11/08/2022, The Midterms, aka build on 2020 aka The Election Thread

[allegro]

This awful "Uncle Joe Biden is a pedo" shit going around (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy8Mu_9WwAE3cNg.jpg) is surely going to cause all kinds of trouble. Surely, it's bullshit, but if it plants even a LITTLE bit of a seed of doubt in people, then he's toast right out of the gate. There are VIDEO edits of this shit that are being passed around everywhere.

Never mind the photo of what appears to be a teenage Ivanka giving her Dad a lap dance (https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161012102650-ivanka-sits-on-trump-large-169.jpg).

All photos and videos can be manipulated to "look" like something is going on that really isn't.

But politics is all nasty now.

[Mantra]

I found the Klobuchar thing genuinely surprising because, even though I think she's a decent senator and I've voted for her a couple times now, she's always struck me as a fairly subdued and boring person. It kinda makes perfect sense that she represents Minnesota because she perfectly captures this certain kind of bland, middle class, suburbanite that we have in droves up here: mild-mannered, pleasant, boring, slightly forgettable. I don't recall her background info but she MUST have been raised in like Bloomington or Plymouth or some shit, because she perfectly captures that type of Minnesotan.

I don't even mean this in a mean or disdainful way to be honest. I actually kind of like the fact that she's sort of unremarkable and just does her job well and that's that.

I'm just saying it's pretty weird to see these articles claiming that she's really tyrannical and harsh. When I first saw that huffpost headline I literally laughed out loud, because my thought was, "What? Amy Klobuchar, seriously? Wow. I didn't know she had it in her." Guess it just goes to show that our impressions of these people mean literally nothing.

[bobbie solo]

I'm gonna let Cenk Uygur handle this Amy Klobuchar & Cory Booker nonsense:


https://youtu.be/uIbaK1PBiYA?t=361

start at 6:01 if it doesn't start there itself.

He's especially dead on with Klobuchar.

[allegro]

Yeah well, he ain’t seeing Black Twitter poke fun at Bernie Sanders right now after he got fried YET AGAIN by a slave reparations question.

And his last response to the SOTU when a black woman was doing one for the Democrats, let’s just say that didn’t go over well, either (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/5/18212254/stacey-abrams-bernie-sanders-state-of-the-union-response).

Who knows. Sanders ran as a Democrat in the Senate primary in Vermont only to shut out an opponent then reject the Democratic nomination and switch back to Independent.

Meanwhile, CNN ... whatever. That’s like the Good Morning America of politics. And the Young Turks is the UHF.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Klobuchar doesn’t stand a chance. Not due to general name recognition, or lack of progressive views, but due to minority identity politics. Which is a thing, now.

It’s SUCH a big thing, I’ve changed my mind and now I don’t think Joe Biden has a snowball’s chance in Hell. He shouldn’t even try running.

Meanwhile...

The smear campaigns against Harris are not only raging on the right; I’ve gotten into arguments with Bernie fans on Twitter for trotting out the “Harris slept with a married man to get ahead” bullshit; some of these fans were (old white) WOMEN. A lot of us are checking join dates and shit to make sure we’re not talking with Sputnik.

[allegro]

This thread is awesome: https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1094088325311463424?s=21

[ltrandazzo]

Bernie is in, officially; says he's gonna win this time. I'm interested to see what 2020 Bernie does compared to 2016 Bernie.

[elevenism]

Bernie is in, officially; says he's gonna win this time. I'm interested to see what 2020 Bernie does compared to 2016 Bernie.
Your post time is a good omen, to me at least, especially considering I've not seen the news yet and just learned this from the above.

Idk, though. I'M best described as a democratic socialist, and agree with pretty much all of Bernie's positions. But I also worry about the insanity of the division in this country, and fear that the right will hate Bernie as much as we hate trump.

Then again, Obama was far more moderate, and they fucking hated him, too, and not just because of his race. They'll probably hate anyone opposing trump, so perhaps this isn't an issue.

[ltrandazzo]

the right will hate Bernie as much as we hate trump.

Then again, Obama was far more moderate, and they fucking hated him, too, and not just because of his race. They'll probably hate anyone opposing trump, so perhaps this isn't an issue.

The right hates all Democrats, progressives and liberals so we shouldn't try to cater to them. It's a losing battle.

[elevenism]

The right hates all Democrats, progressives and liberals so we shouldn't try to cater to them. It's a losing battle.
Man, yeah, I'm afraid you're right.

[ltrandazzo]

Man, yeah, I'm afraid you're right.

By the bye, should Bernie win the fucking primary again, I wonder if they'll take it from him again. I want rid of superdelegates, in other words.

Already taken care of - https://www.npr.org/2018/08/25/641725402/dnc-set-to-reduce-role-of-superdelegates-in-presidential-nominating-process

[elevenism]

Already taken care of - https://www.npr.org/2018/08/25/641725402/dnc-set-to-reduce-role-of-superdelegates-in-presidential-nominating-process
I deleted that part of my post because it's somewhat controversial, but, hot damn. That's fucking excellent.

Well, Bernie it is, for me.

[ltrandazzo]

I deleted that part of my post because it's somewhat controversial, but, hot damn. That's fucking excellent.

Well, Bernie it is, for me.

Ultimately, the DNC shit was one piece of the puzzle for his loss in 2016. Another was his low support with black voters. He's gonna have to fix that to seriously contend in 2020. I think he has a few good head-to-head match-ups that he can win, but there are others that he will be absolutely annihilated on, so I do wonder if he's running to sort of push the rest of the field further left.

[Sarah K]

Is he running as a Democrat again, because :rolleyes:

[ltrandazzo]

Is he running as a Democrat again, because :rolleyes:

He is as opposed to that other asshole independent who thinks that he can just override the whole process because he's a fucking billionaire who burns coffee beans.

[allegro]

He is as opposed to that other asshole independent who thinks that he can just override the whole process because he's a fucking billionaire who burns coffee beans.

If Coffee Boy runs as an Independent, I think it'll hurt TRUMP more than the left.

Regarding candidates on the left or center or whatever ...

I remember Obama running in 2007 with his PRIMARY promise being "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE (http://obamaspeeches.com/097-The-Time-Has-Come-for-Universal-Health-Care-Obama-Speech.htm)" because he wanted to move forward Ted Kennedy's and John Dingell's Medicare for All plan (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/april/kennedydingell_medi.php), which Kennedy had been working on since the 1970, along with Jacob Javitz.

However, since the Executive branch can't legislate, once Obama started getting closer to winning, he quickly found out that Congress is filled with Democrats and Republicans who are beholden to Health Care and Insurance lobbyists who have ZERO intention of disrupting the status quo (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/upshot/the-unhealthy-politics-of-pork-how-it-increases-your-medical-costs.html), since their own money and investments depend on it.

We can elect the biggest fucking left-wing hippy on the planet as President, but REAL change won't happen until we get rid of every single crony capitalist from Congress and get rid of all lobbyists, enact strict campaign finance laws, and reboot the whole fucking health care mess.

Health Care is a FOR PROFIT greedy business, and the Government has fucked it up even WORSE by determining the price of everything (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/medicare-pricing-drives-high-health-care-costs/2013/12/31/24befa46-7248-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html?utm_term=.2aef2b87faf2).

If we are going to fix this mess, we need to hire third party experts to determine cost evaluations across the board, and to FORCE the health care industry to lower all costs, and perhaps even force the industry to be not-for-profit. When there are share holders and trustees and millionaires at the top of the health care system, and raking in profits are the only concern, of COURSE the costs are going to be high, so how we are going to PAY for it should be SECONDARY to how the fuck we lower those costs and keep money out of the pockets of the people we elect.

See the above-linked NYT article:


“You can’t get upset at a snake for having fangs,” Mr. Cooper told me. “We need to design a system that takes payment decisions out of the hands of elected representatives. We think of interest rates as so important and complicated that we’ve tried to remove politics and give the responsibility to the Fed. The same argument holds for health care. When the government spends a trillion dollars on health care, it’s too easy for members to direct funds to their districts.”

We’ve been close to a possible solution. The A.C.A. called for establishing an Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member panel charged with making changes to Medicare to control costs. The proposed reforms would have been put into effect unless Congress introduced alternate policies to achieve the same savings. But the advisory board faced fierce bipartisan opposition and was never created.

The first candidate who focuses on fixing THIS shit has my vote.

July 30, 1965: LBJ signs Medicare into law, with President Harry Truman by his side - Truman being the first to call for universal health care in 1945 (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/president-johnson-signs-medicare-law).


During his administration, President Truman called for the institution of a federally funded health insurance program in 1945 and again in 1947 and 1949. Each presidential plea, however, was thwarted or ignored by the U.S. Congress, aided and abetted by powerful medical lobbies such as the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association, which denigrated such efforts as a descent into “socialized medicine.” Harry Truman’s devotion to this cause was, in a sense, a means of honoring his former boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt who, for political reasons, was forced to remove an extensive health benefit plan from what became the Social Security Act of 1935. Parenthetically, another Roosevelt — Theodore Roosevelt — included a government-backed health plan on the platform of his failed presidential run in 1912 on the Progressive (“Bull Moose”) ticket.

There was some movement towards developing a national health care program during the Eisenhower years and even more so during John F. Kennedy’s far too brief presidency. But it was the powerful and politically savvy LBJ and the Democrats’ landslide victory in 1964 giving them control of both houses of the U.S. Congress that pushed Medicare across the federal finish line.

[bobbie solo]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-campaign-2020-1173608

great article with his chief pollster on Bernie's strategy for winning the primaries...but more importantly the general, based on some old and some new (and very enlightening) polling data and how things played out in 2016. I like how they're thinking and they have some really good things on their side as described in the article, as well as plenty of obstacles too.

My wife & donated today in the middle of our vacation. Bought some stickers and magnets too. Bernie raised the most money of any 2020 candidate so far on his first day, easily eclipsing Harris. Bernie's people are jazzed for this, and this bodes well for his core base, his volunteers and his staff getting out his message and hopefully getting out the vote for him come the actual primaries.

[ltrandazzo]

If Coffee Boy runs as an Independent, I think it'll hurt TRUMP more than the left.

