers stay the same, Trump would win easily.

Of course the same models also predict he should have an approval rating at or near 60% now.

Trump has overturned all the usual verities of American politics, often in ways that have benefitted him.  But in this case, it works to his detriment - he isn't getting full electoral "credit" for the economy and he probably won't in 2020. 

The economy under Trump hasn't be performing any better than it did in Obama's second term.  Historically that doesn't matter because the model shows the incumbent wins as long as the economy is doing decently, even if there isn't a clear improvement trend.  But what these models are really capturing is that people will prefer the status quo as long as the status quo seems OK.  Trump is always at war with the status quo - he is running an insurgent campaign even as an incumbent.  Voters who are essentially satisfied with how things are and in normal times would reflexively vote for the incumbent are therefore in play.  We just saw this dynamic in play in the midterms when affluent suburban voters turned sharply away from the GOP.

Republican strategists get this which is why they are pounding the Ocasio-Cortez bogeywoman strategy. They are trying to paint the Democrats as the disruptive force and the GOP as the safe hand.  But Trump keeps undermining this strategy tweet by crazy tweet.

I pretty much agree with everything you say.

I would argue that, at this point, the Trump presidency is such a well-known quantity that there are no voters left to persuade to either side. As you mention, affluent suburban voters have made their decision. With Donald at the top of the ticket, there is little the GOP can do to return those voters back into the fold.

Donald's best chance is the Democrats nominating a complete dud again. This is probably the most dangerous outcome and Donald's best chance at victory should the economy go south.

Barring that, he has to drive up the vote among his base and pray his odds are at least as good as 2016.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 21, 2019, 04:15:07 pm
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 21, 2019, 04:19:42 pm
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.

Hillary ran up huge margins in places like California and New York, and the margins Trump won by in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were pretty tight.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Oexmelin on March 21, 2019, 06:29:48 pm
All true, but at the same time reality imposes its own technical constraints that can't be ignored. 

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote - and this is why I think, ultimately, differences come from how we read the GND, and what rhetorical style we think capable of carrying the point. I don't read it as a ready-made set of policy just about to be implemented, but as something that can help chart a course, federate energies, and shape ideals for how climate change ought to, and can be addressed.   

The problem, I fear, is that opposition to any form of environmental policy in the US is such that starting already with an extremely modest, opaque plan in the hopes of gaining Republican support will be so limited in reach, so defanged, that it will be useless. To start with this critique seems to me to be as doomed as the well-meaning, but ultimately terribly misguided, desire by Obama to enact bi-partisan legislation. My sense is that things like the GND are meant to generate conversation, and political pressures, beyond the policy/administrative level.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2019, 06:32:50 pm
But I grant you that gets lost when conversing with a troll like Grumbles.

How could you possibly know?  You don't engage in dialogue.  All I see from you is a series of monologues interspersed with the odd ad hom.

You don't even make it hard. :lol:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2019, 06:36:44 pm
Hey!  I cast my very important non-citizen non-vote for HIllary. :mad:

I don't think anyone here confuses you with a trumpeter.  He's not nearly conservative enough.  :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on March 21, 2019, 08:47:52 pm
Hey!  I cast my very important non-citizen non-vote for HIllary. :mad:

I don't think anyone here confuses you with a trumpeter.  He's not nearly conservative enough.  :P

Damn straight he isn't. :mad:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 22, 2019, 02:37:30 am
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.

Hillary ran up huge margins in places like California and New York, and the margins Trump won by in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were pretty tight.

And Trump ran up huge margins in other places and many states were decided by very tight margins and most of those went Trump's way. I know, dude, I was there. But it is not like California and New York are going more Republican these days so likely a much larger margin than a mere three million will be needed. The Republicans only need a minority of voters, we need a much larger majority to win. Just how it goes.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Larch on March 22, 2019, 06:11:23 am
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.

Hillary ran up huge margins in places like California and New York, and the margins Trump won by in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were pretty tight.

And Trump ran up huge margins in other places and many states were decided by very tight margins and most of those went Trump's way. I know, dude, I was there. But it is not like California and New York are going more Republican these days so likely a much larger margin than a mere three million will be needed. The Republicans only need a minority of voters, we need a much larger majority to win. Just how it goes.

Trump won 46 Electoral College votes (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) with a margin of less than 1% of the state votes, to Clinton's 4 (New Hampshire). Between 1 and 5% there were 56 EC votes for Trump (including, for instance, Florida) to 27 Clinton ones. The only states where Trump ran up huge margins were in small ones, his campaign definitely gamed the system much better than Clinton's.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grey Fox on March 22, 2019, 07:09:16 am
The problem with the Green New Deal is that it is expressly stated in the document that the environmental crisis is so interrelated with other crises that it should be solved as an interrelated whole - and, of course, this is the left-wing position.

Yes. It is the left-wing position. What's the right-wing position? What's the centrist position?

The right's position appears to be non-existent. Or wait. Or actively harm any effort in the name of economic development (which does indeed show that these crisis seem interrelated...) The centrist position appears to be to wait for criticize either stance as too radical, insisting upon pace, rather than substance.

you said yourself, in another debate, the left does not want to follow the right for independance talks.  and that's the same with environmental issues.  Anything a rightwing or centrist proposes is never good, never enough.

Nuclear plants?  No, they must all be shutdown.  Just as the pro-environment leftist PQ did.  Because, you know, there is a certain risk the St-Lawrence river could have a tsunami near Bécancour and create a nuclear meltdown at the plant (and that is not an invention from me).

Transport nuclear waste from Ontario over the St-Lawrence?  NO!  We will destroy our river!  Never mind the truth about the risks.

Build small electric damns for self sufficient energy projects?  NO!  People from Montreal drove 5hrs in their big gaz powered cars to protests against the destruction of rivers.

Build a big hydro electric damn?  NO!  We can't destroy a river!  Let's build windmills that costs 2x more to operate than the price we get for our electricity exports.

Let's use Canadian oil instead of Nigerian oil... No wait, that's very, very bad.

And then you complain centrists and rightwingers don't have any position on environmental issues.  :roll:

The last time something significant was done for the environment, it was Mulroney and Bush Sr.  Two rightwingers.

Bingo.

The left is unwilling to decouple their ideology from the solution.

The right cannot be trusted.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 22, 2019, 10:51:17 am
The right cannot be trusted.

More importantly, the right continues to suggest that there is no problem.  Here in Canada the Conservatives big idea is to make sure there are no carbon taxes.  There is really no other alternative out there.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on March 22, 2019, 11:36:01 am

 The left wing position
considers  the environmental crisis as a direct result of our consumerist society

Then the left wing position will never prevail in the US, because most people approve of our consumerist society.  To say otherwise is to accept that we should lower our standard of living in a permanent, long-term way.  People aren't going to accept that.  They might accept temporary measures (such as the WWII-era rationing that Valmy mentioned) in order to improve things long-term, but they aren't going to accept a solution that lowers living standards long-term.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 22, 2019, 11:43:49 am

 The left wing position
considers  the environmental crisis as a direct result of our consumerist society

Then the left wing position will never prevail in the US, because most people approve of our consumerist society.  To say otherwise is to accept that we should lower our standard of living in a permanent, long-term way.  People aren't going to accept that.  They might accept temporary measures (such as the WWII-era rationing that Valmy mentioned) in order to improve things long-term, but they aren't going to accept a solution that lowers living standards long-term.

That is why it is important for government to invest heavily in creating the alternatives that are necessary to provide a similar if not better standard of living.

Providing an energy grid that is powered by non fossil fuels is a good place to start, upgrading the grid so that it provides more efficiency (ie less electricity lost during transmission) and better storage would be a good goal to have as well.  But importantly, the cost of this cannot be borne by consumers of the electricity. for exactly the reasons you have set out.  It needs to be financed by government, and that is where I think the whole debate about left vs right becomes nonsensical.  None of this is going to be built by private actors in anywhere near the timelines it needs to be built.  It requires the resources of governments.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 22, 2019, 11:54:45 am
Providing an energy grid that is powered by non fossil fuels is a good place to start, upgrading the grid so that it provides more efficiency (ie less electricity lost during transmission) and better storage would be a good goal to have as well.  But importantly, the cost of this cannot be borne by consumers of the electricity. for exactly the reasons you have set out.  It needs to be financed by government, and that is where I think the whole debate about left vs right becomes nonsensical.  None of this is going to be built by private actors in anywhere near the timelines it needs to be built.  It requires the resources of governments.

I mean we are talking about the energy sector, it already is a centrally planned socialist part of the economy. Even the energy market that Texas built is a fake market, it is a centrally planned government created market. Everything already is built by governments through private actors (Well not everything, but the things that matter: capacity and large scale generation).

And so long as energy is a grid with transmission, distribution, and large scale generation it will always be that way.



Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on March 22, 2019, 11:56:35 am
Providing an energy grid that is powered by non fossil fuels is a good place to start, upgrading the grid so that it provides more efficiency (ie less electricity lost during transmission) and better storage would be a good goal to have as well.  But importantly, the cost of this cannot be borne by consumers of the electricity. for exactly the reasons you have set out.  It needs to be financed by government, and that is where I think the whole debate about left vs right becomes nonsensical.  None of this is going to be built by private actors in anywhere near the timelines it needs to be built.  It requires the resources of governments.

I mean we are talking about the energy sector, it already is a centrally planned socialist part of the economy.

USA! USA! USA!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on March 22, 2019, 11:59:37 am
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/republicans-resigned-to-trump-losing-2020-popular-vote-but-confident-about-electoral-college

Republicans resigned to Trump losing 2020 popular vote but confident about Electoral College

Quote
Senior Republicans are resigned to President Trump losing the popular vote in 2020, conceding the limits of the flamboyant incumbent’s political appeal and revealing just how central the Electoral College has become to the party’s White House prospects.

Some Republicans say the problem is Trump's populist brand of partisan grievance. It's an attitude tailor-made for the Electoral College in the current era of regionally Balkanized politics, but anathema to attracting a broad, national coalition that can win the most votes, as past presidents did when seeking re-election amid a booming economy. Others argue that neither Trump, nor possibly any Republican, could win the popular vote when most big states are overwhelmingly liberal.

“California, Illinois, and New York, make it very, very difficult for anybody on our side to ever again to win the popular vote,” said David Carney, a Republican strategist in New Hampshire. Asked if he expects Trump to defy the odds next year, Carney said flatly, “No,” but added, “the president shouldn’t worry about it. Two hundred seventy — that’s what people remember.”

In 2016, Trump won 306 electoral votes, comfortably above the 270 required to capture the presidency. But he lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by an eye-popping 2.9 million votes.

If Trump wins a second term without the popular vote, it would mark the first time in American history that the candidate who finished second in overall votes won consecutive presidential elections.

When President George W. Bush ran for re-election, his campaign prioritized the popular vote to vanquish doubts about his legitimacy after becoming the first president since 1888 to win the White House without it. Bush succeeded, winning the popular vote by 3 million in 2004. Fifteen years later, Republicans, lately confident about Trump’s re-election, are downplaying the symbolism of the popular vote.

[Related: Kamala Harris 'open' to the idea of killing the Electoral College]

“The popular vote is irrelevant because it’s not how our system works,” said Dan Eberhart, an energy executive and Republican donor in Arizona who supports Trump. “The president is right to focus on voters in states with the biggest number of electoral votes.”

Trump concurs. “The brilliance of the Electoral College is that you must go to many States to win,” he said in a Twitter post. “I used to like the idea of the Popular Vote, but now realize the Electoral College is far better for the U.S.A.”

Trump’s impressive maiden campaign demolished the Democratic Party’s blue wall, picking up heartland states a Republican nominee hadn’t won in decades: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In each, the president’s victory was slim. Combined with wins in Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio, it might seem Trump in 2020 would be in a defensive crouch out of pragmatic necessity.

But the president’s team, planning for higher voter turnout in 2020 but privately bracing for a second popular vote defeat, is moving to build on 2016 by going on offense in Democratic-trending battlegrounds that Trump lost to Clinton by surprisingly narrow margins.

Some states on this list were targets three years ago. Trump is prepared to commit substantial resources to Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, and Nevada despite 2018 midterm election results suggesting tough sledding there ahead. New Hampshire may also be a target.

“We look to maintain and expand the Trump map,” Kayleigh McEnany, the president’s campaign spokeswoman, told the Washington Examiner.

One of the two major political parties in a country outright declaring itself to be forever in the minority doesn't seem to be a favorable long-term strategy.

Gaming a flawed system that was implemented entirely out of desperate compromise hundreds of years ago seems to go against the spirit of representative democracy, imo.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on March 22, 2019, 12:00:13 pm
Providing an energy grid that is powered by non fossil fuels is a good place to start, upgrading the grid so that it provides more efficiency (ie less electricity lost during transmission) and better storage would be a good goal to have as well.  But importantly, the cost of this cannot be borne by consumers of the electricity. for exactly the reasons you have set out.  It needs to be financed by government, and that is where I think the whole debate about left vs right becomes nonsensical.  None of this is going to be built by private actors in anywhere near the timelines it needs to be built.  It requires the resources of governments.

I mean we are talking about the energy sector, it already is a centrally planned socialist part of the economy. Even the energy market that Texas built is a fake market, it is a centrally planned government created market. Everything already is built by governments through private actors (Well not everything, but the things that matter: capacity and large scale generation).

And so long as energy is a grid with transmission, distribution, and large scale generation it will always be that way.

Yeah, and unfortunately the best way to move ahead with existing technology is nuclear, which many on the left are dead set against for, well, I don't exactly know why, and which many on the right would probably be against if it weren't blocked by the left because of the large up-front costs (and the fact that some on the right are beholden to fossil fuel interests).
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on March 22, 2019, 12:01:37 pm
People don't need horses! They need unicorns! :angry:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 22, 2019, 12:01:51 pm

Yeah, and unfortunately the best way to move ahead with existing technology is nuclear, which many on the left are dead set against for, well, I don't exactly know why, and which many on the right would probably be against if it weren't blocked by the left because of the large up-front costs (and the fact that some on the right are beholden to fossil fuel interests).

Yeah everybody left, right, and center hate nukes. It is not happening.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 22, 2019, 12:02:55 pm
People don't need horses! They need unicorns! :angry:

10,000 unicorns for every princess is my policy!
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 22, 2019, 12:04:20 pm
Providing an energy grid that is powered by non fossil fuels is a good place to start, upgrading the grid so that it provides more efficiency (ie less electricity lost during transmission) and better storage would be a good goal to have as well.  But importantly, the cost of this cannot be borne by consumers of the electricity. for exactly the reasons you have set out.  It needs to be financed by government, and that is where I think the whole debate about left vs right becomes nonsensical.  None of this is going to be built by private actors in anywhere near the timelines it needs to be built.  It requires the resources of governments.

