2020 US Election

[Candiru]

Which of Bernie's cabins did Bloomberg poop in? I can spot a cabin pooper

[auxien]

8 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

You think this refutes anything I said, how? I don't give a fuck about the Democratic Party's rules.  There is no other party, you are aware the US has an effective two-party system?

if you read the Dem Party rules (fucking hell just the sentence in the Wiki article referencing that) you'll understand why you claiming they said they want superdelegates to decide is false. 

[Nebraska]

11 hours ago, auxien said:

debate tonight's been interesting, actually. Warren ripped into Bloomberg's shittiness right away, and kept at it all night tearing into others on their records as well. Sanders looked pretty good, but he was getting some heat from every angle. Buttigieg and Klobuchar did alright but idk that they have a path forward. will be curious what happens with Bloomberg after tonight, he seemed like he was in over his head for a good chunk of it all...almost like he's a rich asshole who's been a rich asshole for so long that he's forgotten what it's like when people attack him and he can't just fire them or walk away (wouldn't surprise me if he ran away and quit the race relatively soon tbh)

watched the debate again before work.

bloomberg was massacred. warren genuinely dislikes the guy. i think she's great when putting people to task, but she seems to be easily overwhelmed by multiple voices and i just cannot see her as president. bloomberg obviously doesn't have the experience or confidence to counter her attacks. but trump does. why she cannot temper her ambitions to being secretary of state under someone else is beyond me , but all these candidates make this race seem like a free for all with america's fickle endorsement riding on who left the best lasting impression-

and this is where pete slyly sneaks in. i watched an interview with some hispanic voters in nevada and their consensus is this: we have medical from our union. medicare for all with eliminate that medical insurance and we're not sure it will be as good as what we have. 

one thing i've noticed bernie doesn't do much is expound on his key points. how his medicare for all plans affects these unions with health care plans. the right makes so much noise about medicare for all being bad that it confuses a lot of people on exactly what it means for their own insurance they begin to translate it as something that will affect them negatively.

 

 

[dingformung]

Sanders must make clear that Medicare For All puts workers unions into a better negotiating position because their medical insurance isn't part of workers' rights negotiations anymore. I'm sure he says this already but it's such a strong argument that it can't be highlighted enough.

[ambermonk]

I didn't watch the entirety of the debate, but caught some of the highlights. The fact that most of the Democratic candidates have managed to form an impromptu firing squad against another aspiring plutocrat gives me more faith in humanity.

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, auxien said:

if you read the Dem Party rules (fucking hell just the sentence in the Wiki article referencing that) you'll understand why you claiming they said they want superdelegates to decide is false. 

Under the Democratic National Convention rules, "A majority vote of the Convention's delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate" and "Balloting will continue until a nominee is selected".[7] Superdelegates are party leaders who participate as delegates if no winner emerges after the first round. Prior to 2018, they were allowed to participate in the first round as well.[8]

Oh, sounds all good then!  It's not like they're going to willingly rig it to get to the second round on purpose or anything.  Why do you listen to the DNC?

[may be rude]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/18089408/brokered-convention-contested-explained

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

 

 

the dnc can't "rig" anything. they do whatever they want. primaries aren't in the constitution, they are constructs the parties decided to begin doing in 1968, in their current form. the party chooses the nominee. they always have and they still reserve the right to, in certain circumstances, like in the case of no one getting half the pledged delegates. i think the established system leaves the party with a ton of leeway, then. pod save america or fivethirtyeight podcast were saying the party can even bring in an outsider, a non-candidate, at that point.

 

btw fivethirtyeight's "model" is seeing a brokered convention as the most likely scenario, now

 

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by very honest

[Nebraska]

liz warren seems to have had a fire lit under her ass since she found out she's polling right next to biden

 

[auxien]

48 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

Oh, sounds all good then!  It's not like they're going to willingly rig it to get to the second round on purpose or anything.  Why do you listen to the DNC?

huh? oh, everything is a conspiracy, right. rampant cumtheiving females and so forth. k bro.