Crooked Media had the Benenson Strategy Group run an analysis that was generous to Schultz regarding electoral college votes, but showed that in his best-case, he ends up re-electing Trump instead of helping Dems retake the White House. (https://crooked.com/articles/howard-schultz-spoiler-trump-proof/)


This baseline scenario still leaves only 268 electoral votes up for grabs in battleground states. In other words, even if Schultz were to run the table and win every single battleground, no candidate would win 270 electoral votes, and, under the rules set forth in the Constitution, the House of Representatives would have to pick the next president.

But those rules don’t hand the decision to the full House, which Democrats currently control. Instead it allocates one vote to each state delegation, so the party that controls more state delegations, rather than the party with the most overall members, would determine the winner. California gets one vote, as does Wyoming, and every state in between. Thanks to its small-state advantage, the GOP would thus have the power to select the winner despite lacking a majority, and you’re delusional if you think they’d listen to the will of the people and hand the presidency to Schultz—let alone the Democratic nominee.

In a likelier scenario, Schultz would win few if any electoral votes, and would simply siphon net votes away from one candidate or the other in battleground states. And here, too, a generous interpretation of Schultz’s effect on a relatively close race has him handing Trump victory in enough states that Democrats would otherwise have won to give him over 270 electoral votes.

[allegro]

^ The articles I’ve seen haven’t seen Schultz going so far as that scenario; just being the Ralph Nader spoiler for Trump far more than any Democrat.

Schultz is not the “centrist” he says he is; his recent angry outbursts have shown that he loves the Republican tax reform bill, is against any kind of affordable health care plan, wants to cut back entitlements, and he wants to protect the wealthy.

His campaign manager being John McCain’s former campaign manager is a hint.

How Democrats can think he’s a threat to Democrats just because he had a hip overpriced coffee chain is beyond me. Like Democrats are known for a cup of frothy milk with a shot of coffee in it.

Schultz hasn’t even decided to run, yet. He’s too busy whining that he’s being bullied.

Meanwhile, Mike Bloomberg already spent a boat load of money on a study proving that an Independent can never win the Presidency due to the Electoral College.

[ltrandazzo]

Beware the disinformation: ‘Sustained and ongoing’ disinformation assault targets Dem presidential candidates - Harris, Warren, O'Rourke and Sanders are the most prominent targets. (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/2020-candidates-social-media-attack-1176018)

[thelastdisciple]

Tulsi Gabbard, so i know about her homophobic stance in the past and i understand that some folks might not want to give her the benefit of the doubt on whether or not she's genuinely grown out of those beliefs. She has pointed out her record with LGBT issues and it seems pretty comprehensive https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-lgbtq

There's also the thing about her and Assad. i don't know the whole story there but from what I've heard her discuss regarding foreign policy she does have a lot of great points and she has the military experience of being overseas during wartime to back it up.

What else do people find so concerning about her? I had heard a report about Russia supposedly supporting her but i think that's been debunked although i can't say for sure and don't forget the same thing supposedly happened with Bernie in 2016.

Russia has purposefully been muddying the waters everywhere so i wouldn't be surprised to hear about them backing anybody at this point.

Does she take corporate handouts?
ltrandazzo, you've stood out specifically as someone who is opposed to her and perhaps you know more about her deal than i do. I would love to hear you elaborate more on why you don't like her as a candidate.

I know politicians will always tell us what we want to hear with all kinds of word salad, none of it really means anything without something to back it up and actually seeing them live up to their promises once they're in office. To me though she's read as pretty level-headed, calm and collected in a lot of the interviews I've seen of her so far. She certainly talks a good game i think.

What am i missing here?

[ltrandazzo]

Tulsi Gabbard

It wasn't just that she had a homophobic stance; she actively campaigned to pass a constitutional amendment as a teenager to keep marriage between straight people, then campaigned in 2004 on her work there and a PAC who opposed LGBTQ lawmakers while also promoting conversion therapy. She tried to outlaw civil unions and also referred to LGBTQ rights activists as "homosexual extremists." So, it wasn't just that she held a stance or opinion that was similar to practically every other Democrat/Progressive lawmaker at the time; she actively tried to hurt LGBTQ people. That's enough for me there.

Assad - She made an unannounced trip to Syria in 2017 and then came back defending him and expressing skepticism that he actually gassed his own people - https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/tulsi-gabbard-assad-chemical-weapons-blitzer-cnntv/index.html - She also constantly states that he isn't a direct threat to the US even though his country has turned into a breeding groun for ISIS, who is a direct threat to many of our allies - https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-syrian-dictator-assad-is-not-the-enemy-of-the-united-states - and these comments end up coming off as dog whistles to folks like David Duke, even though she has rejected his endorsements - https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-unequivocally-rejects-david-dukes-endorsement .

She probably doesn't take corporate money, but I don't think that outweighs the other major problems she has as a candidate and with a field this large, I think there are more qualified people to choose from. She can make her political and personal atonement for her anti-LGBTQ past in other arenas than the presidential election.

[Jinsai]

Meanwhile, Mike Bloomberg already spent a boat load of money on a study proving that an Independent can never win the Presidency due to the Electoral College.

Was an expensive study really necessary though? Come on! It's stuff like this that drives me crazy. "Well, obviously a third party candidate has zero chance at actually winning..." -> "Hey, don't tell me what to do with my vote!!!" Can we just operate in the real world here for a second?

[ltrandazzo]

Was an expensive study really necessary though? Come on! It's stuff like this that drives me crazy. "Well, obviously a third party candidate has zero chance at actually winning..." -> "Hey, don't tell me what to do with my vote!!!" Can we just operate in the real world here for a second?

1. It's Bloomberg so yeah, it was expensive.

2. I could've saved them money though - an independent who tries to run outside of the two major parties will never win. The Presidential election is a two-party race until the electoral college is abolished. That's why Bernie runs as a Dem.

[allegro]

Was an expensive study really necessary though?
Bloomberg spent a lot of money doing the investigation because he wanted to run as an Independent years ago but he didn't want to do it if all signs pointed to useless. All signs pointed to impossible.

[ltrandazzo]

Couple hits -

Warren Proposes Universal Child Care Plan Funded by Wealth Tax (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/warren-to-unveil-universal-child-care-plan-funded-by-wealth-tax)


The Massachusetts senator’s plan, unveiled Tuesday on Medium.com, would make child care free for families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level, or less than $51,500 for a family of four. Other families would pay up to 7 percent of income, depending on how much they earn.

Bernie Sanders Says He’s ‘Not Crazy About Getting Rid Of The Filibuster’ (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-filibuster-senate_n_5c6c3a07e4b0afa4defd5f44)


“No, I’m not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster,” Sanders said in an interview with CBS that aired on Tuesday when asked whether he supports getting rid of the chamber’s longstanding 60-vote threshold on legislation.

“The problem is, people often talk about the lack of comity, but the real issue is you have a system in Washington that is dominated by wealthy campaign contributors,” he added.

It’s difficult to see any of Sanders’ major policy proposals passing in the Senate without a change to the chamber’s longstanding 60-vote threshold on legislation even if Democrats win the White House and Senate in 2020.

Policy ideas Sanders wants to become law like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and tuition-free college are all vehemently opposed by Republicans. Moreover, it’s not clear whether they would receive unanimous support among Democrats, either. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), for example, doesn’t think proposals like Medicare for All and debt-free college are plausible in the near future.

Bolded emphasis mine. As we get further along into this and proposals are being made around Medicare-For-All, The Green New Deal, etc., these candidates are going to need to be candid to voters about the fact that the filibuster still exists to pass legislation in the Senate and that budget reconciliation can only go so far. I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to push these proposals but doesn't acknowledge this and so far, Warren has been the only one to say something close to considering getting rid of it -


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), meanwhile, was the only 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful who did not rule out the prospect of going nuclear in a Democratic-controlled Senate. “Everything stays on the table. You keep it all on the table. Don’t take anything off the table,” she said last month.

[allegro]

https://twitter.com/pelosiforsf/status/1099044723879264257?s=21

[allegro]

And this is why I will never join these ranks and will never vote for Bernie Sanders:

https://twitter.com/_celia_bedelia_/status/1100538733621858305?s=21

[bobbie solo]

A. You really need to not live your life on twitter. If that is not the case, it's certainly how it appears on this board...at least to me. Get off twitter, too much of it can melt brains regardless of ideology (althought the brain melting on the right seems much more severe).

B. No one truly doxxed these people. CNN did a purposefully vague job of explaining who alot of the people were that asked questions. Left out extremely important info, like that one woman was the head of a MD Dem party chapter or some such...and simply referred to her a "mother of two". There was no apparent bias to this...they did for people who asked both tough and softball questions of Bernie. So people did some research to get those pertinent details that would better inform the basis for the questions asked. Note that this vagueness from CNN was not done in the same way during the other town halls they've done recently. Regardless, Bernie himself has nothing to do with any of this activity you mentioned.

C. Bernie rally this Saturday at Brooklyn College! Gonna be a mob scene I imagine. Can't wait. Anyone going? Down to meet if so.

[allegro]

A. I’m not “living my life” on Twitter. I’m going skiing tomorrow. If you think Twitter is just right-wing people, you are ill-informed. For Law geeks like me, it’s essential, e.g. https://twitter.com/tribelaw. But rather than stick to the topic, never mind that the source of news is via Twitter, you get personal and imply that I don’t have a life and suggest that I get one outside of Twitter. Ironic.

B. Yes, that asshole really did hunt that student down and published her identity and personal information - for asking a fucking question. Many of Bernie activists are on Twitter. And many of them are sexist assholes. Bernie needs to address this. It’s why so many women have issues with Bernie: for not addressing this.

C. I sent money to Amy Klobuchar.

[Haysey_Draws]

I learnt a long time ago to not trust Twitter, that and there is so much hate on that platform it really started to effect me personally. I've been a load more happy personally since i left last year. Not saying the above isn't true, just that i'll take anything from that platform with a healthy handful of salt.

[bobbie solo]

Le sigh. So then the word Twitter gets written 5 times in the first part of your response. Ok.

Wasn't implying that you don't actually have a life. Not trying to fight with you...we agree on most everything that gets discussed here.