I mean we are talking about the energy sector, it already is a centrally planned socialist part of the economy. Even the energy market that Texas built is a fake market, it is a centrally planned government created market. Everything already is built by governments through private actors (Well not everything, but the things that matter: capacity and large scale generation).

And so long as energy is a grid with transmission, distribution, and large scale generation it will always be that way.

there are over 3000 electrical utility companies in the US, and as I understand it most of the infrastructure development is done through those companies, although heavily regulated.  What needs to happen is government has to take an active role is financing construction directly rather than indirectly through whatever incentive schemes each state might have.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 22, 2019, 12:06:01 pm

Yeah, and unfortunately the best way to move ahead with existing technology is nuclear, which many on the left are dead set against for, well, I don't exactly know why, and which many on the right would probably be against if it weren't blocked by the left because of the large up-front costs (and the fact that some on the right are beholden to fossil fuel interests).

Yeah everybody left, right, and center hate nukes. It is not happening.

Well shit, just shoot yourself now then and avoid the pain of what is about to come, or do something about it :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 22, 2019, 12:16:11 pm
there are over 3000 electrical utility companies in the US, and as I understand it most of the infrastructure development is done through those companies, although heavily regulated.  What needs to happen is government has to take an active role is financing construction directly rather than indirectly through whatever incentive schemes each state might have.

Most of those companies are publicly owned city run entities that are basically government departments. Others are private companies but they have to have everything they build approved and also are ordered to build things that they were not planning to otherwise build. But here is the deal: they are guaranteed a small profit on everything they build through the government set rates. So they love building stuff and the more stuff they can build the more money they can make because all prices, profits, and everything is all controlled by the government.

If the Federal Government decided to do a new aggressive plan to redo energy in the US all those big privately owned companies would eagerly go along with it, more money for them. The hundreds of local government vertically integrated utility companies would be more problematic but the Feds are pretty skilled at making them do thing they want.

Then there would be the entire Texas interconnect, the only part of the grid the Feds do not control and that could be a problem. But that is only one small segment of the grid.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 22, 2019, 12:17:22 pm

Well shit, just shoot yourself now then and avoid the pain of what is about to come, or do something about it :P

I stated we should use combined cycle natural gas plants until we can find an alternative. Those have the advantage of being regularly built now and are not some crazy pipedream like more nukes.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grey Fox on March 22, 2019, 01:07:40 pm
We can sell you clean energy but your little New England states don't like us. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 22, 2019, 01:45:25 pm
I don't see why combined cycle natural gas plants cannot be used as a stop gap.
The left just does not want any kind of fossile fuel.  We tried, here in Quebec, to get this industry going.  In the end, all we got was an effective scare campaing by the left telling people they would see huge drills in their backyard for fracking purpose.  The govt decided to move on a moratorium on all gaz exploration in Quebec, except for projects already under way.

Quote
I also think we are closer on storage than a lot of people think, it is already being used after all. Technology has been moving much faster than I would have dared dream back in 2007.
I also believe the same would apply to nuclear energy if it was used a little more.  The more plants there are, the more solution we could find for fuel disposal.  I think right now, only one plant in France recycles used nuclear fuels.  (Brain, isn't that your are of expertise?)

We can't wish for perfect solutions that are inexistent.  As much as I'd like nuclear fusion or any kind of non-co2 clean permanent and widely available energy production source, it does not exists yet.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 22, 2019, 01:52:25 pm
The right cannot be trusted.

More importantly, the right continues to suggest that there is no problem.  Here in Canada the Conservatives big idea is to make sure there are no carbon taxes.  There is really no other alternative out there.
It's not like a carbon tax will fix everything.

I disagree with the Cons that it should simply be abolished without any kind of alternative to reduce CO2 emissions, but I disagree with the Libs idea that taxing ourselves a little more will solve the problem.

Quebec has had a green tax on fuel for 4-5 years.  I have seen no indication that our CO2 emissions have dropped.  In fact, the last 2 governments decided to go ahead with an extremely polluting cement refinery and exempted it from the obligation to participate in the cap&trade CO2 market.

What is the point of sacrificing my car, reducing my transports out of my home, having at least one non meat meal a day, if it ends up to nothing in the end because my govt has simply shifted the burden to me?  Everyone must do its part, not just the little guys.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 22, 2019, 01:56:56 pm
We can sell you clean energy but your little New England states don't like us. :rolleyes:
they don't like having power lines in their pristine mountains.  Just like we don't like having an underground pipeline in our pristine valley.  Even if it's built in the Apalachian mountains and not in the valley we don't want it.  Even if it's built in the Canadian shield we don't want it.

We don't want fracking.
We don't want oil.
We don't want gaz.
We don't want pipelines.
We don't want nukes.
We don't want anymore hydro power plants.
We don't want anymore high power lines in our countryside.

Really, can we take the moral high grounds over those who do not want power lines in their pristine mountains?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maladict on March 22, 2019, 02:00:22 pm

Then the left wing position will never prevail in the US, because most people approve of our consumerist society.  To say otherwise is to accept that we should lower our standard of living in a permanent, long-term way.  People aren't going to accept that.  They might accept temporary measures (such as the WWII-era rationing that Valmy mentioned) in order to improve things long-term, but they aren't going to accept a solution that lowers living standards long-term.

Buying less stuff != lower standard of living.

The trick is to get people to realize that.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on March 22, 2019, 02:12:29 pm
there are over 3000 electrical utility companies in the US, and as I understand it most of the infrastructure development is done through those companies, although heavily regulated.  What needs to happen is government has to take an active role is financing construction directly rather than indirectly through whatever incentive schemes each state might have.

Most of those companies are publicly owned city run entities that are basically government departments. Others are private companies but they have to have everything they build approved and also are ordered to build things that they were not planning to otherwise build. But here is the deal: they are guaranteed a small profit on everything they build through the government set rates. So they love building stuff and the more stuff they can build the more money they can make because all prices, profits, and everything is all controlled by the government.

If the Federal Government decided to do a new aggressive plan to redo energy in the US all those big privately owned companies would eagerly go along with it, more money for them. The hundreds of local government vertically integrated utility companies would be more problematic but the Feds are pretty skilled at making them do thing they want.

Then there would be the entire Texas interconnect, the only part of the grid the Feds do not control and that could be a problem. But that is only one small segment of the grid.

Yeah, the complexity of interlocking systems and approaches would be a problem.  And if part of that interconnected system does not agree with the approach, it would also be problematic.  But if the Feds give sufficient funding which is accessible only if certain types of energy generation is built and fossil is phased out, then that could be overcome.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on March 22, 2019, 02:17:58 pm

Then the left wing position will never prevail in the US, because most people approve of our consumerist society.  To say otherwise is to accept that we should lower our standard of living in a permanent, long-term way.  People aren't going to accept that.  They might accept temporary measures (such as the WWII-era rationing that Valmy mentioned) in order to improve things long-term, but they aren't going to accept a solution that lowers living standards long-term.

Buying less stuff != lower standard of living.

The trick is to get people to realize that.

smaller houses/appartment, eat less, smaller car, travel less, etc.

That is reducing our standards of living.

I'm not convinced a lot of the pro-environment in Quebec would agree to cut their vacation time, work more and spend more time at home.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grey Fox on March 22, 2019, 02:43:14 pm
We need to work less, way less. More work = more productivity = more pollution.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maladict on March 22, 2019, 05:46:44 pm

smaller houses/appartment, eat less, smaller car, travel less, etc.

That is reducing our standards of living.


I guess bigger really is better in the US.

In any case, things don't necessarily have to be reduced, just made less disposable.
And a lot of stuff doesn't have to be made in the first place.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on March 22, 2019, 10:22:56 pm
Depends on where you live. We pay millions to live in shoeboxes in major cities.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maladict on March 23, 2019, 09:02:32 am
Depends on where you live. We pay millions to live in shoeboxes in major cities.

As it is all over the developed world.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on April 23, 2019, 01:07:53 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4yu5tWXoAEnd98?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 01:11:28 pm
Terrorists, that is what they are. We are getting Bernie in 2020 aren't we?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2019, 01:13:56 pm
It's a cult.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on April 23, 2019, 01:28:55 pm
:lol:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on April 23, 2019, 01:31:11 pm
I'd really want to look at those numbers. If that's true, Bernie Bros can hang.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on April 23, 2019, 01:36:35 pm
If that's true, Bernie Bros can hang.
:wub:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 01:48:47 pm
:lol:

:bash:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2019, 01:49:47 pm
Don't blame Speesh for the retardation of the American left.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 01:50:56 pm
Don't blame Speesh for the retardation of the American left.

I wasn't blaming him for anything but enjoying my misery :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on April 23, 2019, 02:02:40 pm
I can see it though.  Both Trump and Saunders have a kind of "burn it all down" approach to campaigning, even if their specific complaints are entirely different.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on April 23, 2019, 02:07:47 pm
How is this news? Wasn't that already their stance in 2016?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on April 23, 2019, 02:08:43 pm
It's definitely news if they've maintained that viewpoint through the insanity that's been shown vs. what the others represent.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on April 23, 2019, 02:25:21 pm
Meh. I thought they had already proven themselves insane as it isn't like Trump was an unknown quantity.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2019, 02:26:06 pm
It's definitely news if they've maintained that viewpoint through the insanity that's been shown vs. what the others represent.

Yup.  That makes two groups of people who have learned nothing from Trump's time in office.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on April 23, 2019, 02:57:56 pm
I can see it though.  Both Trump and Saunders have a kind of "burn it all down" approach to campaigning, even if their specific complaints are entirely different.

They are very much two sides of the same coin.  Sanders is the left-wing manifestation of the wave of global populism and Trump is the Right.  I don't see an American version of Tsipras or Obrador as much of an improvement over the American version of Le Pen or Farange.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on April 23, 2019, 03:00:16 pm
Don't blame Speesh for the retardation of the American left.
I wouldn't consider Bernie Bros who are willing to go Trump if their boy doesn't get the nod part of the Left.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on April 23, 2019, 03:05:02 pm
Also, there has already been a backlash against that poll:
https://www.inquisitr.com/5403753/emerson-presidential-poll-sampled-only-356-people/
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/04/that-poll-about-some-bernie-voters-preferring-trum.html
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maladict on April 23, 2019, 03:15:45 pm
Pete Buttigieg interview on Fox News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y97QknIG-Eo

Read the comments section, it's ....unexpected.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2019, 03:17:34 pm
I wouldn't consider Bernie Bros who are willing to go Trump if their boy doesn't get the nod part of the Left.

They sure as hell aren't centrists.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on April 23, 2019, 03:19:46 pm
Don't blame Speesh for the retardation of the American left.
I wouldn't consider Bernie Bros who are willing to go Trump if their boy doesn't get the nod part of the Left.

That's what some of them say now.  They'll jump on the Democrat bandwagon by the summer of 2020, don't worry.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 03:22:15 pm
That's what some of them say now.  They'll jump on the Democrat bandwagon by the summer of 2020, don't worry.

Everybody is welcome on the bandwagon! Vegan pancakes will be served.

Anyway last election you kept telling me not to worry and then all the things you told me not to worry about happened. I suspect this is some kind of reverse jinx thing you have going on  :ph34r: :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on April 23, 2019, 03:23:12 pm
Pete Buttigieg interview on Fox News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y97QknIG-Eo

Read the comments section, it's ....unexpected.

As much as I love Booty Judge's tone and some of his rhetoric, I can really pick out too many policy differences between him and the rest of the crowd.  And his one-sided pretend argument with Pence is a little weird.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 03:26:23 pm
Judging candidates on policy wonkery? I admire your quaint old school ways Spicey.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on April 23, 2019, 03:33:10 pm
Okay.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 23, 2019, 03:37:24 pm
Everybody is welcome on the bandwagon! Vegan pancakes will be served.

Vegan pancakes? Don't you want the bandwagon to leave the West Coast?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 03:39:26 pm
Okay.

I find it refreshing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2019, 03:42:54 pm
Pete Buttigieg interview on Fox News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y97QknIG-Eo

Read the comments section, it's ....unexpected.

He certainly is well spoken for a gay man.  :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on April 23, 2019, 04:53:11 pm
Everybody is welcome on the bandwagon! Vegan pancakes will be served.

Vegan pancakes? Don't you want the bandwagon to leave the West Coast?

My homemade vegan pancakes are amazing.  :mad:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 23, 2019, 04:58:27 pm
Real pancakes have butter and milk.

Edit- and eggs. What are these travesties you're creating?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Solmyr on April 24, 2019, 02:35:21 am
Pete Buttigieg interview on Fox News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y97QknIG-Eo

Read the comments section, it's ....unexpected.

Did Trump already tweet about Fox News' betrayal?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on April 24, 2019, 03:03:44 am
Why are you interested in his tweets?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2019, 08:04:36 am
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.

Who the electoral college favors has not been consistent from election to election in the past.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2019, 08:09:27 am
How is this news? Wasn't that already their stance in 2016?
88% of them voted for Hillary

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fd004ae65068
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on April 24, 2019, 10:03:05 am
How is this news? Wasn't that already their stance in 2016?
88% of them voted for Hillary

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fd004ae65068 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fd004ae65068)
that 12% was enough to tip the scales in key States.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 24, 2019, 10:56:35 am
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.

Who the electoral college favors has not been consistent from election to election in the past.

The Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988 yet have won the Presidency three times. I think we know who it favors.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on April 24, 2019, 11:27:58 am
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.

Who the electoral college favors has not been consistent from election to election in the past.

The Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988 yet have won the Presidency three times. I think we know who it favors.


In recent years, it's given a slight advantage the party which has more support in less populated states, which currently is the Republican party.  But the margin isn't that much, and theoretically it could do the opposite--for example, you can win the electoral vote by carrying the 13 most populous states, without getting a single popular vote in any of the other 37 states.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Maximus on April 24, 2019, 11:35:09 am
The Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988 yet have won the Presidency three times. I think we know who it favors.
Do you mean haven't?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 24, 2019, 12:03:15 pm
The Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988 yet have won the Presidency three times. I think we know who it favors.
Do you mean haven't?