1 hour ago, Nebraska said:

watched the debate again before work.

bloomberg was massacred. warren genuinely dislikes the guy. i think she's great when putting people to task, but she seems to be easily overwhelmed by multiple voices and i just cannot see her as president. bloomberg obviously doesn't have the experience or confidence to counter her attacks. but trump does. why she cannot temper her ambitions to being secretary of state under someone else is beyond me , but all these candidates make this race seem like a free for all with america's fickle endorsement riding on who left the best lasting impression-

and this is where pete slyly sneaks in. i watched an interview with some hispanic voters in nevada and their consensus is this: we have medical from our union. medicare for all with eliminate that medical insurance and we're not sure it will be as good as what we have. 

one thing i've noticed bernie doesn't do much is expound on his key points. how his medicare for all plans affects these unions with health care plans. the right makes so much noise about medicare for all being bad that it confuses a lot of people on exactly what it means for their own insurance they begin to translate it as something that will affect them negatively.

 

 

saw/heard someone mention that Warren and Bloomberg were chatting for a bit during one of the breaks, would be curious to hear what that was. he’s a good punching bag for her and the rest, obviously. the tempering her ambitions thing sounds sexist tho Nebraska, to be blunt about it. dunno that you are or meant it that way, but it sounds it from here: not accusing just stating how it came across to me. not sure where that even comes from tho, she was breaking through the cacophony of shitty moderation as often as anyone on that stage. I think she’s got a better temperament for a leader than anyone else up there tbh, but that’s not to say any of them would necessarily be bad. the big field really is an issue, and was seemingly a big part of why Trump got the nomination for the Rs in ‘16, which scares me that it could work out in someone like Bloomberg’s favor this time here too. 
 

yeah Pete and all them not pushing Medicare for all are on the side of many many real people out there. people want it to be better and cheaper but they don’t want to risk the chance it could be worse, so we end up with a lot of the electorate afraid of it (Obamacare was gonna be the literal apocalypse until it was the law. people are stupid and believe what they’re told of course)

yeah Bernie’s big issue is his messaging/delivery and stubbornness to compromise and work from within to enact the changes necessary...he’s a loudass who just has to speak his mind on the big ideas constantly instead of actually doing the work and playing the game to fix things. yelling about how and why a thing is wrong almost never fixes a fucking thing.... but even after he loses his ideas will carry on in others as the party largely moves leftward, so hopefully it’s not all a waste. 

44 minutes ago, very honest said:

the dnc can't "rig" anything. they do whatever they want. primaries aren't in the constitution, they are constructs the parties decided to begin doing in 1968, in their current form. the party chooses the nominee. they always have and they still reserve the right to, in certain circumstances, like in the case of no one getting half the pledged delegates. i think the established system leaves the party with a ton of leeway, then. pod save america or fivethirtyeight podcast were saying the party can even bring in an outsider, a non-candidate, at that point.

yup. it’s their party, they can do literally anything they want within it.

[dr lopez]

they will steal it from bernie, who has by far the greatest support across the country, alienating a huge number of would-be voters and literally hand the next four years to trump and apocalypse. this is a 50/50 chance with bernie winning. the silver lining of this is that it will destroy the democratic party. and i will be in line to beat it to death. a party run by coastal, feckless liberal elites smelling each others farts will never win in this country that is a giant quilt of diversity, in race, in culture, in class. A workers party will rise.

[dr lopez]

[dingformung]

auxien's facepalms are known to be among the most toxic here on the forum

[auxien]

‘cause there’s weight behind them. i’m basically an assassin with them. they’ve taken down kings. 