[allegro]

I learnt a long time ago to not trust Twitter, that and there is so much hate on that platform it really started to effect me personally. I've been a load more happy personally since i left last year. Not saying the above isn't true, just that i'll take anything from that platform with a healthy handful of salt.

I’ve spent the last three decades in Law. I’m certified in legal research. I’ve been doing this online shit since 1985. There’s a fuck load of shit you can’t trust. Including lots of mainstream media, most shit online, and hardly any social media. But it’s not too hard to figure out how to read the data. Just avoid the comments.


Le sigh. So then the word Twitter gets written 5 times in the first part of your response. Ok.

Because that was your topic and bone of contention? From which you felt it necessary to rescue me and upon which you suggested I not waste my entire life? Had I linked a reddit page, perhaps this condescending digression from the actual topic would not have occurred. Silly old girl me. La vie est une chienne et puis tu meurs.

[Haysey_Draws]

Just avoid the comments.


I'm much happier avoiding the platform wholesale for my own mental well-being. I'm also much happier getting my news from actual news sites then social media, it's too much of a clusterfuck right now. All power to you though.

[allegro]

I'm much happier avoiding the platform wholesale for my own mental well-being. I'm also much happier getting my news from actual news sites then social media, it's too much of a clusterfuck right now. All power to you though.

Tweeted headlines deliver you to actual news sites via hyperlink. I also pay for subscriptions to digital and print copies of actual newspapers.

But, right now (on the T word), I’m watching Molly Jong-Fast take down Matt Walsh without Walsh even realizing it, and it’s hiLARIOUS. And yesterday I watched a SHITLOAD of journalists and lawyers live tweet the Cohen congressional hearing. But, yeah, it’s not for everyone. I fucking hate Facebook, don’t have an account, so I get it.


Back on topic: Joe Biden says he’s very close to making a decision re 2020 and that his family has given their blessing (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/26/698409206/joe-biden-very-close-to-2020-decision-as-his-family-gives-its-blessing)

[Swykk]

And this is why I will never join these ranks and will never vote for Bernie Sanders:

https://twitter.com/_celia_bedelia_/status/1100538733621858305?s=21

I hate most Tool fans but still like some of their albums.

See how that works? You’re better than this generalizing nonsense.

Do you hate NIN because cashpiles has targeted some ETSers?

“Black people don’t like Bernie.”

OH HAI Killer Mike.

Vote for the Democratic candidate that IS NOT Trump. This isn’t difficult. It’s been my message since 2016. I voted for HRC despite not liking her policies and the aforementioned DNC tactics. Swallow your pride. Too much is at stake.

[ltrandazzo]

I am not a Bernie Sanders fan. I am more excited about the people Bernie has inspired than Bernie himself. AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc. fit this bill.

Bernie Sanders' supporters who pull this shit ONLINE tend to not represent Bernie. Bernie should do more to disavow this nonsense from these fools, but he's also not sending out dog whistles the way other politicians do (i.e. Trump if you need that spelled out). The actions taken with the girl above are horrible but those folks, namely that idiot "Proggy B" did that without any signal from Bernie to do so.

My point is - I think the good folks who Bernie has inspired outweigh the bad folks he has inspired, and his lack of endorsement for those bad folks are one way to interpret his lack of support for their nonsense. I don't think that should disqualify him from consideration for president, even though I'm personally not a fan of his.

I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders, but if he wins the nomination and I have to choose between him and Trump, I'm voting for Bernie every single time without hesitation.

[allegro]

Vote for the Democratic candidate that IS NOT Trump. This isn’t difficult. It’s been my message since 2016. I voted for HRC despite not liking her policies and the aforementioned DNC tactics. Swallow your pride. Too much is at stake.

I understand all that. I voted for Clinton, and I didn’t love Clinton OR Sanders. Neither were BAD candidates; but I just didn’t feel they were candidates who were as clean as they were presenting on the issues.

But we are talking PRIMARIES, here.

We shall see.


As far as inspiration: we shall see, as well. The Green New Deal came from the Green Party, Howie Hawkins and Jill Stein. They got it from a New York Times OpEd piece in 2007. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/green-new-deal.html).

I believe that the wave of women begat the wave of more women; and that hardly any of the “progressive” ideas that have been promoted since BEFORE Sanders (e.g. health care is too fucking expensive and is a right for all, fix the college education expense mess and Ponzi scheme, improve infrastructure, shift the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthy, etc.) or even these women in office are radical OR PROGRESSIVE: These ideas have been and are accepted as necessary and NORMAL, and NOT having these things are radical. It’s how the ACA passed in 2008 and has NOT managed to get overturned by the Republicans (OR by SCOTUS).

It’s like THIS guy says:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU

[ryanmcfly]

Beto O'Rourke and his wife have made a decision and will announce it soon.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/elections-2020/2019/02/27/sources-beto-orourke-wontchallenge-john-cornyn-senate-paving-way-presidential-bid

[Jinsai]

I know it’s the primaries we’re talking about here, but I want civil intelligent and respectful discourse about issues. I can dream.

[Exocet]

its weird its like 20 months before the election yet I already know whose going to win, nobody in the Midwest really liked Trump, Mr Sanders would have swept the board,,,

his campaign is breaking records. in like the space of a week.

[theimage13]

its weird its like 20 months before the election yet I already know whose going to win, nobody in the Midwest really liked Trump, Mr Sanders would have swept the board,,,

his campaign is breaking records. in like the space of a week.

...and the winner is?

[ltrandazzo]

its weird its like 20 months before the election yet I already know whose going to win, nobody in the Midwest really liked Trump, Mr Sanders would have swept the board,,,

his campaign is breaking records. in like the space of a week.

I remember when we elected Howard Dean in 2003 and John Edwards in 2007. Man, they were great presidents.

[richardp]

nobody in the Midwest really liked Trump

As someone who actually lives in the Midwest, and not in fucking London, let me tell you, you are WILDLY wrong on that statement.

There's a guy who sets up a tent on the corner near my Mom's house and every weekend he peddles bootleg Trump merch. When I go over to her house for lunch or something, there's ALWAYS a line of people at it. Unless you live in the midwest, my man, you simply cannot understand the blind faith and loyalty to this guy in the middle of this fucking country.

[ltrandazzo]

Putting this one over here even though Holder eliminated himself from contention, he's calling for the next Dem president to pack the court to counter what ONE MAN (Mitch McConnell) did to break precedent regarding the Scalia vacancy - https://www.thedailybeast.com/eric-holder-says-next-democratic-president-should-consider-court-packing/

Only one candidate, Pete Buttigieg, has called for this as well.

[ltrandazzo]

Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Google, Facebook and Amazon and wants to prevent major tech mergers from happening so easily to restore competition and improvement while also keeping small businesses going.

Here. For. This.

1104019339215278080

[bobbie solo]

Putting this one over here even though Holder eliminated himself from contention, he's calling for the next Dem president to pack the court to counter what ONE MAN (Mitch McConnell) did to break precedent regarding the Scalia vacancy - https://www.thedailybeast.com/eric-holder-says-next-democratic-president-should-consider-court-packing/

Only one candidate, Pete Buttigieg, has called for this as well.

Back this a million percent. Also back full statehood for Wash DC, Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam and maybe even other territories. And while Bill Maher has become more and more insufferable every week, his ha;f serious/half joking idea to combine the Dakotas into one state SHOULD actually happen.

Republicans do not fuck around. They will fight tooth & nail before relinquishing any power they have, or before submitting on part. votes and issues. They play hardball every time. It's time Dems do the same, b/c they will never stop.

[bobbie solo]

Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Google, Facebook and Amazon and wants to prevent major tech mergers from happening so easily to restore competition and improvement while also keeping small businesses going.

Here. For. This.

1104019339215278080

never gonna happen but i back this too.

[allegro]

I don't think she "gets" a lot of what's going on. First, Amazon isn't "tech." It's retail. It just happens to be online retail. Which she doesn't seem to understand.

ALSO, THIS is a really good article (https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/marshall-auerback-antitrust-size-isnt-everything.html).

And THIS ARTICLE (https://www.microdinc.com/blog/create-ecommerce-website/).

Bezos, himself, knows that Amazon has a limited lifespan (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/bezos-tells-employees-one-day-amazon-will-fail-and-to-stay-hungry.html) and will someday go bankrupt.

[Jinsai]

"Google allegedly snuffed out a competing small search engine by demoting its content on its search algorithm, and it has favored its own restaurant ratings over those of Yelp." GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. Yelp is FAR MORE POPULAR than Google for restaurant ratings. In fact, it's SO popular, Google SHUT DOWN Google+. If I want restaurant ratings, I sure as fuck ain't going to GOOGLE, and hardly anybody else is, either.

I think I know what's being said here... If you just enter into google the name of a restaurant you're interested in, the first results will usually be the actual restaurant website, followed by whatever, followed by (as far as reviews go) the yelp page.

However, on the right side of the page (if the search is made via google) is a tab featuring the average star review from Google. I originally was confused into thinking that was a summary of the Yelp star average, and it's not. The google results are almost always higher ratings than Yelp.

So, in a way, yes, Google does spotlight their review system for restaurants in a more visible way upon a google search, it just presents them in a separate area from the search results.

[allegro]

I think I know what's being said here... If you just enter into google the name of a restaurant you're interested in, the first results will usually be the actual restaurant website, followed by whatever, followed by (as far as reviews go) the yelp page.

However, on the right side of the page (if the search is made via google) is a tab featuring the average star review from Google. I originally was confused into thinking that was a summary of the Yelp star average, and it's not. The google results are almost always higher ratings than Yelp.

So, in a way, yes, Google does spotlight their review system for restaurants in a more visible way upon a google search, it just presents them in a separate area from the search results.

I just Googled a VERY popular restaurant up the street in Chicago's wealthy North Shore.

The top hit was an Open Table link to the restaurant's Open Table page.

The second hit was the restaurant's page.

The third hit was the restaurant's menu.

The fourth hit was Open Table's ratings.

The fifth hit was Trip Adviser's ratings.

The SIXTH hit was Yelp.

On the RIGHT was the standard Google ad with information, including hours, pictures, and the Google reviews (which CLEARLY states "Google reviews")

The order of the hits is based on popularity, with the exception of the PAID AD at the very top (Open Table) which has "AD" inside of a box indicating it's an ad.