Since 1988 they have only won the popular vote once, 2004.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: celedhring on April 24, 2019, 04:34:46 pm
I have been totally off the loop, since I learnt today that Buttigieg is gay. Besides the unfortunate surname, does that make him electable in today's US? - Honest question.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 24, 2019, 04:37:08 pm
Nobody knows, really.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 24, 2019, 04:45:05 pm
I have been totally off the loop, since I learnt today that Buttigieg is gay. Besides the unfortunate surname, does that make him electable in today's US? - Honest question.

I actually have no clue. It doesn't seem like anybody who would normally consider voting for a Democrat would care, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on April 24, 2019, 04:46:47 pm
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.

Who the electoral college favors has not been consistent from election to election in the past.

The Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988 yet have won the Presidency three times. I think we know who it favors.

It favors those who win the popular vote in a certain proportion of States.  :sleep:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on April 24, 2019, 04:48:36 pm
It does clearly take a big margin to beat him, Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes and still got destroyed in the EC.

Who the electoral college favors has not been consistent from election to election in the past.

The Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988 yet have won the Presidency three times. I think we know who it favors.

It favors those who win the popular vote in a certain proportion of States.  :sleep:

Yet despite radically different political situations the Democrats have managed to win the popular vote but lose the election four times. Five if you count Andrew Jackson I guess. It has never happened to any other party. Kind of weird.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on April 24, 2019, 04:53:47 pm
I am one of those heretics who actually likes the concept of the EC, and how it tries to translate the idea that the Senate represents in the Legislative branch (that being an equal representation to each of the individual states) to the election for the Executive branch.  But I do concede that the mechanics of how the EC operates are in need of a relook.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on April 24, 2019, 05:24:33 pm
I have been totally off the loop, since I learnt today that Buttigieg is gay. Besides the unfortunate surname, does that make him electable in today's US? - Honest question.

I think the name will potentially hurt him more than being gay, but that's just a guess.  I think Julian Castro has a name problem, too.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 05:38:46 pm
I think the name will potentially hurt him more than being gay, but that's just a guess.  I think Julian Castro has a name problem, too.

That and the fact he looks 19.

What the hell kind of name is that anyways?  Wendian?  Bessarabian?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on April 24, 2019, 05:40:21 pm
What am I missing in his name?  Yeah, I see the butt, but is there more to see there?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on April 24, 2019, 06:12:46 pm
What am I missing in his name?  Yeah, I see the butt, but is there more to see there?


Depends who's butt you are looking at.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on April 24, 2019, 07:30:50 pm
Just call him Mayor Pete and vote for him in November of 2020 you doofuses.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2019, 08:16:08 pm
How is this news? Wasn't that already their stance in 2016?
88% of them voted for Hillary

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fd004ae65068 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fd004ae65068)
that 12% was enough to tip the scales in key States.

25%of Hillary voters in 2008 voted for McCain.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on April 24, 2019, 10:14:19 pm
I think the name will potentially hurt him more than being gay, but that's just a guess.  I think Julian Castro has a name problem, too.

That and the fact he looks 19.

What the hell kind of name is that anyways?  Wendian?  Bessarabian?

Maltese; "alab (الآب)" meaning "father" in Arabic and "tiġieġ" meaning "poultry" in Maltese. :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 24, 2019, 10:20:31 pm
How is this news? Wasn't that already their stance in 2016?
88% of them voted for Hillary

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fd004ae65068 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fd004ae65068)
that 12% was enough to tip the scales in key States.

25%of Hillary voters in 2008 voted for McCain.

And he still lost? That figure doesn't sound right.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 10:52:04 pm
Maltese; "alab (الآب)" meaning "father" in Arabic and "tiġieġ" meaning "poultry" in Maltese. :)

That's awesome.  Thanks.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on April 25, 2019, 01:03:12 am
When you deal with Maltese on a regular basis you quickly realize that a lot of them share last names, even though they're not related.

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140209/local/Why-most-Maltese-share-the-same-100-surnames.506018

Quote
Why most Maltese share the same 100 surnames

Any Sherlock can detect a number of things from my surname. Chetcuti is a clear indication that my ancestors bred cackles of baby chicks or that they used to laugh gently – like giggling chickens apparently – or that they used to be masters of the house.

Of course, not everything is passed on over the generations. I have never seen a chick come out of a shell, my laughter is more bear-like than a tinkle, but I like to pretend that I am master of the house.

Like my age-old Arabic one, each surname has its own tale, and given that there are about 20,000 of them in Malta there are lots of stories to go about. What is certain is that our surnames are very indicative of our country’s multicultural history.

“There is no surname more Maltese than any other,” said linguist Mario Cassar.

“It really jars sometimes that the most racist of people have a surname that would take them back to the roots of the culture they are racist about,” Dr Cassar said.

The 2011 census collected a total of 19,104 surnames. The top 10 are: Borg, Camilleri, Vella, Farrugia, Zammit, Galea, Micallef, Grech, Attard, Spiteri and Azzopardi. And 25 per cent of the population – 99,516 – own just these 10 surnames. A total of 178,018 people – 44 per cent – have surnames which make it to the top 25 list.

But here is the stunning news: 76 per cent of the population – 307,886 people – share the same 100 surnames.

“This means that three-quarters of the whole population carry the top 100 surnames, while the remaining 23.98 per cent – 97,076 people – share the remaining 12,210 su­­­­­rnames,” Dr Cassar said.

This, he said, probably shows a degree of inbreeding. “That is why we suffer from a lot of chronic illnesses – such as diabetes.”

Gozo – due to its smaller size – gives a clearer picture of this idiosyncrasy. One typical Gozitan surname seems to be Rapa but the surname Xuereb is predominate in Għajnsielem, Mintoff in Għasri, Debrincat in Munxar, Grima in San Lawrenz, Sultana in Xagħra and Cini in Żebbuġ.

“If you meet a Gozitan with Buttiġieġ as a surname you can almost be certain that he’d be from Qala,” Dr Cassar said.

There are also some peculiar trends in Malta, such as the strong showings of Abela in Żejtun, Aquilina in Għargħur, Bugeja in Marsaxlokk, Magro in Qrendi, Dalli in Gudja, and Busuttil in Safi. Other less marked, but equally clear concentrations are manifest in the cases of Carabott in Marsaxlokk, Sacco in Kirkop, Bezzina in Għargħur, Abdilla in Safi, and Manduca in Mdina. Penza, for example, is an overwhelmingly Luqa surname.

Dr Cassar explained that Maltese surnames may easily be divided into three surname groups: Semitic (Arabic and Hebrew), Romance (mainly Italian, Sicilian, Spanish and French), and English (as well as Scottish, Irish and Welsh). Today one also has to factor in other European and international family names which accumulated through recent ethnic intermarriages.

The number of Semitic surnames is only around 50, but despite this low number, most of us have an Arabic surname. “Each one of these Semitic surnames is borne by a significant aggregate of families, whereas many of the more modern Romance and European surnames are less numerous,” he said.

Surnames have reached the island over many centuries in complicated historical and linguistic conditions, and because Malta has always been a place for coexistence of various ethnic groups. And they always developed in parallel with the language.

After the Norman invasion, the indigenous Muslim population, although subjected to Christian rule, still kept its cultural and linguistic heritage.

The expulsion of the Muslims in the 13th century, and that of the Jews in the 15th century, however, brought about the final rupture of the powerful cultural ties which had bound Malta to the North African Arabo-Berber world.

“Since then, barring latter-day English influence, the dominant cultural driving force in Malta has come from Sicily, Italy and other European, mainly Mediterranean, countries,” Dr Cassar said.

By the late middle ages, the majority of typical Maltese surnames were already well established – not only such obviously Semitic ones such as Abdilla, Agius, Asciak, Bajada, Bugeja, Buhagiar, Borg, Busuttil, Buttigieg, Caruana, Cassar, Chetcuti, Ebejer, Farrugia, Fenech, Micallef, Mifsud, Saliba, Zerafa and Zammit, but many others which are clearly of European extraction (mainly Sicilian, Italian, Spanish, and Greek) like Azzopardi, Baldacchino, Portelli, Brincat, Bonnici, Cachia, Cardona, Cilia, Dalli, Darmanin, Debono, Formosa, Gatt, Galea, Grima, Aquilina, Mallia, Pace, Falzon and Vella.

Probably, the oldest documented surnames in Malta are Grech, Calleja, Falzon, Attard, and Lentini. Grech and Calleja go back to the 13th century Angevin times.

Internationally-renowned tenor Joseph Calleja probably got his surname from a Greek derivation and not from Spain – as is most commonly believed.

“The names Martinus and Leo Calleya appear locally in 1277, before the Spanish ruled Malta, so that is why it is more plausible for Calleja to have originated in Greece,” Dr Cassar said.

Surnames are conventionally divided into four broad categories according to their original source: those derived from personal names, those from place names, those from occupational names, and those from nicknames. Behind each one there is particular significance.

The Prime Minister’s surname – Muscat – is Italian or French and dates back to the late middle ages. Its origin may refer to a grower of muscat grapes, or a producer or merchant of muscatel, a strong sweet wine made from the muscat grape grown in the Loire Valley. But it can also mean ‘fly’ from the Italian mosca or the Jewish ‘nutmeg’.

Busuttil, the surname of the Opposition leader, is probably a derivative of the medieval Maltese surname Busittin – meaning master of 60 men.

“He could have been the leader of 60 militiamen assigned to guard the local coasts against piratical attacks,” said Dr Cassar. The custom of surname-giving, even in Malta, was mainly motivated by the emergence of new administrative practices inherent in the medieval feudal system. As societies became more complex, and taxes started being collected, a more refined system of names developed to distinguish one individual from another reliably and unambiguously.

But if you have a coat of arms, beware: it does not necessarily depict the true meaning of the surname. “There is no strong heraldic tradition in Malta. It was fashionable in the 19th century to commission someone to make you one – most of them were devised in an arbitrary fashion,” Dr Cassar warned.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2019, 01:11:55 am
Muslims were expelled in the 13th century but most people have Arabic surnames.  I wonder what the deal is there.  Everyone is a converso?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 01:17:58 am
I think the name will potentially hurt him more than being gay, but that's just a guess.  I think Julian Castro has a name problem, too.

That and the fact he looks 19.

What the hell kind of name is that anyways?  Wendian?  Bessarabian?

Maltese; "alab (الآب)" meaning "father" in Arabic and "tiġieġ" meaning "poultry" in Maltese. :)


Great.  More Afro-Asiatic names.  That's what we need, more cries of "secret Muslim".
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Syt on April 25, 2019, 01:22:03 am
It's a melting pot of Arab and Italian (and to lesser extent English) cultures. You also see a lot of Italian(ish) last names. Maltese language is itself is Semitic, coming from an Arab variant in the early Middle Ages.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on April 25, 2019, 06:17:12 am
Too late?

Quote
US election 2020: Joe Biden launches presidential bid25 April 2019 
Share     
Related Topics
US election 2020

Image copyright
Reuters
Image caption
Joe Biden released a video announcement on Thursday after months of hesitation

Former US Vice-President Joe Biden has declared a presidential bid, putting an end to months of speculation.

In a video announcement, Mr Biden warned that the "core values of the nation... our very democracy, everything that has made America America, is at stake".

The 76-year-old enters a crowded race for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

He is up against 19 other hopefuls, including Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders.
....


Full item here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47601125 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47601125)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on April 25, 2019, 09:37:52 am
I think the name will potentially hurt him more than being gay, but that's just a guess.  I think Julian Castro has a name problem, too.

That and the fact he looks 19.

What the hell kind of name is that anyways?  Wendian?  Bessarabian?

Maltese; "alab (الآب)" meaning "father" in Arabic and "tiġieġ" meaning "poultry" in Maltese. :)

Poultry father?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on April 25, 2019, 12:56:14 pm
Rooster?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 25, 2019, 01:29:42 pm
I think the name will potentially hurt him more than being gay, but that's just a guess.  I think Julian Castro has a name problem, too.

That and the fact he looks 19.

What the hell kind of name is that anyways?  Wendian?  Bessarabian?

Maltese; "alab (الآب)" meaning "father" in Arabic and "tiġieġ" meaning "poultry" in Maltese. :)

Poultry father?

"Daddy Cock". Also his porn name.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on April 25, 2019, 06:22:38 pm
I think the name will potentially hurt him more than being gay, but that's just a guess.  I think Julian Castro has a name problem, too.

That and the fact he looks 19.

(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBSCPrQ.img?h=624&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1077&y=764)

 :hmm:

Yes. I see the problem. American Macron is the first impression. But maybe he'll do well on the stump.

Imagining him on a debate stage with Trump though. Should be good.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: viper37 on April 26, 2019, 05:36:38 pm
How the hard left is destroying the chances of the Democrats:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/24/the-intercept-greenwald-grim-profile-media-politics-left-liberal-226710
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on April 26, 2019, 05:46:02 pm
How the hard left is destroying the chances of the Democrats:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/24/the-intercept-greenwald-grim-profile-media-politics-left-liberal-226710

The headline is clickbait trash. The article itself is much more nuanced and interesting.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 01, 2019, 06:47:49 pm
https://youtu.be/0770rsZIaFc (https://youtu.be/0770rsZIaFc)

For those concerned with Bernie's youth and inexperience.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 02:32:17 pm
Looks like some tough times ahead for the GOP in Ohio.  "A three-judge federal panel unanimously ruled Friday that Ohio’s gerrymandered congressional district map is unconstitutional, and ordered the creation of a new map in time for the 2020 election."  "The current Ohio congressional map, created under secrecy and full Republican control in 2011, has resulted in districts making little geographic sense, stretching more than 100 miles, and predictable results with 12 reliably Republican districts created by packing Democrats into four solidly blue districts."

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/05/federal-judges-toss-out-ohios-congressional-map-as-illegal-gerrymander.html
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on May 09, 2019, 03:16:41 pm
I would guess that Maryland's GOP is probably more entrenched than in many other states (the theory that in more liberal-leaning states, the opposition party will tend to be a bit more ideological...Washington state is certainly that way), but this seems a pretty good evidence that the GOP base, not just the politicians, has pretty sold out to the Trump train.  Kinda feels like it puts the nail into the coffin of the idea that there is any kind of substantial anti-Trump movement in the GOP. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/poll-maryland-gop-voters-widely-favor-trump-over-larry-hogan-for-white-house/2019/05/08/b7e4a850-71d1-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e9ea8e645613

Quote
Poll: Maryland GOP voters widely favor Trump over Larry Hogan for White House
 
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R) visits the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on the campus of Saint Anselm College. (Katye Martens Brier/For The Washington Post)
By Erin Cox May 9 at 12:00 AM
If Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan mounted a primary challenge against President Trump, Republican voters in his home state would back the president by a more than 2-to-1 margin, a new poll has found.