[Nebraska]

thanks for pointing that out auxien: i agree it does sound sexist, although i meant it more as "i think she should endorse someone else, and gun for a seat in a high position of government, rather than the actual seat of presidency". i say this because i see her as hillary 2.0 mainly because:

she plays the female card A LOT from claiming bernie told her in private he never believed a woman could run for office to alleging to being terminated from a teaching position because of her pregnancy. while it worked well against bloomberg when questioned about the numerous NDA's he's had women sign, i really don't see it doing anything against trump whole (like his legion of followers) will simply brush it aside as an evidence of his alpha male prowess. sexist? maybe- and liz should know considering she once identified as republican, having cherokee heritage and claiming that her father was a janitor. 

warren works well behind the scenes- like when she championed the consumer financial protection bureau and has shown to unravel and bungle when thrust in front of them- like when she couldn't become it's director and ran for senate instead. and then there was the moment when ayanna pressley had to step in and save her from a crowd of (mostly female) parent power protestors interrupted her speech about discrimination. as always, warren came in with a plan, and when things turned left, her brain checked out. if this happens against trump, there won't be anyone to step in and save her then.

btw: guess who ayanna pressley endorsed last time? i'll give you a hint: hillary clinton. and roger lau, her campaign manager, was a former clinton aid.

 

.

 

[Nebraska]

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/05/elizabeth-warren-superdelegate-says-doesnt-believe-superdelegates

[goDel]

Somehow...just somehow it seems Americans are in a fierce battle to keep Trump in the White House. The Trumpists, well, that speaks for itself. And all the non-Trumpists...I don't know what's up with them, but it looks they will end up shooting themselves in their foot. With open eyes. Because, well, it's either their way or the highway. Got to admit the Trumpists might have a point when they say the non-Trumpists are insufferable.

[goDel]

And some extra stuff on why it's actual design to have a political system where the majority doesn't automatically rule over the minority. It's tangentially related to that DNC stuff and not having a direct democracy.

 

 

[Brisbot]

5 hours ago, dr lopez said:

they will steal it from bernie, who has by far the greatest support across the country, alienating a huge number of would-be voters and literally hand the next four years to trump and apocalypse. this is a 50/50 chance with bernie winning. the silver lining of this is that it will destroy the democratic party. and i will be in line to beat it to death. a party run by coastal, feckless liberal elites smelling each others farts will never win in this country that is a giant quilt of diversity, in race, in culture, in class. A workers party will rise.

That would be a nice outcome, but I think too many "workers" are wrapped up in conservative BS convinced trickle down economics works, and that illegals are coming for their jobs, for this to happen. I feel like the best we can hope for is for the current party to change... *sigh*

Edited February 21, 2020 by Brisbot

[Nebraska]

1 hour ago, goDel said:

Got to admit the Trumpists might have a point when they say the non-Trumpists are insufferable.

i love the deflection. right out of trump's playbook and paid for, in cash

Edited February 20, 2020 by Nebraska

[Brisbot]

2 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

 

I can't believe that happened as depicted! Even the crickets in the audience were bored. I'm a Bloomer now. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Brisbot

[Lada Laika]

Is OK Bloomer a thing or is that meme dead already

[Brisbot]

26 minutes ago, Lada Laika said:

Is OK Bloomer a thing or is that meme dead already

We will just say OK Bloomer is a deconstruction of Ok Boomer and call it a "post-meme"

[auxien]

4 hours ago, Nebraska said:

thanks for pointing that out auxien: i agree it does sound sexist, although i meant it more as "i think she should endorse someone else, and gun for a seat in a high position of government, rather than the actual seat of presidency". i say this because i see her as hillary 2.0 mainly because:

she plays the female card A LOT from claiming bernie told her in private he never believed a woman could run for office to alleging to being terminated from a teaching position because of her pregnancy. while it worked well against bloomberg when questioned about the numerous NDA's he's had women sign, i really don't see it doing anything against trump whole (like his legion of followers) will simply brush it aside as an evidence of his alpha male prowess. sexist? maybe- and liz should know considering she once identified as republican, having cherokee heritage and claiming that her father was a janitor. 