The difference between Yelp reviewers and Google reviewers are important to note. Anthony Bourdain FUCKING HATED YELP REVIEWERS.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRRK4loO6xQ

Yelp reviews aren't fair, in and of themselves. Your Yelp review isn't even SHOWN until you reach that stupid elite level of reviewing, and I frequently see THE STUPIDEST FUCKING RESTAURANT REVIEWS on Yelp. 3 Star Michelin restaurant Alinea, for instance, given 1 Yelp star and terrible reviews for being "too expensive" and "not having any vegan options." I tend to consider Open Table reviews more seriously than Yelp, and Google reviews more seriously than Yelp. And I'm totally guilty of Instagramming my meals from restaurants.

At any rate, Google isn't unfair to restaurants, it's just providing information and it WILL take down hostile reviews. One ASSHOLE was providing TERRIBLE reviews about my marina; this guy went on EVERY LOCAL MARINA site and blasted our marina. I told the manager at our marina about it, and asked about this guy. He said the guy wasn't even a customer, he was a boat surveyor who showed up 5 minutes before closing and was a jerk. Our marina manager told Google about it and POOF, these terrible reviews that this guy was SPAMMING all over Google disappeared. Good luck getting Yelp to bring down someone who's trying to destroy you on Yelp to do anything. You have to sue to do it.

[Jinsai]

totally agreed there... Yelp is fucking poison. I remember reading a review for one of my favorite sushi spots, and the person in the review bitched about how they weren't allowed to just walk in without a reservation. They didn't even see, let alone try the fucking food.

The only time Yelp intervenes is when Sarah Huckabee Sanders is kicked out by the restaurant owners and they get flooded with hate spam. (see, I made this post political in the end, somehow ;)

[ltrandazzo]

Bezos, himself, knows that Amazon has a limited lifespan (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/bezos-tells-employees-one-day-amazon-will-fail-and-to-stay-hungry.html) and will someday go bankrupt.

A good plan for society is not "become the richest man in the world, eat up all of the competition, and then go bankrupt and retire and leave everything burning."

Amazon is many things and one of them is a tech company. Alexa, Kindle, FireTV, the Amazon phone they tried to sell for a while: those are tech things. They're also an online retailer, but when you invent little surveillance devices that tell you what the weather is on Tuesday based on your voice command and your product is more well-known in the zeitgeist than Siri and Google, you're a tech company.

And before you edited a lot of your post away, I do want to make sure the point isn't lost that Warren is not calling on any of these companies to change their business model and services - she's calling on regulation to prevent rubber stamping mergers left and right in the tech world and to unwind some of these deals that have made the internet and small businesses worse off. Feasible or not, she's starting a debate on a passive outlook similar to the Fed's passive outlook on bank mergers. We'd be wise to take a step back and consider the price we pay for convenience in more than just currency.

I'm a bank manager for a mid-size bank that works closely with small businesses to get them growing and stay profitable, so this does hit close to home for me.

[allegro]

ltrandazzo, I come from a family of small business owners. Some of our best friends are small business owners. One of them, a staunch “Libertarian” and Trump supporter, constantly bitches about Google and about how it’s a “monopoly” and that it’s “unfair.” What my DAD (who owned a printing company for most of my life) used to say is: “It costs money to make money.” I was in advertising and marketing for many years. This Libertarian Trump friend, who owns a house painting business, is NOT tech savvy, won’t pay anyone to make him a web site, optimize it for Google, let alone get on fucking Angie’s List or give people a discount for a Google review. He living in the 50s. Meanwhile, my friend the self-employed consultant is making 6 figures optimizing companies’ web sites, etc.

You can sit and whine about the unfairness, or you can get on board and find a way to use it to your advantage. Use Amazon Marketplace’s HUGE connection to targeted audiences plus its built-in security to market your product. Use Google’s relatively cheap rates to reach your audience.

Advertising and marketing and distribution is expensive. Plain old brick and mortar retail is no longer a viable model.

We need to be very careful limiting invention and progress. Amazon is bringing DOWN prices. They’re now delving onto the prescription drug market. Yes, Bezos is too fucking rich and should spread the wealth and pay more taxes. But, so should Apple.

I agree that we need to limit mergers. We should have been doing that many years ago. But limiting mergers won’t prevent buyouts without mergers.

Meanwhile, this will never pass the Senate.

What I wish would be the focus in the 2020 are the people in Congress who drag their feet in demanding that healthcare costs and drug costs be lowered. No “stern warning” bullshit but actual legislation that would force these healthcare providers and drug companies to lower prices to an affordable rate, and SHOW US all Congresspeople who aren’t on board so we can PROTEST THEM RELENTLESSLY AND GET RID OF THEM.

[zecho]

I don't think she "gets" a lot of what's going on. First, Amazon isn't "tech." It's retail. It just happens to be online retail. Which she doesn't seem to understand.

Actually, Amazon is more of a tech company than anything else. While to the average consumer, Amazon is just a digital storefront, almost all of their operating income comes from AWS. Similarly to Google essentially being an advertising platform that uses their ad revenue to fund their other projects, Amazon is a web services company that uses their services' profits to fund their other projects.

AWS was one of the very first cloud computing services, and is to this day the most popular cloud computing service in the world, with virtually every tech company on Earth either using them in some way, or trying to catch up to them. Its popularity literally helped save their digital storefront from going out of business in 2002. So not only are they tech, they are one of the biggest tech giants in the world. Even Microsoft and Google have been unable to compete with them.

https://zdnet3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/08/23/beb5fe9a-6917-4440-933a-96c3bf858ed9/resize/770xauto/2360e26adca730d70b990efcb3fcd9fc/cloud-revenue-trends-0818.png

Basically what I'm saying is that she totally gets it. Or, at least someone in her campaign does.

[allegro]

Actually, Amazon is more of a tech company than anything else. While to the average consumer, Amazon is just a digital storefront, almost all of their operating income comes from AWS.

All their income is from AWS??? Seriously???

So retail is just a fun side project?

With all those HUGE distribution centers???

Still, she isn’t talking about AWS. She wants Amazon Basic and Amazon Marketplace split off from Amazon, as well as Whole Foods.

I specialized in Corporate Law for many years, as did Warren. I’m just trying to see what she’s getting at, here. It’s NOT just antitrust. It’s marketing, trying to “protect the little guy.” Except the little guy is using these services?

I like Warren, she specialized in bankruptcy law, she knows her stuff. But I’m confused by this one.

[Jinsai]

All their income is from AWS??? Seriously???

So retail is just a fun side project?

I think it WAS the loss-leader brand establishing foot in the door originally. For the longest time, despite the ubiquitousness and dominance of the online marketplace, Amazon was (to the best of my recollection) still losing money for a long, long time.

Kinda like Spotify in a way... it's a HUGE company, they are THE name in free streaming music, but they're not profitable... yet... until they reveal some next step in the business model beyond that. Isn't Uber even still reporting losses?

[allegro]

Dunno about Spotify. YouTube has been bleeding money from Google for years.


Re Amazon and AWS: https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/amazon-sales/

https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/31/amazon-earnings-q4-2018/

[zecho]

All their income is from AWS??? Seriously???

So retail is just a fun side project?

With all those HUGE distribution centers???

Every time I've ever talked about this with someone outside of the tech industry it always gets a big surprise. It's not that their retail stuff isn't important to them, it's just not their main source of money. AWS actually provided all of their operating income in 2017. It's pretty incredible how successful they've been with it. But yeah, just like you said, it's similar to YouTube and Google. Retail is their most well known venture, but AWS is their most successful.

[allegro]

Every time I've ever talked about this with someone outside of the tech industry it always gets a big surprise. It's not that their retail stuff isn't important to them, it's just not their main source of money. AWS actually provided all of their operating income in 2017. It's pretty incredible how successful they've been with it. But yeah, just like you said, it's similar to YouTube and Google. Retail is their most well known venture, but AWS is their most successful.

But read those above links?

Here’s another breakdown:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-amazon-makes-money/

There’s one article that supports what you say: https://www.zdnet.com/article/all-of-amazons-2017-operating-income-comes-from-aws/, but you are focusing solely on “earnings” as being net profits.

AWS is nearly pure profit. So, it would, of course, be intended to pump cash into the inventory side of the e-commerce business. But that doesn’t mean that AWS generates the most business, overall. Nor does it mean that Amazon’s e-commerce is operating at a loss. Amazon’s commerce is rolled into its overall commerce which include Whole Foods. Inventory costs money. Whole Foods could end up being a failed experiment.

But Amazon is a publicly traded company. It has to show earnings to its shareholders in its quarterly reports to not lose those shareholders and to sell more shares and to gain share value. So it needs at least some portion of the business that is highly profitable with little to no inventory or warehouse or delivery costs.

Here: https://ir.aboutamazon.com/annual-reports

[zecho]

But read those above links?

Here’s another breakdown:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-amazon-makes-money/

There’s one article that supports what you say: https://www.zdnet.com/article/all-of-amazons-2017-operating-income-comes-from-aws/

I did, and only one of them outright contradicts what I said. The digitalcommerce link says that half of their operating income was from AWS, but in the same sentence claims to be talking about net income, which is different. Meanwhile the venturebeat article says that AWS is their biggest seller, but also separates it's numbers into sales and subscriptions, both of which are provided by AWS, but only gives the figures on the sales side. The visualcapitalist article you just posted backs the operating income stat that I quoted, but then gives a pie chart that is net revenue, which doesn't take into account any expenses. I'm not saying any of these articles is right or wrong, but all four report different figures, and some even seem to mix up terminology. That said, the thing that all of them do support is that AWS is the star of the show right now, whether that means that it's their biggest overall money maker, the major source of their operating income, or their fastest growing division, all of which are supported by at least one of these articles. So forget the exact figures, the spirit of my post was that Amazon is a tech company, and all of these articles at least support that.

[allegro]

In Corporate and Business Law, an entity like Amazon is viewed as a conglomerate (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/business/dealbook/amazon-conglomerate.html).


The model begins like this: A company that is successful in one area turns itself into a conglomerate by using its free cash flow to finance the development or acquisition of businesses in other areas — at first, ones that are similar to their current business, and later often ones that are farther afield. And then the company does this again and again.