Hogan (R) remains just as popular as Trump among Maryland Republicans, according to a survey released Thursday by Gonzales Research & Media Services, but that popularity does not translate to support for a primary campaign.

About 24 percent of GOP voters would support Hogan in a primary fight, while 68 percent would vote for Trump, the survey said.

“Republican primary voters in Maryland, and probably across the country, they like Donald Trump and they see no reason to replace him,” pollster Patrick Gonzales said. “Republican voters in Maryland also really like Larry Hogan, but it’s just not a compelling case for a primary challenge.”

Hogan is “strongly considering” a 2020 primary bid and sharpened his criticism of the president last month as he traveled to New Hampshire, home to the country’s first primary contest. Conservative activists have been recruiting Hogan as a potential challenger since he won re-election in Democratic-dominated Maryland in November by 12 percentage points.

The governor has said he feels no urgency to decide about the race before the fall.

When faced with previous polls showing him trailing Trump in a hypothetical matchup, Hogan has pointed out that he has a higher overall approval rating than Trump in Maryland, the only place nationwide where they’ve both been on the ballot. Hogan’s job approval rating among all Maryland voters is 76 percent, while Trump’s is 39 percent.


But with the voting bloc crucial to primary success — Maryland Republicans — Trump’s support is more robust, even without asking whether Hogan should challenge him. The governor’s job approval rating is 77 percent among GOP voters, compared with 78 percent for Trump, the poll found. Fifty-three percent of Maryland Republicans strongly approve of Hogan, compared with 64 percent who strongly approve of Trump.

Prominent Maryland Trump supporters have openly tried to discourage Hogan from challenging the president, lining up GOP endorsements for Trump’s reelection campaign.


The poll of 826 likely voters was conducted April 29 to May 4. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points for all voters and seven percentage points for Republican primary voters.


Maryland voters in general have given tepid support to Hogan’s potential presidential ambitions. A Goucher Poll in February found 55 percent of residents thought Hogan should not run for president.

The state’s Republicans have also had divided views on Hogan’s public criticism of the president. In 2016, a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll asked Marylanders whether they approved of Hogan’s decision to not vote for Trump for president. Three-quarters of Marylanders overall approved of the decision, though Republicans split more evenly, with 43 percent approving and 47 percent disapproving.

Scott Clement contributed to this report.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: derspiess on May 09, 2019, 03:41:54 pm
Trump is the incumbent.  It's always that way if the incumbent is from your party.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on May 24, 2019, 05:21:29 pm
Watching a Buttigieg town hall...he feels like the candidate for the Morty Party.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: KRonn on May 25, 2019, 09:13:02 pm
Looks like some tough times ahead for the GOP in Ohio.  "A three-judge federal panel unanimously ruled Friday that Ohio’s gerrymandered congressional district map is unconstitutional, and ordered the creation of a new map in time for the 2020 election."  "The current Ohio congressional map, created under secrecy and full Republican control in 2011, has resulted in districts making little geographic sense, stretching more than 100 miles, and predictable results with 12 reliably Republican districts created by packing Democrats into four solidly blue districts."

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/05/federal-judges-toss-out-ohios-congressional-map-as-illegal-gerrymander.html

Both parties do this. Massachusetts has some crazy Gerry mandering but it doesn't matter here because this is now such a liberal/lefty state.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on May 25, 2019, 09:37:04 pm
Even so they should redraw them. Gerrymandering is a US tradition that needs to end.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tyr on May 26, 2019, 09:58:21 am
Looks like some tough times ahead for the GOP in Ohio.  "A three-judge federal panel unanimously ruled Friday that Ohio’s gerrymandered congressional district map is unconstitutional, and ordered the creation of a new map in time for the 2020 election."  "The current Ohio congressional map, created under secrecy and full Republican control in 2011, has resulted in districts making little geographic sense, stretching more than 100 miles, and predictable results with 12 reliably Republican districts created by packing Democrats into four solidly blue districts."

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/05/federal-judges-toss-out-ohios-congressional-map-as-illegal-gerrymander.html

Both parties do this. Massachusetts has some crazy Gerry mandering but it doesn't matter here because this is now such a liberal/lefty state.

This is like Trumps good people on both sides, just look at how bad antifa are sort of thing.
Dems do it too but it has been clearly proven the republicans are much worse.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 26, 2019, 10:25:22 am
"They do it worse" isn't a good excuse. The process should be removed from the legislature's control.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on May 26, 2019, 11:07:41 am
"They do it worse" isn't a good excuse. The process should be removed from the legislature's control.

"They do it worse" is only one step above "they did it first" on the Feeble Excuse Ladder.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on May 26, 2019, 12:41:44 pm
Gerrymandering was a thing before there even was a Democratic Party and a Republican Party, when the political lineup was Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists.  To suggest that it's a Democratic thing or a Republican thing is either ignorance or tribalism.  And whoever is better at it is simply whoever currently controls the most state legislatures.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on May 26, 2019, 01:46:02 pm
So... are you suggesting that it shouldn't be combated because it is a long standing thing?  :huh:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on May 26, 2019, 01:49:08 pm
So... are you suggesting that it shouldn't be combated because it is a long standing thing?  :huh:

I am curious as to how you get that from what he said.  He pointed out that "they started it" and "they are better at it" are both inappropriate claims, which is what I am arguing as well.  Where do you think he suggests not combating it?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on May 26, 2019, 03:24:44 pm
I read dps' post as implying that it is simply a part of American politics as it predates either current party and will continue to be a part of it as it only varies in favoritism by who is in control.  Nowhere does he say it is something that should be curbed or combated.  Nowhere is it stated that anything can or will change, just that it has always existed and a slight suggestion that it always will.  Eddie offers a suggestion on what to do about it, but you and dps just comment on other people's opinions on the origins it seems.  Perhaps there is some solution posited in your comment that is hidden in invisible internet ink or something, but I'm missing it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on May 26, 2019, 05:38:12 pm
"They do it worse" isn't a good excuse. The process should be removed from the legislature's control.

"They do it worse" is only one step above "they did it first" on the Feeble Excuse Ladder.
I don't think "they did it first" is any kind of excuse, it's often a perfectly valid explanation for the only responsible action.  The point of abiding by norms is to avoid actors having to do it second because someone did it first.  However, when norms do get broken, not doing it second when someone does it first is often equivalent to unilateral disarmament.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tyr on May 26, 2019, 06:39:07 pm
I'm confused at what is going on here.
That the Republicans are more guilty of gerrymandering has nothing to do with whether it should be stopped or not. As it clearly should be. Mad America doesn't have an independent boundary commission.


Gerrymandering was a thing before there even was a Democratic Party and a Republican Party, when the political lineup was Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists.  To suggest that it's a Democratic thing or a Republican thing is either ignorance or tribalism.  And whoever is better at it is simply whoever currently controls the most state legislatures.

I've read its pretty natural that it would favour Republicans more due to segregation meaning its a lot easier to clump together pro-Democrat demographics.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on May 26, 2019, 08:58:36 pm
I don't think "they did it first" is any kind of excuse, it's often a perfectly valid explanation for the only responsible action.  The point of abiding by norms is to avoid actors having to do it second because someone did it first.  However, when norms do get broken, not doing it second when someone does it first is often equivalent to unilateral disarmament.

"They did it first" is the concession that you are no different from them, just more stupid, else you'd have beaten them to the punch.  The argument that the solution to someone breaking norms os for everyone to break norms is the argument that norms are meaningless.  If your solution to beating immorality is to become immoral, you are not fighting immorality itself, just competing to see who is more immoral.

"They did it first" is only one step above "we did it to beat them to the punch" on the Feeble Excuse Ladder.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on May 26, 2019, 09:53:11 pm
Gerrymandering was a thing before there even was a Democratic Party and a Republican Party, when the political lineup was Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists.  To suggest that it's a Democratic thing or a Republican thing is either ignorance or tribalism.  And whoever is better at it is simply whoever currently controls the most state legislatures.

Yep. It is named after one of the Founding Fathers.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on May 26, 2019, 10:12:15 pm
I don't think "they did it first" is any kind of excuse, it's often a perfectly valid explanation for the only responsible action.  The point of abiding by norms is to avoid actors having to do it second because someone did it first.  However, when norms do get broken, not doing it second when someone does it first is often equivalent to unilateral disarmament.

"They did it first" is the concession that you are no different from them, just more stupid, else you'd have beaten them to the punch.  The argument that the solution to someone breaking norms os for everyone to break norms is the argument that norms are meaningless.  If your solution to beating immorality is to become immoral, you are not fighting immorality itself, just competing to see who is more immoral.

"They did it first" is only one step above "we did it to beat them to the punch" on the Feeble Excuse Ladder.
No, norms exist because people realize that some things will have to be met with response, but once you go there, everyone is collectively worse off, so everyone is better off not going there in the first place.  That doesn't mean that you're still bound by the pact when someone else breaks it, in fact the pact cannot survive if there is no expectation of retaliation for breaking it.

Morality concepts that cannot be adhered to by people with survival instinct are useless as a guide for behavior.  They're only useful as an aid for intellectual masturbation.  There is a good reason why in criminal law some actions are illegal as a first move, but are legal in self-defense.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on May 26, 2019, 11:36:53 pm
I think "They did it first" is a perfectly good reason for engaging in a particular form of behavior.  When one party breaks a contract or agreement the 2nd party shouldn't still be bound by the same contract. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 27, 2019, 12:20:08 am
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on May 27, 2019, 01:20:04 am
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
You seem to think that the purpose of morality is to create chumps or martyrs.  You have a moral high ground when you merely don't throw the first punch.  Once someone throws the first punch at you, though, you have a responsibility to yourself and your dependents to not keep getting pummeled again and again, and any moral code that objects to counter-punching is just impractical nonsense.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on May 27, 2019, 01:26:16 am
 :yes: This is also why the Dems shouldn't get squeamish about packing the Supreme Court when they have the Presidency and Senate again.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 27, 2019, 01:55:57 am
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
You seem to think that the purpose of morality is to create chumps or martyrs.  You have a moral high ground when you merely don't throw the first punch.  Once someone throws the first punch at you, though, you have a responsibility to yourself and your dependents to not keep getting pummeled again and again, and any moral code that objects to counter-punching is just impractical nonsense.

You're seeing the social contract as being between two parties, Republicans and Democrats or left and right. If instead you look at it being between hundreds of millions of people, one man's retaliation is another's original justification. Feeding the cycle helps no one.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on May 27, 2019, 02:10:27 am
What others have done seems very similar to a sunk cost to me and is no basis for decisions on future actions.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tyr on May 27, 2019, 02:41:12 am
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
You seem to think that the purpose of morality is to create chumps or martyrs.  You have a moral high ground when you merely don't throw the first punch.  Once someone throws the first punch at you, though, you have a responsibility to yourself and your dependents to not keep getting pummeled again and again, and any moral code that objects to counter-punching is just impractical nonsense.

You're seeing the social contract as being between two parties, Republicans and Democrats or left and right. If instead you look at it being between hundreds of millions of people, one man's retaliation is another's original justification. Feeding the cycle helps no one.

If they're smart the Dems can do both.
They can pack the supreme court and work to stop gerrymandering being possible whilst continuing to do it whilst it still is.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2019, 08:16:34 pm
First Democratic primary debate is right around the corner.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2019, 10:46:47 pm
"They do it worse" isn't a good excuse. The process should be removed from the legislature's control.

"They do it worse" is only one step above "they did it first" on the Feeble Excuse Ladder.
I don't think "they did it first" is any kind of excuse, it's often a perfectly valid explanation for the only responsible action.  The point of abiding by norms is to avoid actors having to do it second because someone did it first.  However, when norms do get broken, not doing it second when someone does it first is often equivalent to unilateral disarmament.

Isn't that how most international treaties work? If you find out that the other guy is flagrantly breaking the treaty, you're no longer bound by it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2019, 11:04:40 pm
This issue comes up all the time in commercial contracts.  One side breaches a contract, can the other side abandon performance?  The answer is not always straightforward.  People like me make a living over this stuff.  And that's just the legalities. Try bringing in moral considerations, it doesn't simplify matters.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on June 26, 2019, 11:08:01 pm
"They do it worse" isn't a good excuse. The process should be removed from the legislature's control.

"They do it worse" is only one step above "they did it first" on the Feeble Excuse Ladder.
I don't think "they did it first" is any kind of excuse, it's often a perfectly valid explanation for the only responsible action.  The point of abiding by norms is to avoid actors having to do it second because someone did it first.  However, when norms do get broken, not doing it second when someone does it first is often equivalent to unilateral disarmament.

Isn't that how most international treaties work? If you find out that the other guy is flagrantly breaking the treaty, you're no longer bound by it.
That’s how any system works if there is no arbiter with real power and legitimacy to identify and punish violations.  You can argue that in domestic politics, the voters are such arbiters, but all evidence points to the fact that they abdicated that responsibility in favor of partisanship.

In any case, the “two wrongs don’t make a right” philosophy does not even make logical sense in a kindergarten setting.  It’s probably taught because children can’t be relied on to understand complexities of game theory, or maybe because teachers don’t give a flying fuck about disputes children have with each other and just want to apply a simple criteria for deciding who should be punished.  It’s definitely not something that makes sense for adult politics.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on June 26, 2019, 11:10:31 pm
This issue comes up all the time in commercial contracts.  One side breaches a contract, can the other side abandon performance?  The answer is not always straightforward.  People like me make a living over this stuff.  And that's just the legalities. Try bringing in moral considerations, it doesn't simplify matters.
In commercial contracts, you do have courts, and people with guns who make sure the courts are listened to.  When you have such an arbiter, it may not be necessary for the counterparty to retaliate, as that function is delegated to a higher authority.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 26, 2019, 11:18:16 pm
Again, there are not two actors, Left and Right. There are billions of individual humans. If one bad actor frees all others from moral obligations, there would be chaos.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: PDH on June 27, 2019, 12:09:23 am
Chaos is kept at bay by the people believing that there is something moral and right that guides one's actions.  An actor, with authority, who defies this threatens to overturn those beliefs.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: PRC on June 27, 2019, 12:52:11 am
Chaos is kept at bay by the people believing that there is something moral and right that guides one's actions.  An actor, with authority, who defies this threatens to overturn those beliefs.