warren works well behind the scenes- like when she championed the consumer financial protection bureau and has shown to unravel and bungle when thrust in front of them- like when she couldn't become it's director and ran for senate instead. and then there was the moment when ayanna pressley had to step in and save her from a crowd of (mostly female) parent power protestors interrupted her speech about discrimination. as always, warren came in with a plan, and when things turned left, her brain checked out. if this happens against trump, there won't be anyone to step in and save her then.

btw: guess who ayanna pressley endorsed last time? i'll give you a hint: hillary clinton. and roger lau, her campaign manager, was a former clinton aid.

that's sorta how i figure you meant it yeah, don't remember seeing you ever being sexist or anything similar so didn't think you were trying to: nbd, thanks for not taking it like i was attacking you or anything.

i don't see her as Hilary 2.0 at all, but that's just me. opinions.

plays the female card a lot? there's nothing really particularly funny about the pregnancy story. she seems to have told a more detailed/open version of it, but it still lines up with reality. and even if not, it's not 'playing the female card a lot' if that story is just one small thing barely mentioned and not even used as a huge WIN for her somehow. and anyone could've used that attack against Bloomberg (others have), it wasn't dependent upon her sex.  ....and even if she was playing the 'female card' a lot, well, she is a woman? who's older, and definitely lived in an America that wasn't as kind to women as it is now (tho obviously it's still not in many ways) so.... you have no real argument here at all. yeah she spoke some private shit Bernie said to her, perhaps without the necessary context, okay. that's a little off, but that doesn't mean it's not true nor would it negate literally decades of her life dealing with the casual and/or not-so-casual sexism. 

Warren may or may not be the 'best' candidate to go against Trump, no argument there. she can go against basically anyone that i've seen so far without blinking, so why not Trump? who's better, honestly? maybe Bernie could hold his own alright, and i'm sure Bloomberg would love to get into a knock down drag out sniveling little rich shit tussle back and forth with Trump over how much more money he has or something. whoever might be 'best' against Trump is to me only part of the equation anyway, i want someone in who i feel i can trust more than the others who'll move things in a good direction (and be able to work with others to get that done). that makes Warren the best, for me. there's a very good chance she won't get the nom, ok, but we're not at that point yet so... anyone who is nominated is going to get villified and rile up the Rs to some extent, but the question is who can actually turn out support for the Ds this year? as of now none of them have any proof that they're the one, Warren included.

she was a Republican...okay? what the fuck does that matter? Bernie's not currently even a Democrat lol so 

she owned up to the Cherokee/'janitor' stuff from what i remember, and it was the lightest stretches of truth/misunderstanding so.... not great but also nbd. if that's THE WORST on her well then she's fucking spotless in Washington DC ffs man. not excusing anything but really y'all can't look at shit in a vacuum, in context she's a motherfucking saint next to almost everyone. 

that Presley video isn't half bad, hadn't ever seen that. seems like they both handled it as best as anybody can imagine. seems like a great thing to have someone like that on her side. dunno the larger context around it but that clip didn't look bad at all and yet you're using it like it's a mark on her record or something? how would you have handled it better, please do enlighten us. 

omg, wait you're telling me that someone who supported Hilary in 2016 is supporting Warren now? whoa that's fucked up tho m8, i hope Bernie Sanders doesn't drop out and start endorsing Warren next, that'll be the death knell for poor Liz. y'know, since Bernie supported Hilary in 2016 too. 

 

[auxien]

5 hours ago, Nebraska said:

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/05/elizabeth-warren-superdelegate-says-doesnt-believe-superdelegates

and to anyone getting all sorts of excited thinking about how big of a deal it would be if superdelegates ended up having to decide the nominee eventually, just remember: you're on the same side with Jill Stein and Marianne Williamson.

[Nebraska]

8 minutes ago, auxien said:

omg, wait you're telling me that someone who supported Hilary in 2016 is supporting Warren now? 

well, supported by working for her campaign. reason i said this is because i see her using similar campaign methods to hillary which is why i said i see her as hillary 2.0.

as for goddesses stein and williamson: i can't imagine two people who's side i'd wanna be on right about now