Although, this guy provides a pretty good argument against that. (https://loosethreads.com/espresso/2018/02/06/what-is-amazon-definitely-not-a-conglomerate/)

Bezos looks at Amazon as three separate entities that support each other, through various growth phases.

Amazon is a fucking massive gorilla of a company that’s been in a constant growth and acquisition phase, all the while remaining hugely profitable. It’s nuts. They’re into advertising, AI, investing, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, all KINDS of shit.

It’s astounding: https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/amazon-strategy-teardown/

See this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2018/04/22/5-acquisitions-that-will-fuel-amazons-next-growth-phase/


CEO Jeff Bezos says Amazon rests on the three pillars of Amazon Prime, Amazon Web Services, and Marketplace, and the company’s acquisition strategy is designed to support each.

Nearly 40 of Amazon’s 2017 patents were focused on developing its cloud computing systems, while the company also filed over 30 patents focused on improving its logistics network.

Acquiring Whole Foods for $13.7B last year shows acquisitions are evaluated on the potential Amazon has to scale up transactions and scale down prices drastically.

Amazon accounts for about 4% of all retail and about 44% of all e-commerce spending in the U.S.
You’re right that technology supports and drives a lot of Amazon. But the part that Warren wants to split up is the e-commerce part.

She wants to force them to divide Amazon Marketplace, Amazon Basic and Amazon. And I don’t even know how that would be possible, they’re SO integrated. But I suppose Bezos could figure it out. And game the system.


Amy Klobuchar talks healthcare, Israel, and that comb (lol): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-2020-staff-interview.html

In this article, Sen. Warren says re Amazon:

“You can be an umpire — a platform — or you can own teams. That’s fine. But you can’t be an umpire and own one of the teams that’s in the game. Break those things apart and we will have a much more competitive, robust market in America. That’s how capitalism should work.”

ALL of which is why NO STATE SHOULD GIVE AMAZON ANY TAX INCENTIVES!!!!

[ltrandazzo]

Matt Yglesias writes about 2020 Dem candidates and the filibuster in the Senate - Nobody runs on Senate procedure, but without changing it, nothing is going to happen. (https://www.vox.com/2019/3/5/18241447/filibuster-reform-explained-warren-booker-sanders)


“We should not be doing anything to mess with the strength of the filibuster,” says Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).

Most senator candidates are with Booker. Bernie Sanders says he’s “not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster.” His plan for Senate reform is statehood for the District of Columbia, which he thinks can get done because “I hope my Republican colleagues do the right thing.”

Kamala Harris is “conflicted.” And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is concerned about the risks to being in the minority. “Having just lived through being in the minority,” she explains, “I just want to think long and hard about it.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, though, disagrees, telling Pod Save America that “all the options are on the table.”

Non-senators, by contrast, are more inclined to agree with Warren. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is all for scrapping it, as is Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.[/url]

[quote]It’s very hard to create big new programs, but once they’re in place, they are hard to take away. There is, for example, vociferous disagreement about the political viability of a Big Bang switch away from the current US health insurance patchwork to a uniform single-payer system. But nobody thinks that if a single-payer system existed, it would be remotely viable to try to switch back to the current pastiche. Similarly, if you passed a law making it easier to form labor unions, that would lead to more unionized workers, which would make it harder to pass new anti-union laws.

Also, see attempts at hurting labor unions in red states like Missouri (still pains me to type that) in 2018 - they didn't pass and "Right to Work" legislation all failed in their state government. Teachers unions are striking and getting pay raises across the country. When you pass sweeping reform and install an institution like the ACA, it makes it harder to repeal, especially as more people become dependent on it.

Anyway, read more in the piece. And, remember this - we have a lot of candidates declaring who aren't making policy proposals or opening bids on things (unlike Warren and breaking up Amazon). As time goes on, campaigns who don't stand out above their peers tend to have lower polling numbers, and those presidential hopefuls turn into VP hopefuls or campaign surrogates come Summer 2020.

My updated Way-Too-Early Top Picks -

1. Elizabeth Warren - she's still firing shots and is making the rounds. I consider her tech company proposal a conversation starter and one we should be having, even if her goals appear unrealistic. Her honestly around trying to pass legislation is also going to keep her peers honest moving forward.
2. Mayor Pete - Look, the guy has been blowing up out of the gate and is starting to raise his profile, especially after a great showing this past weekend on a CNN town hall with Jake Tapper. He has the best summary out of the gate as well (paraphrasing) - "I have more legislative experience than Trump, more executive experience than Pence, and more military experience than both combined." His conversations are backing that up as well.
3. Bernie Sanders - He's polling well from the start and he can claim OG credentials for single payer and other progressive proposals. He has to do more in other areas of inclusion.
4. Kamala Harris - I need policy proposals or something. Tweets from the 2008 Obama playbook won't do anything now.

[allegro]

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio announced that he is NOT running.

But many are glad because he’ll still be a Democrat in the Senate.

I LOVE him, he is driving the Democrats back again toward caring about labor unions and the entire working class, the “dignity of work.”

This is a great interview with him from yesterday on MTP:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRqtbL6GSj8

[ltrandazzo]

Facebook took down, and then restored, Elizabeth Warren's ad calling for Facebook's breakup (https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/tech/elizabeth-warren-facebook-ads/index.html)


In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson said the company originally removed the ad because it violated Facebook's prohibition against modifying its corporate logo. The ad includes Facebook's "f" trademark surrounded by a comic-book dialog bubble. It also includes icons to represent Amazon and Google.

Facebook said it restored the ad for the sake of "robust debate."

... Right.

[ryanmcfly]

Looking like Beto is running and announcing tomorrow. https://www.ktsm.com/news/politics/beto-o-rourke-is-running-for-president-in-2020-ktsm-confirms/1846804405

[Jinsai]

Looking like Beto is running and announcing tomorrow. https://www.ktsm.com/news/politics/beto-o-rourke-is-running-for-president-in-2020-ktsm-confirms/1846804405

A Sanders/Beto (with Beto as VP) would absolutely destroy Trump. Yet, somehow, I am pretty sure the Democrats will cook up something much riskier and sell it through the primaries. Whatever though... they’d have to come up with something truly insane to lose my vote in 2020

[Swykk]

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I said this before here, but Beto should be the only VP choice on any Democratic nominee’s list. He’s young. He will get the centrist vote.

I could also see Sanders and Warren teaming up (AS THEY DAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE IN 2016 but Warren kind of sat and waited foolishly).

[Jinsai]

I like the old-guard/new-blood Dem ticket. Sanders is much more revolutionary than your typical Democrat, but fuck it, this is the party that's ostensibly progressive, so let's act like it I guess. Having a young, progressive, inspiring option like Beto as VP gets rid of the issue of Sanders' age. Seriously, this cannot lose. The whole map would turn blue.

And... on that note, Beto just announced he's running.

[Swykk]

I saw that. He probably won’t get the nomination but it’s a good move for him to make.

[allegro]

Let’s start placing bets, LOL.

Not on who we “want” but on who it’s likely to be.

My money is on Biden / Beto.


Edit: How many are in, so far? I guess 15? https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

Ha I’d forgotten that Marianne Williamson is running.

[elevenism]

I like the old-guard/new-blood Dem ticket. Sanders is much more revolutionary than your typical Democrat, but fuck it, this is the party that's ostensibly progressive, so let's act like it I guess. Having a young, progressive, inspiring option like Beto as VP gets rid of the issue of Sanders' age. Seriously, this cannot lose. The whole map would turn blue.

And... on that note, Beto just announced he's running.

I don't know. I'm afraid of Bernie being perceived as TOO radical for some Democratic voters.
I'm not sure he's out best chance at getting rid of Captain Asshole.

[Jinsai]

I don't know. I'm afraid of Bernie being perceived as TOO radical for some Democratic voters.
I'm not sure he's out best chance at getting rid of Captain Asshole.

When you really want to evaluate who is a good bet, take a look at who the other side is flailing to demonize. They're scared of Beto, it's why that whole disingenuous scandal blew up framing him as anti-BLM happened. They're scared of AOC... and they're scared of Sanders, because he's kind of a rallying point for a lot of these ideas getting traction.

The only people who would be scared away are centrists-in-name-only, and that is not a group large enough to really care about. The youth vote tradeoff would be far more powerful in the end. Anyone who is honest about how they're an independent moderate is champing at the bit to vote Trump out of office.

EDIT: and now Trump is weighing in, saying that Beto's "hand movement" is "crazy."
Uh... dude... what's next? Are you going to bash him for his comb-over hair, or say he's got a big fat ass, or that his face is too orange? Maybe he says "tremendous" too much? Is his tie too long? Maybe he dances around like a muppet when the Arby's theme song comes on?

[allegro]

The President is the chief of the Executive Branch, the Commander in Chief of the Military, the face of the country, who deals with foreign policy, the state department, national security and national emergencies, NATO, and appointment of Federal judges and SCOTUS justices, etc.

When we view a Presidential candidate, we shouldn’t think creating laws. That’s up to Congress. We should think enforcement of laws, judicial and global.

Wikipedia is succinct:


The president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government and is constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". The executive branch has over four million employees, including members of the military.

[theimage13]

When we view a Presidential candidate, we shouldn’t think laws or local. That’s up to Congress. We should think legal, global and judicial.

I feel like we should *also* be thinking laws though. They may be up to Congress, but having a president who will publicize and push for certain legislation is far more likely to get Congress to act on it than otherwise. Take decriminalizing marijuana as an example. On their own, Congress doesn't seem to have any real motivation to do much there. But put in a president who will stir the pot (sorry - really not an intended pun) and I firmly believe that the chances of new legislation being created rises drastically.

[allegro]

I feel like we should *also* be thinking laws though. They may be up to Congress, but having a president who will publicize and push for certain legislation is far more likely to get Congress to act on it than otherwise. Take decriminalizing marijuana as an example. On their own, Congress doesn't seem to have any real motivation to do much there. But put in a president who will stir the pot (sorry - really not an intended pun) and I firmly believe that the chances of new legislation being created rises drastically.

I respectfully disagree.

Barack Obama promised, in 2008, to get rid of the Patriot Act and to close Gitmo. These never happened.