POTM.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on June 27, 2019, 08:38:54 am
This issue comes up all the time in commercial contracts.  One side breaches a contract, can the other side abandon performance?  The answer is not always straightforward.  People like me make a living over this stuff.  And that's just the legalities. Try bringing in moral considerations, it doesn't simplify matters.


It's straightforward in international law.
"1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part."
- Art. 60(1) VCLT
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 09:33:02 am
This issue comes up all the time in commercial contracts.  One side breaches a contract, can the other side abandon performance?  The answer is not always straightforward.  People like me make a living over this stuff.  And that's just the legalities. Try bringing in moral considerations, it doesn't simplify matters.


It's straightforward in international law.
"1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part."
- Art. 60(1) VCLT

Sure but in the commercial context the act of accepting the repudiation has a great deal of risk because if the repudiation cannot be established then the party who accepted it is in breach

Can be  a very high stakes game
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2019, 11:59:08 am
It's straightforward in international law.
"1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part."
- Art. 60(1) VCLT

That's as straightforward as mud.  At least in commercial law there is a rich body of precedent and decisional law to provide some guidance interpreting the ambiguities inherent in this clause.

For a starting point in understanding the problems here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c509/e16558d3e6f8b2434b99e7cfb5551495bc6d.pdf
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on June 27, 2019, 12:06:50 pm
The best thing about all these Supreme Court rulings are the people on Twitter who think @SCOTUSBlog is the Court's actual Twitter handle so they yell obscenities and threaten with violence some random dude who is just reporting what the Court ruled.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 12:21:58 pm
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
You seem to think that the purpose of morality is to create chumps or martyrs.  You have a moral high ground when you merely don't throw the first punch.  Once someone throws the first punch at you, though, you have a responsibility to yourself and your dependents to not keep getting pummeled again and again, and any moral code that objects to counter-punching is just impractical nonsense.

The question is of what is moral is largely moot now.  The USSC has given its blessing to Gerrymander away.

From the NYTimes.

Quote
The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage



The last nail in the coffin of a once great democracy?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on June 27, 2019, 04:19:06 pm
Again, there are not two actors, Left and Right. There are billions of individual humans. If one bad actor frees all others from moral obligations, there would be chaos.

And those people are represented by organizations that act for them with their consent.  Ignoring that is both stupid and dangerous.  It is perfectly reasonable to take into account of the actions of members of one group when dealing with different members of the same group.  If members of an army come to my house and try to kill me I'm not going to give the benefit of doubt to other members of the same army simply because they are separate individuals.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Tonitrus on June 27, 2019, 04:39:33 pm
The last nail in the coffin of a once great democracy?

A bit overdramatic I think.  We've gotten on pretty well these last couple hundred years without any federal controls on gerrymandering, and during most of that time, permitting far greater "crimes" against democracy (e.g., slavery, pre-woman's suffrage,  Tammany Hall-type local political corruption).  I'd say we're still way ahead on the balance sheet now in comparison to most of our history, democracy-wise.

Unless you mean we reached peaked "greatness" inside the last 40-50 years.  Though we had gerrymandering all of that time.  And some states, hopefully more to come, are coming up with solutions to the problem themselves. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 04:43:54 pm
The last nail in the coffin of a once great democracy?

A bit overdramatic I think.  We've gotten on pretty well these last couple hundred years without any federal controls on gerrymandering, and during most of that time, permitting far greater "crimes" against democracy (e.g., slavery, pre-woman's suffrage,  Tammany Hall-type local political corruption).  I'd say we're still way ahead on the balance sheet now in comparison to most of our history, democracy-wise.

Unless you mean we reached peaked "greatness" inside the last 40-50 years.  Though we had gerrymandering all of that time.  And some states, hopefully more to come, are coming up with solutions to the problem themselves.

You have a country where the number of seats won has no relationship to the popular vote, all because of gerrymandering.  If you want to sink to the level of that not being as bad as slavery you might want to reflect on the weakness of your argument.

fyi in other jurisdictions gerrymandering is illegal because it distorts the democratic process.

But I admit, there was hyperbole in calling the American system great at any time.  It has always had significant problems.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on June 27, 2019, 04:45:53 pm
Don't waste time engaging, Toni.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 27, 2019, 05:04:35 pm
Again, there are not two actors, Left and Right. There are billions of individual humans. If one bad actor frees all others from moral obligations, there would be chaos.

And those people are represented by organizations that act for them with their consent.  Ignoring that is both stupid and dangerous.  It is perfectly reasonable to take into account of the actions of members of one group when dealing with different members of the same group.  If members of an army come to my house and try to kill me I'm not going to give the benefit of doubt to other members of the same army simply because they are separate individuals.

Problem is you don't see that as merely an analogy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2019, 05:07:03 pm
I think Eddie and Raz are both making good points and that the moral tension is essentially unsolvable.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 05:31:41 pm
Don't waste time engaging, Toni.

Much better to ignore the dumpster fire your democracy is becoming.  :yes:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on June 27, 2019, 05:34:51 pm
Again, there are not two actors, Left and Right. There are billions of individual humans. If one bad actor frees all others from moral obligations, there would be chaos.

And those people are represented by organizations that act for them with their consent.  Ignoring that is both stupid and dangerous.  It is perfectly reasonable to take into account of the actions of members of one group when dealing with different members of the same group.  If members of an army come to my house and try to kill me I'm not going to give the benefit of doubt to other members of the same army simply because they are separate individuals.

Problem is you don't see that as merely an analogy.


And?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on June 27, 2019, 08:02:28 pm
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
You seem to think that the purpose of morality is to create chumps or martyrs.  You have a moral high ground when you merely don't throw the first punch.  Once someone throws the first punch at you, though, you have a responsibility to yourself and your dependents to not keep getting pummeled again and again, and any moral code that objects to counter-punching is just impractical nonsense.

The question is of what is moral is largely moot now.  The USSC has given its blessing to Gerrymander away.

From the NYTimes.

Quote
The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage



The last nail in the coffin of a once great democracy?


This is entirely in accord with precedent.  The courts have, to my knowledge, never ruled against gerrymandering when done purely on the basis of partisanship.  They have ruled against it when done on the basis of race.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2019, 08:23:25 pm
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
You seem to think that the purpose of morality is to create chumps or martyrs.  You have a moral high ground when you merely don't throw the first punch.  Once someone throws the first punch at you, though, you have a responsibility to yourself and your dependents to not keep getting pummeled again and again, and any moral code that objects to counter-punching is just impractical nonsense.

The question is of what is moral is largely moot now.  The USSC has given its blessing to Gerrymander away.

From the NYTimes.

Quote
The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage



The last nail in the coffin of a once great democracy?


This is entirely in accord with precedent.  The courts have, to my knowledge, never ruled against gerrymandering when done purely on the basis of partisanship.  They have ruled against it when done on the basis of race.
That may be true, however whether a ruling is done in accord with precedent has nothing to do with whether said ruling advances good public policy or is any way moral.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on June 27, 2019, 08:35:00 pm
That may be true, however whether a ruling is done in accord with precedent has nothing to do with whether said ruling advances good public policy or is any way moral.

The courts are not responsible for advancing good public policy, nor should judges apply their own personal morality to the law.  There is a separation of powers for a very good reason.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2019, 09:16:08 pm
The Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering cases WERE justiciable in 1986 (Davis v. Bandemer).  So to the extent there was precedent, it was that the Court could consider such claims.  An attempt to get the Court to rule all such cases as nonjusticiable failed again in 2004 (Vieth) when Justice Kennedy refused to rule that such cases were inherently nonjusticiable.

What changed in Justice Kennedy is no longer there and somewhat more conservative justice is in his place.  So the law changes from "justiciable" in 1986 to "could be justiciable in an exceptional case" in 2004 to "non-justiciable" now.

Justice Kagan's dissent is worth considering.  It is extremely unusual for the Court to identify a violation of right but then say they are unable to fashion any remedy.  It is arguably a repudiation of judicial responsibility.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2019, 09:29:11 pm
Roberts' worldview is the Court must be seen as completely above politics. Hence his reticence to have the Court sully its hand reviewing the muck of the state redistricting process even as he concedes the outrages being done to the democratic process. The problem is that Roberts' aspiration however noble in the abstract is futile - the court is a political branch and can't escape politics. Nor should it when fundamental rights are at stake.  The Court jumped foursquare into the political arena when it took up the claims of civil rights plaintiffs in the 50s and 60s - and it was right to do so.  The same in taking on the state level abuses of criminal suspects. I respect Roberts but if he was chief with this group back in 54 would we have Brown v. Board?  I think not, I think Linda Brown would have been sent back to her segregated school.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 27, 2019, 10:15:27 pm
SO after the first set of debates, I have some opinions about who did well, but I think it isn't that important right now.


What is important NOW is who did not do well, and who should be the first to drop out.


In no particular order:


Whoever the hell that author chick was.
Hickenlooper
Bennet
O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Delaney
Yang
de Blasio











Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on June 27, 2019, 10:47:12 pm
Don't waste time engaging, Toni.

Much better to ignore the dumpster fire your democracy is becoming.  :yes:

Gerrymandering is named for a signer of the Declaration of Independence. So I would say it remains a dumpster fire.

Anyway the Supreme Court doesn't say we cannot create laws that eliminate Gerrymandering, ergo it is hardly a nail in a coffin.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on June 27, 2019, 10:51:05 pm
SO after the first set of debates, I have some opinions about who did well, but I think it isn't that important right now.


What is important NOW is who did not do well, and who should be the first to drop out.


In no particular order:


Whoever the hell that author chick was.
Hickenlooper
Bennet
O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Delaney
Yang
de Blasio

Marianne Williamson is the author.

And you probably could have typed that list before the debate....but yeah.

We need O'Rourke in Texas, I think this was a bad move that damages his brand. I had hopes this might help his career and maybe get some discussion as a VP candidate but that debate was a nasty dose of reality for me. He blundered, he should be running against Cornyn in the Senate and not this.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 27, 2019, 10:58:37 pm
Yang

I think UBI is a great idea, but agree it's time to get back to professionals running the government. /shrug
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on June 27, 2019, 11:03:23 pm
Biden came off terribly in my opinion.  Angry combative old white guy desperately clinging to past glories and and outmoded thinking is not a good look as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 27, 2019, 11:13:44 pm
I didn't watch the debates. Outmoded how?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on June 27, 2019, 11:47:53 pm
I didn't watch the debates either.  What did Yang do that was bad?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on June 28, 2019, 12:53:01 am
I didn't watch the debates. Outmoded how?

He wasn't partisan enough in the 1970's.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Benedict Arnold on June 28, 2019, 03:20:20 am
I didn't watch the debates either.  What did Yang do that was bad?
My biggest issue with him was that he was too quiet.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Saladin on June 28, 2019, 06:48:08 am
When will Sanders drop out? Because my reasoning is that he's in it to promote issues and not to become president.

And when he drops put,  who'll he support if Warren isn't in the race anymore? Harris?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2019, 07:13:21 am
I didn't watch the debates either.  What did Yang do that was bad?

Nothing. He just kind of stood there and talked about giving everyone $1000 a month.

He is a 1 issue candidate though. It is an interesting issue, to be sure, but not something to hang a presidency on, IMO.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2019, 07:13:38 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Brain on June 28, 2019, 07:31:39 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

:zipped:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on June 28, 2019, 07:49:14 am
I missed the second debate and only caught the highlights.  Did Marianne Williamson actually say that she was going to "Harness love for political purposes"?  That wasn't just an internet deepfake Russian satanic pizza conspiracy hoax; that really happened?  If so, best of luck, Sailor Moon.   :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on June 28, 2019, 07:52:09 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

:zipped:

 :lol:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 08:05:09 am
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
You seem to think that the purpose of morality is to create chumps or martyrs.  You have a moral high ground when you merely don't throw the first punch.  Once someone throws the first punch at you, though, you have a responsibility to yourself and your dependents to not keep getting pummeled again and again, and any moral code that objects to counter-punching is just impractical nonsense.

The question is of what is moral is largely moot now.  The USSC has given its blessing to Gerrymander away.

From the NYTimes.

Quote
The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage



The last nail in the coffin of a once great democracy?


This is entirely in accord with precedent.  The courts have, to my knowledge, never ruled against gerrymandering when done purely on the basis of partisanship.  They have ruled against it when done on the basis of race.

Actually no.  This is the first time a green light has been given to the practice.  Now it will occur without constraint.  Whoever draws the boundaries in any given state will win.  The real elections will occur in the primaries of the winning party and as a result moderates have no chance of becoming elected.  Your politics will become more divided and extreme.  Long term prospects are not good.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 08:06:56 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

He had no come back to Harris except to say but but states rights-everyone knows states can treat blacks poorly.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 08:12:13 am
When will Sanders drop out? Because my reasoning is that he's in it to promote issues and not to become president.

And when he drops put,  who'll he support if Warren isn't in the race anymore? Harris?

Not sure why Warren would drop out.  She looks in a good position to be the main competition against Biden. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2019, 10:10:05 am
I missed the second debate and only caught the highlights.  Did Marianne Williamson actually say that she was going to "Harness love for political purposes"?  That wasn't just an internet deepfake Russian satanic pizza conspiracy hoax; that really happened?  If so, best of luck, Sailor Moon.   :)

Some talking head said no one embarrassed themselves at the debate, she must have not been watching every time Williamson opened her mouth.  I felt embarrassed for watching it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Duque de Bragança on June 28, 2019, 10:12:18 am
I missed the second debate and only caught the highlights.  Did Marianne Williamson actually say that she was going to "Harness love for political purposes"?  That wasn't just an internet deepfake Russian satanic pizza conspiracy hoax; that really happened?  If so, best of luck, Sailor Moon.   :)

If Sailor Moon is involved, Sailor Jupiter (Macron is Jupiterian after all) will help her. :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on June 28, 2019, 11:28:35 am
You can play to win, or take the moral high ground. You can't do both.
You seem to think that the purpose of morality is to create chumps or martyrs.  You have a moral high ground when you merely don't throw the first punch.  Once someone throws the first punch at you, though, you have a responsibility to yourself and your dependents to not keep getting pummeled again and again, and any moral code that objects to counter-punching is just impractical nonsense.

The question is of what is moral is largely moot now.  The USSC has given its blessing to Gerrymander away.

From the NYTimes.

Quote
The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage



The last nail in the coffin of a once great democracy?


This is entirely in accord with precedent.  The courts have, to my knowledge, never ruled against gerrymandering when done purely on the basis of partisanship.  They have ruled against it when done on the basis of race.

Actually no.  This is the first time a green light has been given to the practice.  Now it will occur without constraint.  Whoever draws the boundaries in any given state will win.  The real elections will occur in the primaries of the winning party and as a result moderates have no chance of becoming elected.  Your politics will become more divided and extreme.  Long term prospects are not good.



Oh, yes, I see now.  You're quite right, because gerrymandering was never common in the past.  In fact, it was invented by North Carolina Republicans about 12 years ago.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Savonarola on June 28, 2019, 12:13:38 pm
I missed the second debate and only caught the highlights.  Did Marianne Williamson actually say that she was going to "Harness love for political purposes"?  That wasn't just an internet deepfake Russian satanic pizza conspiracy hoax; that really happened?  If so, best of luck, Sailor Moon.   :)

If Sailor Moon is involved, Sailor Jupiter (Macron is Jupiterian after all) will help her. :)

A dynamic duo if there ever was one.  The Prime Minister of New Zealand won't be sleeping well any time soon.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 02:09:20 pm
Oh, yes, I see now.  You're quite right, because gerrymandering was never common in the past.

It is not a question of being a common practice.  The change is that there was always the threat of judicial review.  That threat has now been removed.  It is now open season.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2019, 03:24:11 pm
You think they were restrained before?  :huh:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 28, 2019, 03:34:16 pm
Gerrymandering has always been around of course.

Sometimes better, sometimes worse. But there has always been a sense that it is pretty slimy, and if you get too carried away, there would be a political cost.

But the particulars of what is happening now are important.

The Republicans, for some time, have realized that demogrpahics and time are against them. They only seem to get consistent votes out of white men, and even there, it has become clear that it is older and older and older white men.

Recognizing this, they have in the last couple of decades, orchestrated a pretty comprehensive attack on basic voting structures. The means they have used were not invented by them (well, not entirely anyway - resurrecting Jim Crow style laws were certainly their intellectual ancestors idea), but the extent has been over a different order of magnitude. And this should come as no surprise - if you are thinking that you will continue to be part of a democratic process, you don't want to get too extreme, because you know your opponents will just do the same when the tables turn.

But the Republicans have decided that they are throwing the tables over, and giving up on the entire "convince a majority of the people" approach and going with "keep a minority under fear, and game the system so we can ignore the will of the majority altogether". So they don't care about the threat of Dems using gerrymandering against them - they know that if there are fair elections, the Dems won't need to gerrymander to win anyway. So they are playing for keeps. Get power, gerrymander the system so they can stay in power...and their pet Supreme Court just decreed that the only people allowed to fix this recognized problem are the people who just put them in power and consciously created the extent of the problem in the first place.

There are a majority of states right now with Republican dominated state level legislatures and governors. They can, and will, create districts so that not only will they not be able to be voted out at the state level, but they can then district the federal congressional districts to keep them in power in the Senate despite being consistently out voted at the polls, in perpetuity.

The fact that at some point in the past, Dems did this as well, is completely uninteresting to why this is such a disaster for actual democracy RIGHT NOW.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Habbaku on June 28, 2019, 03:43:16 pm
Berkut, did you know that Republicans ended slavery while Democrats were for it? True story.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: alfred russel on June 28, 2019, 03:46:17 pm
The change is that there was always the threat of judicial review. 

Are you sure? In the early days of the republic even the principal of federal judicial review was not firmly established, and I think it is significantly more difficult to make a case for gerrymandering being subject to federal judicial review without the reconstruction amendments.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Caliga on June 28, 2019, 04:13:13 pm
Biden came off terribly in my opinion.  Angry combative old white guy desperately clinging to past glories and and outmoded thinking is not a good look as far as I'm concerned.
We seem to like electing those guys to the Presidency lately, though. :blush:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on June 28, 2019, 05:02:42 pm
I sure hope that if Democrats ever have a 2009 situation again, they're going to think more than one month ahead next time, and use up their temporary political capital to pass a voter rights law guaranteeing some minimum standards of democracy in every state.  Then, right after that, I hope they pack the Supreme Court, because if you're going to have an illegitimate Supreme Court, you may as well have one that is not going to be the last line of defense against democracy. 

Once you lay the groundwork for democracy, the actual policies that Democrats hold dear would be easier to pass now or later, because the policies that Democrats hold dear are usually the policies that majority of population holds dear anyway.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on June 28, 2019, 05:40:44 pm
the policies that Democrats hold dear are usually the policies that majority of population holds dear anyway.

God I hope not.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on June 28, 2019, 05:44:12 pm
the policies that Democrats hold dear are usually the policies that majority of population holds dear anyway.

God I hope not.

:console:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on June 28, 2019, 06:29:49 pm
the policies that Democrats hold dear are usually the policies that majority of population holds dear anyway.

God I hope not.

There are so few things that Democrats as a group "hold dear" that they are merely truisms.  It's okay.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on June 28, 2019, 06:45:46 pm
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on June 28, 2019, 10:35:00 pm
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Yeah I get why he was pissed. He just handled it badly. Trump will piss him off as well and I don't want him losing his cool like that as our party's nominee, it might lose us this election.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2019, 10:43:13 pm
Trump ain't exactly a little Fonzie himself.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on June 28, 2019, 11:46:16 pm
the policies that Democrats hold dear are usually the policies that majority of population holds dear anyway.

God I hope not.

There are so few things that Democrats as a group "hold dear" that they are merely truisms.  It's okay.

It's quite possible that you, DGuller, and I all have different perceptions of what Democrats hold dear.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on June 29, 2019, 01:40:57 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2019, 04:27:06 am
Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Who introduced the subject?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: DGuller on June 29, 2019, 08:47:19 am
It's quite possible that you, DGuller, and I all have different perceptions of what Democrats hold dear.
It's very possible, especially given that one of the two perceptions contrasted would be a caricature.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2019, 09:48:42 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Yeah I get why he was pissed. He just handled it badly. Trump will piss him off as well and I don't want him losing his cool like that as our party's nominee, it might lose us this election.

He was yelling before Harris ambushed him.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2019, 10:01:15 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on June 29, 2019, 11:27:21 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

His response showed it was more than a  "shot" he justified his actions on the basis that the decision should be left to the states.  He had no answer for what that should be other than that is the way it was. 

If discussing whether the federal government should get involved in important social policy issues is identity politics then you have widened it to mean that it covers all issues that do not involve old white men.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: mongers on June 29, 2019, 11:32:59 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

That's how it was played here.

In fact there was no background coverage of what he'd said or the issue at the time.  If you didn't know his politics or career, you could easily assume he said something racist or was an old white racist guy.  <_<
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on June 29, 2019, 11:42:26 am
It's quite possible that you, DGuller, and I all have different perceptions of what Democrats hold dear.
It's very possible, especially given that one of the two perceptions contrasted would be a caricature.

Uhm, three, not two.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2019, 11:51:44 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

His response showed it was more than a  "shot" he justified his actions on the basis that the decision should be left to the states.  He had no answer for what that should be other than that is the way it was. 

If discussing whether the federal government should get involved in important social policy issues is identity politics then you have widened it to mean that it covers all issues that do not involve old white men.

THis was not a discussion about the nuance of when the federal government should get involved in social policy, and was not even remotely framed as such. She attacked him because he said something nice about some other people who opposed busing.

And yes, if that a black person demanding to be heard because she is "the only black person on the stage" and then using that platform to accuse a white guy of being racist on the basis of a incredibly narrow view of his career (a career which anyone objectively looking at would conclude is overall incredibly pro-black rights) is NOT identity politics, then there is no such thing. She didn't say "Hey, lets talk about the circumstances under which states should be compelled to comply with a broader federal mandate!". Of course she didn't, because that would be something Biden could have had a reasonable view on and a reasonable discussion. Instead she played the race card, and played it very, very well.

It was the very stereotype of identity politics, and it works so wonderfully well because there is always someone ready to come to its defense on some fig leaf grounds that it is really about "federal involvement in social issues".
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2019, 11:53:04 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

That's how it was played here.

In fact there was no background coverage of what he'd said or the issue at the time.  If you didn't know his politics or career, you could easily assume he said something racist or was an old white racist guy.  <_<

Of course. There is no defense he could muster, other than the lame one he did, appealing to the body of his work and career. That doesn't matter in the modern left. If you ever say or do anything that can be cast as racist regardless of your actual views... tough shit - you are a racist.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 29, 2019, 12:01:41 pm
ITT: old white men denigrating being an old white man
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on June 29, 2019, 12:11:07 pm
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

That's how it was played here.

In fact there was no background coverage of what he'd said or the issue at the time.  If you didn't know his politics or career, you could easily assume he said something racist or was an old white racist guy.  <_<

Of course. There is no defense he could muster, other than the lame one he did, appealing to the body of his work and career. That doesn't matter in the modern left. If you ever say or do anything that can be cast as racist regardless of your actual views... tough shit - you are a racist.

I don't think she thinks he is racist and like myself is happy for what he contributed. He's out of touch with the current thinking though.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2019, 12:15:39 pm
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

That's how it was played here.

In fact there was no background coverage of what he'd said or the issue at the time.  If you didn't know his politics or career, you could easily assume he said something racist or was an old white racist guy.  <_<

Of course. There is no defense he could muster, other than the lame one he did, appealing to the body of his work and career. That doesn't matter in the modern left. If you ever say or do anything that can be cast as racist regardless of your actual views... tough shit - you are a racist.

I don't think she thinks he is racist and like myself is happy for what he contributed. He's out of touch with the current thinking though.
If she honestly feels that way, then her cynical takedown of him on racial grounds is even worse.

I mean, hell, it is just politics after all. And lord knows it worked. She is the new darling of the left after beating up that old white guy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 29, 2019, 03:19:50 pm
It's possible that she was really personally offended by Biden's bizarre comments about the virtues of building bridges with racist monsters and it's possible she sincerely believes that holding up cultivating relationships with such people as a model for political engagement is a concept that needs to be addressed and forcefully rejected.  Yes she used her own personal narrative in doing it but all politicians do that, Biden is the one of the worst offenders in that respect. 

I get the point that Biden thought he was trying to make (extremely awkwardly) but it is a contestable point and Harris or anyone else is entitled to address it in a political debate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on June 29, 2019, 03:22:35 pm
It's possible that she was really personally offended by Biden's bizarre comments about the virtues of building bridges with racist monsters and it's possible she sincerely believes that holding up cultivating relationships with such people as a model for political engagement is a concept that needs to be addressed and forcefully rejected.  Yes she used her own personal narrative in doing it but all politicians do that, Biden is the one of the worst offenders in that respect. 

I get the point that Biden thought he was trying to make (extremely awkwardly) but it is a contestable point and Harris or anyone else is entitled to address it in a political debate.

Yeah, agreed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on June 29, 2019, 03:46:50 pm
It's possible that she was really personally offended by Biden's bizarre comments about the virtues of building bridges with racist monsters and it's possible she sincerely believes that holding up cultivating relationships with such people as a model for political engagement is a concept that needs to be addressed and forcefully rejected.  Yes she used her own personal narrative in doing it but all politicians do that, Biden is the one of the worst offenders in that respect. 

I get the point that Biden thought he was trying to make (extremely awkwardly) but it is a contestable point and Harris or anyone else is entitled to address it in a political debate.


Thats a nice fig leaf you have there.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2019, 03:52:09 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUutymbDLI0

The exchange under debate, for the feringhee.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on June 29, 2019, 04:13:55 pm

I get the point that Biden thought he was trying to make (extremely awkwardly)

When it comes to putting things awkwardly, Biden was always sort of the poster boy, at least among Democratic politicians, and that's quite possibly a major reason why he didn't become President years ago.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: grumbler on June 29, 2019, 08:09:32 pm
It's quite possible that you, DGuller, and I all have different perceptions of what Democrats hold dear.
It's very possible, especially given that one of the two perceptions contrasted would be a caricature.

I don't agree with you that your position is a caricature, it's just extremist.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2019, 03:48:14 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=197Qj3UU0dw

Marianne Williamson debate highlights.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on June 30, 2019, 03:50:49 am
It's possible that she was really personally offended by Biden's bizarre comments about the virtues of building bridges with racist monsters and it's possible she sincerely believes that holding up cultivating relationships with such people as a model for political engagement is a concept that needs to be addressed and forcefully rejected.  Yes she used her own personal narrative in doing it but all politicians do that, Biden is the one of the worst offenders in that respect. 

I get the point that Biden thought he was trying to make (extremely awkwardly) but it is a contestable point and Harris or anyone else is entitled to address it in a political debate.


Thats a nice fig leaf you have there.

He could have deflated her sails had he said you know you are right, I could have made my point better about the segregationists and perhaps my stance on bussing was ultimately flawed. Instead he showed himself to be intransigent.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on June 30, 2019, 08:17:49 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=197Qj3UU0dw

Marianne Williamson debate highlights.

 :)

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on June 30, 2019, 08:18:05 am
Marianne Williamson is an emanation of the Goddess.  :goodboy:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on June 30, 2019, 08:19:59 am
Marianne Williamson is an emanation of the Goddess.  :goodboy:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-RFBPGWwAAuBK9.png)

Yes. Although America is not yet ready.  :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 30, 2019, 09:45:48 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=197Qj3UU0dw

Marianne Williamson debate highlights.

I liked her. Don't want her running the country, mind.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on June 30, 2019, 10:34:48 am
I was actually a fan of her work  :blush:

But we already have had enough amateur hour. I want experienced hands in the White House.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on June 30, 2019, 11:04:38 am
She actually reminds me a lot of my mom, so I can't hate on her too much.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on June 30, 2019, 02:28:57 pm

I don't think she thinks he is racist and like myself is happy for what he contributed. He's out of touch with the current thinking though.


Who's current thinking?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2019, 04:34:41 pm
Having seen the clips again, I still think it's a clean hit by Harris.  It's not just guilt by association, the focus is on Biden's legislative record on a matter of policy.  And while busing is no longer at the forefront of the policy debate, civil rights policy more generally (VRA, Housing) is a significant issue.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Legbiter on July 01, 2019, 04:35:36 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=197Qj3UU0dw

Marianne Williamson debate highlights.

I liked her. Don't want her running the country, mind.

Looked her up a bit. She founded a charity way back, Angel Food that every week delivers 12,000 free of charge meals to people with life-threatening illnesses. She has more skin in the game than most of the other Dem candidates.