Barack Obama promised, in 2008, a national healthcare plan with no mandatory individual coverage and negotiated healthcare prices. (Here’s a summary of his plan in 2007. The ACA was written by health insurance lobbyists.) (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-unveils-universal-health-care-plan/) Didn’t happen. Also, Congress refused to do anything about immigration reform, forcing Obama to issue an EO that was blocked by SCOTUS (https://www-m.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F).

And he had a Democratic Congress for two years.

The Senate will likely still be a Republican majority in 2020 for two more years. And, even not, Congress largely votes NOT by what their constituents want or what the President recommends but what lobbyists tell them, or what won’t risk their own ass.

Eventually, marijuana will be Federally legalized. But, first, it will likely go through a process of decriminalization, in steps.

The recent prison reform bill was one such step.

When a majority of states decriminalize or legalize marijuana, the Federal government will likely pass legislation.

If NOT, it’s likely that a lawsuit related to IRS small business credits etc. will go as far as SCOTUS.

Now, there ARE ways that having ANY Democrat in the Executive works.

In Illinois, for example, many pieces of legislation were prepared by the Democratic-majority legislative body but were vetoed by former (Republican) Governor Bruce Rauner. (Democrat) Gov. J.B. Pritzker has been in office less than two months and he’s already started signing these formerly-dead pieces of legislation into law.

Some major pieces of legislation in the Democratic House in D.C. are dead-in-the-water NOW (HR-1).

But if ANY Democrat wins the Presidency and if the House maintains its Democratic majority, and some weird thing happens where they can get some Republicans on board in the Senate or if (pray) the Democrats somehow flip the Senate (only likely if there is another economic crash ... which many are predicting), then it's likely that most of that dead legislation gets signed / rubber stamped.

[ltrandazzo]

Eventually, marijuana will be Federally legalized. But, first, it will likely go through a process of decriminalization, in steps.

And this is the correct way that it should be done so that cases can be made to vacate harsh, long-term sentences currently being served by non-violent drug offenders and to prevent these from happening in the future. Rich white people constantly photograph themselves with gigantic bags of weed in their dispensaries while poor white people and all people of color usually get thrown into jail for 5-7 years (sometimes longer) for selling a dime bag.

Obama would also be the first to say that campaigning on hope and change and then turning that into policy ended up being much harder to do than he and his administration realized. The ACA was written to be conservative (it was based on the model Mitt Romney implemented in Mass. to win Republican votes after consulting with McConnell and Boehner). And remember this, we were one vote away from having a public option in the ACA until insurance lobbyists leaned on Joe Lieberman and got him come out against it.

However, Lieberman was outweighed by other courageous politicians who took the chance to vote for the ACA and ended up losing their seats as a result, so an argument can be made to do the right thing, maybe lose out in the immediate term but potentially gain in the longer term. One could also argue that our current House on average is more liberal than in recent terms, and that a potential Senate win would yield a similar result. It's not to say that passing progressive legislation would be smooth, but the odds would increase dramatically.

[allegro]

It’s interesting.

The ACA is DEFINITELY a watered-down version of what the voters wanted, what put Obama in office. Then it was amended (gutted) by allowing states to reject the Medicaid expansion. And insurance companies fucked it up with plain old GREED. And the ACA contains very few cost-reduction mandates, as promised. Because so many in Congress are so deeply imbedded in healthcare stocks.

So all that resulted in the Democrats losing their control of Congress in 2010 due to the Tea Party movement.

But, it also resulted in the Democrats winning BACK the House!

The Republicans still haven’t gotten RID of the ACA, because voters don’t want to go backward.

And I wouldn’t say this is more “liberal.”

I think most voters are just so fucking sick of the high cost of healthcare and health insurance, the idea of reducing costs for both is actually MAINSTREAM.

Voters just want a REALISTIC plan that won’t fuck them over. Even Republican voters want this. This is no longer radical.

The insurance industry forcing us all to carry the very best plan (with maternity coverage when you’re 55) without mandating the vast reduction of costs only lines the pockets of both the healthcare stock holders and board trustees as well as those in the insurance industry.

Get rid of primary health insurance companies, pay our premiums directly to Medicare, cut out the middle man, cut out profit, pay only for supplemental insurance if necessary, this stuff sounds “radical”’ until it’s explained with charts etc.

Consider what your employers and you pay to the insurance companies in premiums and deductibles and copays every year. We revise the whole mess by providing an amended list of (REDUCED) reasonable and acceptable costs to healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies; the government then becomes the primary payer, and charges each person and his/her employer a monthly premium which would be lower than before; and we ELIMINATE THE FICA CAP which would pay for the whole thing. But, yeah, Congress would have to do all of this.

[allegro]

Pete almost has enough to get to the Democratic debates. (It sucks that it requires this - vs. something like petitions - to get to be in the debate.)

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1105912069872848898

I donated $10.

[ltrandazzo]

I'm going to regret posting this, and it's super unreasonable for me to feel the way I do about it because I don't know any of the people involved personally, but...

Splinter News can fuck right off getting all upset that Rosario Dawson, noted Bernie '16 supporter, is now in a relationship with Cory Booker - someone who the average Bernie supported likely doesn't care for. Take your dumbass "GIRL WYD" article and fuck off forever with that.

Ugh.

https://splinternews.com/rosario-dawson-wyd-1833307492

[allegro]

Trump and his team are terrified of Joe Biden. (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/donald-trump-joe-biden-2020-election) (Vanity Fair)


Going into 2020, Republicans appear to have coalesced around a strategy to keep Donald Trump in office: bait Democrats into nominating a far-left progressive, and thereby drive centrists back, screaming, into Trump’s open arms. The two biggest threats to this plan, G.O.P. insiders suggest, are Beto O’Rourke and Joe Biden, whom they see as more palatable in a general election than a socialist like Bernie Sanders.

There is already something of a plan in place to tank Beto, even if it’s not fully baked. Republicans figure they can play up suspicions on the left that O’Rourke, who previously drew donations from the pro-Republican business establishment, is a phony progressive who doesn’t really believe in anything besides his own celebrity. (The Club for Growth is already out with an ad decrying O’Rourke’s “white male privilege.”)

[allegro]

Mayor Pete reached the 65,000 individual donor goal so he’s officially invited to the DNC debate.

[theimage13]

Trump and his team are terrified of Joe Biden. (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/donald-trump-joe-biden-2020-election) (Vanity Fair)

I really wish Sanders wasn't running. I think the majority of voters - especially non-GOP voters - are really tired of the loud, shouty-type demeanor of some politicians. I think people want someone calm, eloquent, and rational. Someone campaigning on extreme ideas on the left is not going to win the White House; at least not now. The only way a Democrat wins in 2020 is if the EC is suddenly abolished or they run a more moderate candidate who will appeal to true independent voters and GOP voters who are sick of Trump. I think Biden - as much as I have reservations about his age - would be one of the best shots at that.

[allegro]

Amy Klobuchar on MTP today, asked by (host) Chuck Todd about slave reparations.

She provides the standard white-person-in power answer: oh, well, we fix the problem by putting money “into their community” and sending them to college and community college and increasing the minimum wage.

Interpretation: Sure, we gave people who were held in Japanese internment camps reparations, and Jews reparations, but descendants of people we kidnapped and kept like livestock and abused and raped for generations? Let’s keep them segregated in their “communities,” keep them in minimum wage jobs, or send them to college to accumulate a ton of debt that enriches white people but their chances of getting hired are way lower (never mind that maybe they just want to own a nail salon). But, money for reparations? God, no, they would just waste it on stupid stuff. We have to direct where that money for them goes and how and where they live, like we’ve been doing for hundreds of years.



MEANWHILE, Joe Biden slipped up and accidentally admitted that he’s running.

[allegate]

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1107314663023353864

[allegro]

https://twitter.com/Very_Stable_G/status/1107469380395266049?s=20


Still miss my favorite Chicago President, Barack O’Bama. :)

[ltrandazzo]

Harris, Warren and Gillibrand are warming to the idea of packing the court with liberal justices since Mitch McConnell decided he could set a new precedent by holding up a nomination for over 400 days to prevent someone who could get appointed with near-unanimous support in exchange for two guys he had to nuke the filibuster over (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-1223625)

[allegro]

A Democrat just needs to win in 2020. Ginsberg and Thomas are going to retire.

FDR tried to pack the Court.

Read this to see what happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

BETTER legislation would be one that would REQUIRE the Senate to hold hearings on the justice nomination within 90 days.

Also, in the RBG documentary, RBG (who turned 86 on March 15) indicates that when she was seated on the SCOTUS in 1993, she was a moderate swing justice. She deliberately chose to interpret from a liberal view when the Court lost some of the liberal justices. NOTE that Chief Justice Roberts appears to have moved to be the moderate swing justice, no longer a reliable conservative.

Here is one article about Roberts as the swing justice. (https://qz.com/1506186/chief-justice-roberts-the-new-swing-vote-on-supreme-court/)

[ltrandazzo]

I see your Clarence Thomas retiring and raise you a Clarence Thomas could retire much sooner than thought so a 40-50 year old conservative justice can take his place - https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/ruth-bader-ginsburg-isnt-looking-to-retire-yet-but-is-another-supreme-court-justice-ready-to-go

[allegro]

Yeah I’ve been reading that, too, from many other sources.

But I’d also been reading that RGB is going to retire.

If a Democrat has the Presidency for 8 years, then it’s a guarantee.

Either way, NOBODY could be worse than Thomas. The guy is WORSE THAN SCALIA. Ugh he’s a judicial TURD.

[ltrandazzo]

Yeah I’ve been reading that, too, from many other sources.

But I’d also been reading that RGB is going to retire.

If a Democrat has the Presidency for 8 years, then it’s a guarantee.

Either way, NOBODY could be worse than Thomas. The guy is WORSE THAN SCALIA. Ugh he’s a judicial TURD.

What I'm getting at though is that the hope that Thomas retires AFTER Trump is out office and thus realigning the court into a 5-4 liberal majority is for naught if he just retires before then (and his wife is a conservative activist who has been to the White House a few times during this administration, so you know this has likely come up). You just extend his conservative seat another 30 years instead of replacing him in the next 2-5. RBG is a wash if she retires during a Dem president.

So, you either hope that Clarence Thomas isn't a giant asshole, or you pack the court.

[allegro]

What I'm getting at though is that the hope that Thomas retires AFTER Trump is out office and thus realigning the court into a 5-4 liberal majority is for naught if he just retires before then (and his wife is a conservative activist who has been to the White House a few times during this administration, so you know this has likely come up). You just extend his conservative seat another 30 years instead of replacing him in the next 2-5. RBG is a wash if she retires during a Dem president.

So, you either hope that Clarence Thomas isn't a giant asshole, or you pack the court.

If Thomas retires TOMORROW, the justice who replaces him can no way be as big of a dick as Thomas. Because Thomas is that big of a dick. He sleeps through oral hearings and has like six law clerks and should have recused himself like TWENTY times. My husband keeps hoping Thomas has a fatal grabber, but that’s bad karma so I don’t go that far.

Thomas cited LOVING VS VIRGINA - the very case THAT ALLOWED HIM TO MARRY HIS WHITE WIFE - as NOT being the basis of equality for gay marriage. Thomas voted against the Voters Rights Act and Affirmative Action, and he sexually harassed Anita Hill and blamed “uppity blacks” for harassing him.

The guy is a TURD who should have been IMPEACHED years (decades) ago. My house will be throwing a PARTY when he’s no longer on the Court.

If Thomas retires tomorrow, Roberts remains the swing and Thomas Hardiman takes Thomas’ place.

But ANY Presidential candidate telling you that he/she will somehow change the number on the SCOTUS is bullshitting.

No offense, but ...

IT
WON’T
HAPPEN

Sounds fun. Won’t happen. It’s up to Congress. And Congress didn’t do it before and they won’t do it now. When FDR tried to push such legislation onto Congress, he was accused of attempting a dictatorship.

[theimage13]

I swear someone here said they wanted Bernie partly, if not primarily, because he was crushing it in the polls and super popular.

So...um....about that.

Polls show Bernie Sanders popularity among all voters is plummeting (https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/bernie-sanders-favorable-unfavorable-rating/index.html)

[Demogorgon]

Bernie is already bracing himself for a loss anyway, he said flat out that if he doesn't win the nomination he'll 100% back the person who does. Compare this to last time where he held out endorsing Hillary until the absolute last minute. He doesn't expect to win. He wants to make sure his voting base doesn't abandon the party, though.

[Aladdinsanity]

I swear someone here said they wanted Bernie partly, if not primarily, because he was crushing it in the polls and super popular.

So...um....about that.

Polls show Bernie Sanders popularity among all voters is plummeting (https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/bernie-sanders-favorable-unfavorable-rating/index.html)

This poll leaves out everyone under the age of 50 entirely.

[Jinsai]

I wonder if a lot of these people out there sharing anti-Beto and anti-Sanders memes and stuff.... I wonder if they ever get the feeling, y'know, like they're being tricked?

[ltrandazzo]

I wonder if a lot of these people out there sharing anti-Beto and anti-Sanders memes and stuff.... I wonder if they ever get the feeling, y'know, like they're being tricked?

Beto contemplates this as he jumps on his 17th coffee shop counter and finally steps on someone's danish.

I'd be more worried about the anti-Beto stuff if he actually had an answer for something instead of just saying he'll think on it. Bro - you're running for president. You better have a good fucking idea about what SOME of your positions are. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren has a 15-point plan on something that could actually improve your life because she's been thinking about it a LOT and Nate Silver is out here pointing out that the men are getting way more media coverage than the women.

1108434202255593473

[theimage13]

I'd be more worried about the anti-Beto stuff if he actually had an answer for something instead of just saying he'll think on it. Bro - you're running for president.

Well if we're using the current official as a guideline, thinking on it is already wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ahead of anything 45 is doing.

[ltrandazzo]

BvQigk2HWkn

Anyway, polls are polls. I know there's some analysis out there about how they have some impact right now, but the important thing to remember is that it's still early and the field is incomplete.

Also somewhat-Crooked related: Cory Booker is now open to eliminating the filibuster in the Senate after saying as early as last month that it should be kept in place. He cites talking to voters who made "practical arguments" -

1108726311785283584

[allegro]

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren has a 15-point plan on something that could actually improve your life because she's been thinking about it a LOT and Nate Silver is out here pointing out that the men are getting way more media coverage than the women.

Amen to THAT.

-----

You know, I'm gonna go ahead and say what I'm thinking, here, critics be damned.

The image of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern wearing a hijab and comforting women at a mosque (after the recent tragedy where a Trump-fueled white supremacist murdered 50 Muslims) really sealed how I feel about our own upcoming 2020 election.

This is what a real leader looks like:

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBUTgk0.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=1928&y=953p

This NYT piece got it right: Why Jacinda Ardern Matters: New Zealand’s prime minister is emerging as the progressive antithesis to right-wing strongmen like Trump, Orban and Modi, whose careers thrive on illiberal, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand.html)

I'm TIRED of the piece of shit that occupies the White House, pushing his patriarchal nationalistic propaganda poison via the sewer that is the internet and social media.

Ms. Ardern is a shining example of why it's WAY past time for the United States to have a strong female / woman leader. No more excuses.

I'm sick of these males who won't get the fuck out of the way, who won't support the women candidates, who instead continue to push the same patriarchal status quo that keeps them in charge, has kept them in charge for over 240 years. This includes MSM.

Fuck that.

In the primaries, I'm voting for a woman.

I'm putting all of my efforts towards women candidates. Trump’s probably going to win in 2020, anyway, because too many to the left are either too lazy to vote or are waiting for the perfect Radical Messiah Unicorn.

This all just feels like we are in the Stone Age compared to every other modern industrialized nation in the world. We elected a black man as President BEFORE we elected a woman.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkWHsW5kcyE

[theimage13]

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1111034433430278145

[Jinsai]

I wonder about the viability of an openly gay man running for president. I'd like to believe "America is ready" for the idea, but I live in Los Angeles. If there's one thing this Trump cultish support has proven to me, I am wildly out of touch with the prevalent "values" of large portions of this country. And then I remember seeing Cruz and Huckabee fighting each other for who would grace the stage alongside Kim Davis, and the loud celebration of "religious values" when a cake-maker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple. I really don't know, and it pisses me off that the concern comes to mind even... I'd like to think that I should be completely unconcerned with the voting inclinations of bigots, but then there's the reality of the situation, and the likelihood that if Trump is reelected, we'll see civil rights rolled back and regressions ramped up to a degree I don't even want to think about or seriously consider.

[allegro]

I wonder about the viability of an openly gay man running for president. I'd like to believe "America is ready" for the idea, but I live in Los Angeles. If there's one thing this Trump cultish support has proven to me, I am wildly out of touch with the prevalent "values" of large portions of this country. And then I remember seeing Cruz and Huckabee fighting each other for who would grace the stage alongside Kim Davis, and the loud celebration of "religious values" when a cake-maker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple. I really don't know, and it pisses me off that the concern comes to mind even... I'd like to think that I should be completely unconcerned with the voting inclinations of bigots, but then there's the reality of the situation, and the likelihood that if Trump is reelected, we'll see civil rights rolled back and regressions ramped up to a degree I don't even want to think about or seriously consider.

I follow some (funny) gay #resist activists on Twitter. And now the black gay activists are fighting with the white gay activists over Pete Buttigieg. Because the black gay activists are behind Kamala Harris and the white gay activists are pissed that they're not all voting for the gay guy. But the black gay activists say yeah Buttigieg is gay but he's still too white and out-of-touch with minorities.

[allegro]

https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1110964127701364736

[ltrandazzo]

@Jinsai (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) & Cat Mom -

https://www.dictionary.com/e/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ouroboros.jpg

[Jinsai]

As long as there’s no singularly concerned one-issue-voter Buttigieg-or-bust thing... I’m not going to tell people how to feel or how they should vote, and I’m down to reach for the stars... I personally feel like we need to climb out of the gutter first, but hey, that’s me. The best news Trump can get is “the liberals are at each other’s throats trying to out-progress each other, meanwhile there’s a unified MAGA-hat crowd that is lining up to suck your balls.”

[bobbie solo]

I wonder about the viability of an openly gay man running for president. I'd like to believe "America is ready" for the idea, but I live in Los Angeles. If there's one thing this Trump cultish support has proven to me, I am wildly out of touch with the prevalent "values" of large portions of this country. And then I remember seeing Cruz and Huckabee fighting each other for who would grace the stage alongside Kim Davis, and the loud celebration of "religious values" when a cake-maker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple. I really don't know, and it pisses me off that the concern comes to mind even... I'd like to think that I should be completely unconcerned with the voting inclinations of bigots, but then there's the reality of the situation, and the likelihood that if Trump is reelected, we'll see civil rights rolled back and regressions ramped up to a degree I don't even want to think about or seriously consider.

Anyone who wouldn't vote for an openly gay man, part. this dude if you just listen to him for a few minutes, wouldn't vote for any Dem anyway over a Republican, so fuck em. And there's no way that any of the Dem candidates will inspire the amount of people to stay home & not vote as Hillary did, so you don't have to worry about overwhelming voter apathy bc of someone like Buttigeig as well (imo of course).

[allegro]

Joe Biden is toast. Burnt toast.

I wouldn’t vote for him if a gun was pointed at my head.

If Biden announces a run, now, he’s a total moron.

This issue has been around him for a LONG time and nobody until now has had the courage to address it. Everyone sums it up to Joe being an Old Man Who Didn’t Get The Memo.

Time’s Up means stop explaining away and / or accepting unacceptable behavior. Time’s Up. Get Out and support OTHER candidates but stay away from the candidacy, yourself.


Edit: In case you are not yet aware. (https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/an-awkward-kiss-changed-how-i-saw-joe-biden.html)

See also this. (https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/joe-biden-isnt-the-answer-for-president-in-2020.html)

[Demogorgon]

There have been stories about Biden for a long time, and it's been hard to say what was potentially true and what was attack propeganda. It's about time something was put out into the open.

[Jinsai]

It just seemed obvious to me that there was some skeleton in Biden’s optics closet at the very least, and people who knew about it were seeding this idea that he’d just be great, and that perhaps he alone has what it takes to take on Trump. Word is guys, Trump is terrified of Biden!!!

oh, no, anything but the briar patch Mr Fox.