Sure, if it comes out she's the leader of some wacky sex cult I wouldn't be particularly surprised but still, well done.  :thumbsup:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-axhlbUIAA361d.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 01, 2019, 05:37:05 pm
It's possible that she was really personally offended by Biden's bizarre comments about the virtues of building bridges with racist monsters and it's possible she sincerely believes that holding up cultivating relationships with such people as a model for political engagement is a concept that needs to be addressed and forcefully rejected.  Yes she used her own personal narrative in doing it but all politicians do that, Biden is the one of the worst offenders in that respect. 

I get the point that Biden thought he was trying to make (extremely awkwardly) but it is a contestable point and Harris or anyone else is entitled to address it in a political debate.


Thats a nice fig leaf you have there.

He could have deflated her sails had he said you know you are right, I could have made my point better about the segregationists and perhaps my stance on bussing was ultimately flawed. Instead he showed himself to be intransigent.

His ability to respond or not isn't the point. Nothing he was going to say would matter. Old white guy has no defense against a black person calling them racist. Even if they pretend to not call him racist. That is how identity politics works.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 01, 2019, 05:39:50 pm
Having seen the clips again, I still think it's a clean hit by Harris.  It's not just guilt by association, the focus is on Biden's legislative record on a matter of policy.  And while busing is no longer at the forefront of the policy debate, civil rights policy more generally (VRA, Housing) is a significant issue.

Except she wasn't talking about civil rights policy more generally, she made a personal attack on him on the basis of his race, and his actions on one particular case that she knew he could not possibly defend himself on.

I guess you can call it a "clean" hit, but hit piece it certainly was - it doesn't reasonably attack him on any stance that he holds now, and his historical record on race is pretty damn near spotless when considered overall. Which is how identity politics works - it doesn't actually matter what your position is, it only matters what group you are in.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on July 01, 2019, 10:34:08 pm
It's possible that she was really personally offended by Biden's bizarre comments about the virtues of building bridges with racist monsters and it's possible she sincerely believes that holding up cultivating relationships with such people as a model for political engagement is a concept that needs to be addressed and forcefully rejected.  Yes she used her own personal narrative in doing it but all politicians do that, Biden is the one of the worst offenders in that respect. 

I get the point that Biden thought he was trying to make (extremely awkwardly) but it is a contestable point and Harris or anyone else is entitled to address it in a political debate.


Thats a nice fig leaf you have there.

He could have deflated her sails had he said you know you are right, I could have made my point better about the segregationists and perhaps my stance on bussing was ultimately flawed. Instead he showed himself to be intransigent.

His ability to respond or not isn't the point. Nothing he was going to say would matter. Old white guy has no defense against a black person calling them racist. Even if they pretend to not call him racist. That is how identity politics works.

Garbon suggested what he could have said which would have made a difference. Nobody is pretending about anything.  He has made some bad policy choices.  He needs to explain why people should trust he will not make them again.   For people with political baggage that is politics 101 stuff. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on July 01, 2019, 10:35:02 pm
Having seen the clips again, I still think it's a clean hit by Harris.  It's not just guilt by association, the focus is on Biden's legislative record on a matter of policy.  And while busing is no longer at the forefront of the policy debate, civil rights policy more generally (VRA, Housing) is a significant issue.

Except she wasn't talking about civil rights policy more generally, she made a personal attack on him on the basis of his race, and his actions on one particular case that she knew he could not possibly defend himself on.

I guess you can call it a "clean" hit, but hit piece it certainly was - it doesn't reasonably attack him on any stance that he holds now, and his historical record on race is pretty damn near spotless when considered overall. Which is how identity politics works - it doesn't actually matter what your position is, it only matters what group you are in.

Now I am not sure we saw the same debate.  She made an attack on his policies.  He defended his policy decision and the defense was pathetic.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 01, 2019, 11:13:03 pm
Having seen the clips again, I still think it's a clean hit by Harris.  It's not just guilt by association, the focus is on Biden's legislative record on a matter of policy.  And while busing is no longer at the forefront of the policy debate, civil rights policy more generally (VRA, Housing) is a significant issue.

Except she wasn't talking about civil rights policy more generally, she made a personal attack on him on the basis of his race, and his actions on one particular case that she knew he could not possibly defend himself on.

I guess you can call it a "clean" hit, but hit piece it certainly was - it doesn't reasonably attack him on any stance that he holds now, and his historical record on race is pretty damn near spotless when considered overall. Which is how identity politics works - it doesn't actually matter what your position is, it only matters what group you are in.

Now I am not sure we saw the same debate.  She made an attack on his policies.  He defended his policy decision and the defense was pathetic.

She did not make an attack on his "policies". She attacked him for saying something nice about working with douchebags in a context that had nothing to do with race.

She attacked him on a single one of his policies, and yeah, his defense was pathetic, because he was rather obviously surprised that she would take such an obviously cheap shot in order to score some cheap identity politics points, when his record on civil rights is pretty unambiguous.

Yippee. It worked. She is the darling because her hit flustered the old white guy. Hoorah. The country is sure a better place for it, no doubt.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2019, 11:16:42 pm
SO after the first set of debates, I have some opinions about who did well, but I think it isn't that important right now.


What is important NOW is who did not do well, and who should be the first to drop out.


In no particular order:


Whoever the hell that author chick was.
Hickenlooper
Bennet
O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Delaney
Yang
de Blasio

Marianne Williamson is the author.

And you probably could have typed that list before the debate....but yeah.

We need O'Rourke in Texas, I think this was a bad move that damages his brand. I had hopes this might help his career and maybe get some discussion as a VP candidate but that debate was a nasty dose of reality for me. He blundered, he should be running against Cornyn in the Senate and not this.
He still has time to pull a Rubio, drop out and run for Senate
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2019, 11:25:10 pm
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

His record on race ain't that great

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/736995314/listen-biden-supported-a-constitutional-amendment-to-end-mandated-busing-in-1975
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on July 01, 2019, 11:51:50 pm
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

His record on race ain't that great

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/736995314/listen-biden-supported-a-constitutional-amendment-to-end-mandated-busing-in-1975

Instead of increasing educational opportunities for blacks and decreasing racial tensions, the main affect of forced busing was to increase racial animosity.  If Biden opposed it, he was right to do so.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 02, 2019, 12:38:29 am
If busing is so great, why'd we stop doing it?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 02, 2019, 07:52:53 am
Biden just seemed really angry. He yelled a lot for no apparent reason.

Well, people get bothered when you denigrate their life work and call them a racist.

Oddly only one person said something about whether or not he was a racist. And they didn't say he was. :hmm:

Yeah, she said "I don't think you are a racist....right before she attacked him on racial grounds on the basis of her own race. It was identity politics in full force, and it worked wonderfully. I mean, shit, if someone with Biden's record on race is helpless when being attacked with the race card by a fellow democrat...."

I know everyone is crowing about her masterful takedown, I found it grotesque. I don't care for Biden, but that was a complete cheap shot.

His record on race ain't that great

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/736995314/listen-biden-supported-a-constitutional-amendment-to-end-mandated-busing-in-1975

His record on race hardly starts and stops on his position on busing.

You can, in fact, be against busing for reasons other than race. You can just plain be wrong about something without it being about race.

Not every position taken around policy as it relates to race is taken on the basis of being racist or not racist. It is, in fact, entirely possible to take a position on some issue that touches on race, even directly, without your position being motivated at all by your own race, or your being or not being a racist.

Of course, that is all complete heresy in the modern identity politics left. Which is why such "hits" resonate so well, and Harris is being applauded for her brilliant play of the race card.

She certainly lost my vote against anyone but Trump. Or that author chick.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on July 02, 2019, 09:12:32 am
If busing is so great, why'd we stop doing it?

I was about to say. Biden should have responded by asking Harris if she was currently in favor of Federally mandated school busing. AFAIK nobody is currently on that wagon anymore.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on July 02, 2019, 09:40:39 am
If busing is so great, why'd we stop doing it?

I was about to say. Biden should have responded by asking Harris if she was currently in favor of Federally mandated school busing. AFAIK nobody is currently on that wagon anymore.

Actually she supports bringing it back.

Also, wiki suggests it was courts that killed it off.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Valmy on July 02, 2019, 09:43:15 am
If busing is so great, why'd we stop doing it?

I was about to say. Biden should have responded by asking Harris if she was currently in favor of Federally mandated school busing. AFAIK nobody is currently on that wagon anymore.

Actually she supports bringing it back.

Also, wiki suggests it was courts that killed it off.

Hey I liked it when I was a kid, I benefited both short term and long term from the social dynamics it fostered.. But the logistical, political, and legal complications got pretty ridiculous IIRC.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 02, 2019, 09:50:22 am
And her attack on him and using herself as a example was pretty dishonest anyway.

He was against *mandatory* busing. She used voluntary busing as a child. Apples and oranges, at least for anyone giving any actual thought to the issue. Not that anyone does.

GREAT TEAKDOWN OMG SHE SO BAD ASS
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on July 02, 2019, 09:51:02 am
:yawn:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2019, 09:57:23 am
Instead of increasing educational opportunities for blacks and decreasing racial tensions, the main affect of forced busing was to increase racial animosity.  If Biden opposed it, he was right to do so.

That's an argument, but then Biden should either:
1) Say that and defend his position in the 70s
2) Say that he was wrong in the 70s and explain how and why his position changed.

Either way it is a legitimate point for Harris to contend that busing was good policy - including using her own anecdotal experience as an example - and to criticize Biden for opposing it back then.

Biden is running in significant part on his record and experience. He can legitimately take credit for that record but if there are blemishes he has to own those as well.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2019, 10:08:05 am
Not every position taken around policy as it relates to race is taken on the basis of being racist or not racist. It is, in fact, entirely possible to take a position on some issue that touches on race, even directly, without your position being motivated at all by your own race, or your being or not being a racist.

Of course, that is all complete heresy in the modern identity politics left. Which is why such "hits" resonate so well, and Harris is being applauded for her brilliant play of the race card.

This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.  At worst, historical lack of zeal on civil rights and some present day tone-deafness. Apples and oranges.  You are drawing implications that aren't there.

Take another example - Biden's historical backing of the Hyde Amendment.  Is it permissible to criticize Biden for this, or is this playing the "misogyny card"?  And if it is allowed, then why can't his anti-busing legislation be criticized? Is a legislator's record on civil rights legislation to be placed beyond questioning because of fear that someone might get the wrong idea or draw the wrong implication?

If the point is that Harris (or Booker or others) specifically chose to raise this particular policy as part of a tactical effort to target Biden's support among African-American leaders and primary voters, well Whoop-de-do.  That's a political dog bites man story.  Expecting a presidential primary without politics is pretty unrealistic.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on July 02, 2019, 10:09:25 am
Having seen the clips again, I still think it's a clean hit by Harris.  It's not just guilt by association, the focus is on Biden's legislative record on a matter of policy.  And while busing is no longer at the forefront of the policy debate, civil rights policy more generally (VRA, Housing) is a significant issue.

Except she wasn't talking about civil rights policy more generally, she made a personal attack on him on the basis of his race, and his actions on one particular case that she knew he could not possibly defend himself on.

I guess you can call it a "clean" hit, but hit piece it certainly was - it doesn't reasonably attack him on any stance that he holds now, and his historical record on race is pretty damn near spotless when considered overall. Which is how identity politics works - it doesn't actually matter what your position is, it only matters what group you are in.

Now I am not sure we saw the same debate.  She made an attack on his policies.  He defended his policy decision and the defense was pathetic.

She did not make an attack on his "policies". She attacked him for saying something nice about working with douchebags in a context that had nothing to do with race.


I suggest you go back and watch what she actually said rather than editorializing to fit the point you are trying to make.  She specifically raised the issue of the busing policy he supported. He defended that policy decision.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 02, 2019, 10:20:22 am
Expecting a modern presidential primary without identity politics is pretty unrealistic.

Fixed your post.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Barrister on July 02, 2019, 10:21:37 am
This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.

She literally said "I'm not accusing you of being racist, but..."
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on July 02, 2019, 10:24:09 am
This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.

She literally said "I'm not accusing you of being racist, but..."

Yeah as in I don't think you are intentionally being hurtful.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on July 02, 2019, 10:42:21 am
This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.

She literally said "I'm not accusing you of being racist, but..."

Right.   She didn't accuse him of being a racist but he did back a policy that she was challenging.  How is that accusing him of being racist rather than someone who has made poor policy choices?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: FunkMonk on July 02, 2019, 01:30:39 pm
Biden still seems the best bet and I'd consider him safe for now, unless he doesn't win Iowa. Then all bets are off.

The most recent polls seem to indicate Bernie sinking to fourth in Iowa now. He seems to be the biggest loser after these debates. After all, why go with an angry old white guy yelling at clouds when you have intelligent, younger candidates who are almost as left-wing if not the same? I can see him not giving up until very late in the primary season again, though  :lmfao:

Bernie Bros are still the worst people in politics, right alongside Trump fanatics.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2019, 01:53:42 pm
This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.  At worst, historical lack of zeal on civil rights and some present day tone-deafness. Apples and oranges.  You are drawing implications that aren't there.

Iit's not apples and oranges.  It's a lawyer's weasel. Indifference to school desegregation and sucking up to segregationist senators is for all intents and purposes an accusation of racism.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: dps on July 02, 2019, 02:05:41 pm
If busing is so great, why'd we stop doing it?

I was about to say. Biden should have responded by asking Harris if she was currently in favor of Federally mandated school busing. AFAIK nobody is currently on that wagon anymore.

Actually she supports bringing it back.

Also, wiki suggests it was courts that killed it off.

The courts imposed it in the first place.  At some point, they essentially decided that intentional segregation of school districts had ended, so busing was no longer appropriate.  That's a huge oversimplification, of course.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on July 02, 2019, 02:13:18 pm
Biden still seems the best bet and I'd consider him safe for now, unless he doesn't win Iowa. Then all bets are off.

The most recent polls seem to indicate Bernie sinking to fourth in Iowa now. He seems to be the biggest loser after these debates. After all, why go with an angry old white guy yelling at clouds when you have intelligent, younger candidates who are almost as left-wing if not the same? I can see him not giving up until very late in the primary season again, though  :lmfao:

Bernie Bros are still the worst people in politics, right alongside Trump fanatics.

Bang on with the Bernie analysis.  There is a good article about Warren in this week's Economist talking about her recent conversation to the Democratic party and why some of her policies and the logic for implementing them are being picked up by some Republicans.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2019, 02:18:24 pm
I must have missed the part where it just became accepted that forced busing was good. I thought most people concluded it caused so much political toxicity that any positives from forced busing outweighed the benefits and likely exacerbated white resentment/opposition to civil rights more broadly.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on July 02, 2019, 02:28:33 pm
This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.

She literally said "I'm not accusing you of being racist, but..."

Right.   She didn't accuse him of being a racist but he did back a policy that she was challenging.  How is that accusing him of being racist rather than someone who has made poor policy choices?


It is remarkably similar to the formula "I'm not racist, but..."
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on July 02, 2019, 04:47:45 pm
This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.

She literally said "I'm not accusing you of being racist, but..."

Right.   She didn't accuse him of being a racist but he did back a policy that she was challenging.  How is that accusing him of being racist rather than someone who has made poor policy choices?


It is remarkably similar to the formula "I'm not racist, but..."

Yes with the big difference that the thing that follows the "but" is in fact a racist comment.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2019, 04:49:55 pm
Iit's not apples and oranges.  It's a lawyer's weasel. Indifference to school desegregation and sucking up to segregationist senators is for all intents and purposes an accusation of racism.

So any discussion of past record on civil rights is "playing the race card"?

The kneejerk accusation of playing the race card is just as problematic if not more so than knee jerk accusations of racism based on legit policy differences.

How exactly are people running against Biden supposed to address his historical record on these issues or is it just supposed to be off limits because people might get the wrong idea?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2019, 04:59:09 pm
I must have missed the part where it just became accepted that forced busing was good. I thought most people concluded it caused so much political toxicity that any positives from forced busing outweighed the benefits and likely exacerbated white resentment/opposition to civil rights more broadly.

It's likely not all Democratic primary voters agree with you though :)

Biden is free to defend the policy but there is a contrary view that mandated busing was needed to address recalcitrant or obstructive districts, or to deal with locales were extreme historical or present housing discrimination made school integration impossible absent busing. It doesn't make Biden a racist to take a contrary position, but it also isn't "identity politics" to say that he got the issue wrong.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2019, 05:03:09 pm
So any discussion of past record on civil rights is "playing the race card"?

The kneejerk accusation of playing the race card is just as problematic if not more so than knee jerk accusations of racism based on legit policy differences.

How exactly are people running against Biden supposed to address his historical record on these issues or is it just supposed to be off limits because people might get the wrong idea?

The kneejerk defence of playing the race card is the flip side of the accusation coin.

Any time a black woman accuses a white man of not being sufficently pro-black of course it's going to have a race context.  But as you mentioned earlier, it's all part of the argy-bargy of politics.  Harris gets her tactical points with black voters, and takes a hit with Biden supporters.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on July 02, 2019, 05:08:05 pm
I must have missed the part where it just became accepted that forced busing was good. I thought most people concluded it caused so much political toxicity that any positives from forced busing outweighed the benefits and likely exacerbated white resentment/opposition to civil rights more broadly.

If so one would have expected Biden to defend his decision on the basis that it was the correct decision and not hide behind a states' rights argument.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2019, 07:47:46 pm
Maybe if you didn't know Joe Biden you'd expect that. I've always been skeptical of Biden's candidacy, he's like 800 years old. He also has ran for President like 12 times, and lost badly every time. If he couldn't win back when he still had a pulse, it's highly unlikely he can win now. There's a reason he's lost so many times--he's actually not a very good campaigner. He's decent on appeals to a certain type of voter, and he got things somewhat accomplished in the Senate, so he built himself a very safe Senate seat in Delaware. He then ran as Obama's running mate--a position in which, myself, for example, could have ran while drinking bottles of bourbon on camera the whole campaign and I would also have been elected Vice President.

Biden is the pseudo-front runner, he's either the front runner because he has a broad appeal to the Democratic electorate, he's the frontrunner because he's the most well known. If he actually has a broad appeal, he needs to push back and show why he has a broad appeal. Everywhere Biden has been pushed so far, he's caved. He either needs to carve out his lane, or he's going to get moved out. His retort to Harris should have been that the issue of busing was an issue of letting parents decide which school their children would attend, and that he fully supported the integration of public schools. The lefterati of Progressive blog world, Vox.com and Twitter were going to hound him no matter what he said. But a lot of middle class (white) parents would hear that and be fine with it. A great number of middle class blacks would be too, as their voters are often prone to ignoring what progressive twitter tells them black folk ought be outraged about.

Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 02, 2019, 09:46:20 pm
Biden is not going to get the nomination.

Right now he is the "leading" candidate because there are like two dozen candidates, most people have no idea who any of them are OTHER THAN Biden. He is the one name about 40% of the people being polled has ever heard of, so he is the "leader".

As the field narrows and candidates drop out, their supporters, I suspect, will not go to Biden. If you are a Yang guy, or a Gillibrand supporter, or a Booker fan - when they leave the race, you aren't switching to Biden.

Biden has his peak in a practical sense, and it is right now, or rather right before Harris cheap shot him.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 02, 2019, 09:50:10 pm
Iit's not apples and oranges.  It's a lawyer's weasel. Indifference to school desegregation and sucking up to segregationist senators is for all intents and purposes an accusation of racism.

So any discussion of past record on civil rights is "playing the race card"?

The kneejerk accusation of playing the race card is just as problematic if not more so than knee jerk accusations of racism based on legit policy differences.

How exactly are people running against Biden supposed to address his historical record on these issues or is it just supposed to be off limits because people might get the wrong idea?

His historical record? What "historical record" is around the accusation that he is NOT RACIST BUT SOMETHING SORTA RACIST because he "historically" said that he worked with the opposition to get things done?

What "historical record" needs to be addressed around his not being at all opposed to the busing that Harris said she supported - voluntary busing?

You can address his historical record without it being bullshit identity politics by address the entirety of that record in a honest manner. You cannot do it with a bullshit racial ambush where you know he has no ability to respond without just making it worse. It is a cheap shot, and you can layer on all the lipstick you like, but it was still a cheap shot, and still illuminated a good part of what is critically wrong with the radical left today.

And god forbid Trump does get re-elected, it will be precisely for that reason.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 02, 2019, 09:53:31 pm
So any discussion of past record on civil rights is "playing the race card"?

The kneejerk accusation of playing the race card is just as problematic if not more so than knee jerk accusations of racism based on legit policy differences.

How exactly are people running against Biden supposed to address his historical record on these issues or is it just supposed to be off limits because people might get the wrong idea?

The kneejerk defence of playing the race card is the flip side of the accusation coin.

Any time a black woman accuses a white man of not being sufficently pro-black of course it's going to have a race context.  But as you mentioned earlier, it's all part of the argy-bargy of politics.  Harris gets her tactical points with black voters, and takes a hit with Biden supporters.

She takes a hit with non-Biden supporters who think there is more to politics than racial identity as well.

I am no Biden supporter at all, and she definitely took a hit with me. Maybe losing my vote was worth it though - i certainly appears to be on first pass at least.

Could anyone imagine Obama pulling something like that? Saying "Well, as the only black man up here, let me tell you what I think about you talking to those segregationists and being against busing!"
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on July 02, 2019, 10:32:54 pm
This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.

She literally said "I'm not accusing you of being racist, but..."

Right.   She didn't accuse him of being a racist but he did back a policy that she was challenging.  How is that accusing him of being racist rather than someone who has made poor policy choices?


It is remarkably similar to the formula "I'm not racist, but..."

Yes with the big difference that the thing that follows the "but" is in fact a racist comment.


True, what followed was not a racist comment but an accusation of racism.  "I'm not X, but" means that you are in fact X
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on July 03, 2019, 12:16:42 am
This seems to be veering into strawman territory - no one in the field (certainly not Kamala Harris) is accusing Biden of racism.

She literally said "I'm not accusing you of being racist, but..."

Right.   She didn't accuse him of being a racist but he did back a policy that she was challenging.  How is that accusing him of being racist rather than someone who has made poor policy choices?


It is remarkably similar to the formula "I'm not racist, but..."

Yes with the big difference that the thing that follows the "but" is in fact a racist comment.


True, what followed was not a racist comment but an accusation of racism.  "I'm not X, but" means that you are in fact X

That's not true. She didn't list him doing racist things. :huh:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Berkut on July 03, 2019, 12:17:44 am
Look, he clearly is not woke enough, so must be purged, regardless of his actual record on civil rights issues.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on July 03, 2019, 07:02:22 am
That's not true. She didn't list him doing racist things. :huh:


 :mellow:
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on July 03, 2019, 07:34:41 am
That's not true. She didn't list him doing racist things. :huh:


 :mellow:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing.html

Quote
HARRIS: Growing up, my sister and I had to deal with the neighbor who told us her parents couldn’t play with us because she — because we were black. And I will say also that — that, in this campaign, we have also heard — and I’m going to now direct this at Vice President Biden, I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground.

But I also believe, and it’s personal — and I was actually very — it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.

And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.

So I will tell you that, on this subject, it cannot be an intellectual debate among Democrats. We have to take it seriously. We have to act swiftly. As attorney general of California, I was very proud to put in place a requirement that all my special agents would wear body cameras and keep those cameras on.

That's not a description of him doing racist things.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2019, 09:13:48 am
His historical record? What "historical record" is around the accusation that he is NOT RACIST BUT SOMETHING SORTA RACIST because he "historically" said that he worked with the opposition to get things done?

The historical record of joining with open segregationists to pass legislation tying the hands of the courts and the executive branch in devising remedies for entrenched local segregation.  What seems to be lost in the discussion is that this was still the Age of George Wallace, when bona fide or would be Klansmen held high positions in state and national governments, and entire regions and localities were engaged in various states of active or passive resistance to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.  In Harris' home state of California voluntary busing was a viable possibility but not so other parts of the country.  What was to happen to the Harrises of those counties?  Joe Biden's position at the time was too bad for them.

Quote
You can address his historical record without it being bullshit identity politics by address the entirety of that record in a honest manner. You cannot do it with a bullshit racial ambush where you know he has no ability to respond without just making it worse.

He had the ability to either defend the legislation he sponsored or repudiate it.  He absolutely had the ability to respond.  What he didn't have is the ability to respond without consequence.  If he defended the legislation he risks losing primary voters who thought he was wrong, repudiate it and he loses the voters that thought he was right back then.  That's how it goes when you have a career as a high profile Senator with a legislative record on hot button issues.

Harris was one of 10 people in a "speed dating" style debate.  It makes no sense to demand that she address the "entirety" of Biden's record and put it all into a broader context.  That holds her to an absurdly high standard of political conduct, one which Biden himself would never hold to.

Quote
And god forbid Trump does get re-elected, it will be precisely for that reason.

And that is really what this is about.  I get it.  Biden's whole case is that he is best pick on general electability.  He is also the front runner and it is undoubtedly true if he were to be the nominee, it would be objectively a bad thing if enthusiasm for his candidacy was fatally weakened among key Democratic voting constituencies

But we've been through this before.  The alternative is coronating a presumptive nominee up front and then having a Marquess of Queenbery rules primary to protect the front-runner's viability.  We tried that in 2016 and look where it got us.  Sometimes you just got to let democracy do its work and hope for the best.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on July 03, 2019, 09:32:00 am
That's not true. She didn't list him doing racist things. :huh:


 :mellow:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing.html)

Quote
HARRIS: Growing up, my sister and I had to deal with the neighbor who told us her parents couldn’t play with us because she — because we were black. And I will say also that — that, in this campaign, we have also heard — and I’m going to now direct this at Vice President Biden, I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground.

But I also believe, and it’s personal — and I was actually very — it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.

And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.

So I will tell you that, on this subject, it cannot be an intellectual debate among Democrats. We have to take it seriously. We have to act swiftly. As attorney general of California, I was very proud to put in place a requirement that all my special agents would wear body cameras and keep those cameras on.

That's not a description of him doing racist things.


That's a description of him praising racists and working against racial integration through busing.  So yeah, that's accusing him of doing racist things.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2019, 09:53:15 am
It's an accurate description of his record.  It's an issue on which he took a leading role and did so deliberately as a matter of strategic political positioning and to appeal to his constituency.

I'm still waiting to hear exactly how Harris was supposed to gently and kindly raise this issue or alternatively hear someone say clearly and plainly that Biden cannot be challenged on this part of his record.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: crazy canuck on July 03, 2019, 10:08:02 am
Look, he clearly is not woke enough, so must be purged, regardless of his actual record on civil rights issues.

How is one supposed to question prior policy decisions dealing with civil rights issues without this kind of criticism being leveled.  Why should Biden not be tested on his record?  Isn't this one of the most fundamental times freedom of speech is necessary?  And here you are, a purported champion of free speech, being critical of its exercise.   Let Biden make his defense to the criticisms and let the people judge what they think of that defense.  That is how free speech works. 

   
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: Razgovory on July 03, 2019, 10:25:05 am
It's an accurate description of his record.  It's an issue on which he took a leading role and did so deliberately as a matter of strategic political positioning and to appeal to his constituency.

I'm still waiting to hear exactly how Harris was supposed to gently and kindly raise this issue or alternatively hear someone say clearly and plainly that Biden cannot be challenged on this part of his record.

I didn't know that Harris was required to bring up Biden working with people he didn't agree with.  People who have been dead for decades.  Refusing to talk to people you disagree with is not helpful in the context of passing legislation in the US senate. Politics is give and take, you often have to take one step back for every one step forward.  If the problem is that he appealed to the his constituency then her problem is not with Biden but with the people of Pennsylvania.  Perhaps she should tell them directly how horrible they are.
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by: garbon on July 03, 2019, 10:45:47 am
It's an accurate description of his record.  It's an issue on which he took a leading role and did so deliberately as a matter of strategic political positioning and to appeal to his constituency.

I'm still waiting to hear exactly how Harris was supposed to gently and kindly raise this issue or alternatively hear someone say clearly and plainly that Biden cannot be challenged on this part of his record.

I didn't know that Harris was required to bring up Biden working with people he didn't agree with.  People who have been dead for decades.  Refusing to talk to people you disagree with is not helpful in the context of passing legislation in the US senate. Politics is give and take, you often have to take one step back for every one step forward.  If the problem is that he appealed to the his constituency then her problem is not with Biden but with the people of Pennsylvania.  Perhaps she should tell them directly how horrible they are.

But he was the one that brought it up as a positive for himself. His opponents should have just let that sit?
Title: Re: US Elections 2020
Post by