[allegro]

There’s a WHOLE BUNCH of dudes in the “older” generation who think it’s okay to treat any women as if we are all family members, doling out “affection” and touching in the workplace and in professional situations, and it puts us women in terribly awkward situations where we don’t know how to react, our gut knows it’s inappropriate, it feels creepy, but we know we aren’t protected; we know a trip to HR will likely just make us targets. You’d be hard pressed to find any female who hasn’t experienced this.

But people are blaming this Biden thing on Lucy Flores: She “should have told him at the time” (she explains why she didn’t in her essay), she must be some kind of “political operative” etc. Or they’re doing the “not as bad as” comparison game, “well he didn’t SEXUALLY ASSAULT her!” “He didn’t do what JUDGE KAVANAUGH did!”

Google “creepy Uncle Joe Biden” a month ago and you’d see all the shit that’s been floating around social media for a few YEARS.

This isn’t a “Me Too” moment. This is a “Time’s Up” moment.

Joe needs to stop doing that shit to women and little girls. This is the Memo he evidently never read.

Now, a lot of people are clutching their pearls, “okay so Joe Biden is destroyed and WE ARE GONNA END UP WITH FOUR MORE YEARS OF TRUMP. I HOPE Y’ALL ARE HAPPY, NOW!!”

As if Joe Biden was the sole Jesus hope, just like the MSM and (cough) “polls” were telling us.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren: Oh, no, Republicans don’t like her because of Pocahontas.

And Harris, Republicans don’t like her because she slept with a married man.

And Klobuchar, Republicans don’t like her because she is a bitch at work.

And Buttigieg has a husband so no.

And Bernie is a COMMUNIST.

So Democrats choose their candidates, now, by what Republicans think of them, according to MSM.

Anyway ...

I’m REALLY glad the Biden stuff was outed, because it sparks discussion about how this shit ain’t okay, anymore. It hasn’t been okay in DECADES.

One of my former bosses was like that, giving neck massages to secretaries and female attorneys and shit. And behind his back, most women said he “meant well” but we all said, “doesn’t he know you’re not supposed to do that?” Nobody had the guts to tell him. Mostly I think because they didn’t want to HURT HIS FEELINGS. This was in the NINETIES.

[Jinsai]

the only reason I THINK Biden was propped up as "help us Joe Biden, you're our only hope" is cuz that idea was seeded to influence people in who they'd support in the primaries. I've seen this "GO BIDEN!" shit aggressively promoted in FB groups with bad moderation.

[allegro]

I think older or more conservative Democrat voters see him as this nice safe “EVEN REPUBLICANS LIKE HIM!” Grandpa choice.

I was watching “Windy City Live” this afternoon and they polled their live audience and asked them to clap if they thought what Biden did was inappropriate. NOBODY CLAPPED.

My Mom just called me, all PISSED OFF at “what they’re saying about poor Joe Biden.” When I gave her an earful about how it IS inappropriate, and how women aren’t being taken seriously if men are touching and kissing them in professional settings, she scoffed like I’m an idiot. I said, hey, you old farts are gonna LOSE this one; the times are changing, GOOD RIDDANCE TO THAT! And I’m pushing SIXTY!

Who the FUCK wants to RETAIN the “good old days” of guys being AFFECTIONATE at WORK? Or being overly touchy to little kids whom they don’t even know??

Here’s the other thing: Joe Biden has lost a Presidential bid. TWICE. He didn’t even make it anywhere near the PRIMARIES. What makes things different, now? Oh, he can ARGUE with Trump? Gonna “take him out to the wood shed?” Like that equals VOTES?

Nope.

[Jinsai]

and all I'm saying is, there's a reason Republican leaning DINOs are suggesting that "Biden was our only hope."

And there's a similar (but diametrically opposed) reason why they hate Beto and ACO. Who should we believe in? Let's bank on the people Republicans are telling us are a long shot, and let's ignore them when they tell us things like "The ONLY dem candidate Trump is afraid of is Biden!!!!!"

[allegro]

I totally agree with what you’re saying. But MSNBC is selling the same shit, is what I’m saying. The CHICAGO TRIBUNE and VANITY FAIR have published pieces about Biden being “the only” threat to Trump. As if that’s all that matters; as if VOTING has nothing to do with any of it. It’s like they think the winner of a debate is going to win the White House.

I really think this election is going to be a lot less about Trump and all about issues like healthcare, prescription drug prices, taxes, foreign policy, equality, the “dignity of work,” the economy, etc.

And it should also include PUERTO RICO and how this administration has totally abandoned the people of Puerto Rico and left them to die.

[elevenism]

The Biden thing: I saw this coming a mile off.
I swear to god,he's creeped me out with his touchy-feely bullshit for YEARS.
I WISH it had been some sort of conservative smear campaign, but video doesn't lie.
THAT'S why I've never been very excited about a Biden candidacy. I hate to say it, but some of that shit... IDk. It just doesn't look right to me, especially the stuff with the younger girls.

Furthermore, I'm GLAD this is coming out now, rather than later.

[ltrandazzo]

I just donated $10 to Pete Buttigieg and $20 to Elizabeth Warren for two reasons - I like underdog stories that make sense for our progress as a nation and I appreciate that someone is covering the finer details of policy and proposals. That's the message I'm sending with my money right now.

[Demogorgon]

Pelosi basically slaps Biden on the wrist and says that, while he needs to be less "touchy feely", it doesn't disqualify him from a presidential bid: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-says-biden-should-stop-being-touchy-feely-with-women/ar-BBVvYw9?OCID=ansmsnnews11

[Sarah K]

There is no more rumbling of Cuomo entering? He's been laying the groundwork in NY HARD the last few years. I'll be shocked if he doesn't run.

Not that I think he would make a good president - just surprised after all of the obvious moves he has made in the state recently.

[Demogorgon]

I still think the field is too crowded. Yeah, i know how many candidates the Republicans had in 2018, but the difference between those folks and this crop of Dempocrats is stark. I mean, the Republicans, almost every one of them, were a bunch of schlubs. Ted Cruz? Jeb? Chris Christy? Nah. This field of Democrats are far and away a smarter and better qualified group of people, and each one of them has a slice of the base that will want to vote for them alone or not at all. The DNC nomination is going to be a bloodbath. I'd like to be wrong, but we won't know til 2020.

[allegro]

Don’t you think it’s going to REALLY shake out during the caucuses, though? I don’t see it staying that large past the spring of ‘20.

The Republicans kept their field too big for too long. I don’t think this will happen with Democrats.

[theimage13]

There is no more rumbling of Cuomo entering? He's been laying the groundwork in NY HARD the last few years. I'll be shocked if he doesn't run.

Not that I think he would make a good president - just surprised after all of the obvious moves he has made in the state recently.

He's pretty unpopular - I think he's only held the office so far because no one better has challenged him. And I think he's smart enough to realize that if his own state isn't huge on him, there's no way in hell he'd ever get the nomination, let alone win the general.

[Demogorgon]

2016 had two Democrat powerhouses for the majority of the race. Establishment choice Clinton, and firebrand progressive choice Sanders. That in itself was a mess, and voters are still angry about how that turned out. This time around, i just don't see any of the current crop pulling as much of an emotional reaction. It's going to be a real trick to get the base to rally behind just one, and that one is going to have to be real damn special. The only thing keeping voter apathy down is a near universal hatred of Trump, and i honestly don't think that will be enough. The Democrats need somebody to really step out of the crowd and own the race, and i don't think they can afford to wait for the caucuses to figure it out.

[Jinsai]

I really think this election is going to be a lot less about Trump and all about issues like healthcare, prescription drug prices, taxes, foreign policy, equality, the “dignity of work,” the economy, etc.

Oh I wish... if this upcoming election was about ISSUES, I'd sleep soundly at night.

It's going to be about optics, which is weird, because Trump is an orange clown with a frog neck and a pear-shaped body and a stapled-on pubic toupee... but on the "pro" side of issues, he's a green light for bigotry and misogyny, and that's a one-issue sort of appeal there. Other issues don't permeate a sphere dominated by xenophobic bullshit and identity-destiny.

So the morons who love him don't care about issues really, and the issues they care about all desperately revolve around Trump. Nobody else is going to be this sort of lightning rod... and the idiots in his cult couldn't tell you how many branches there are in our government, let alone what they're called. They may care about prescription drug costs and taxes, but they don't understand the factors that contribute directly to the money they're paying. If they did, they'd run away screaming from Trump's tax cuts for billionaires.

These are people so stupid they don't comprehend how stupid they are, and they're proud of it. If/when Trump completely obliterates our economy and sends us into the next Great Depression, they'll blame Hillary.


The Biden thing: I saw this coming a mile off.
I swear to god,he's creeped me out with his touchy-feely bullshit for YEARS.
I WISH it had been some sort of conservative smear campaign, but video doesn't lie.

It's not a conservative smear campaign in so far as it was conceived... it was a huge flaw laying in plain sight, which is why republicans were like "oh no, please don't threaten us with Biden!!! Oh god, what will we do if he wins the democratic primary and becomes your candidate! Save us!!!"

Which is also why the woman who outed him for his behavior felt the need to publicly address it. She saw how clearly the skeletons in his closet were arranged, and she knew why none of the people saying "yeah, Biden sounds like a GREAT idea" wanted to mention them.

[allegro]

Oh I wish... if this upcoming election was about ISSUES, I'd sleep soundly at night.
.
A bunch of Democrats were elected to the House and Democrats flipped the House based mostly on healthcare.

NOT on “we hate Trump.”

I don’t care about Trump’s base. They’d vote for him if he was brain dead hooked up to life support.

We are discussing what motivates Democrats to vote; in the Midterms, it was issues, mostly healthcare.

And I believe that issues MUST be the Democrats’ focus in 2020 if they want to win.

HRC focused WAY too much on “Trump sucks” and not NEARLY enough on the issues in 2016.

[Demogorgon]

I 100% agree that it should be about issues. The problem is that the base has been soaking in the briny "Trump Bad Trump Trump Bad Bad Bad Trump" solution ever since his election that it's going to be difficult to separate it now. I mean, just look at the last 10 pages or so of this very thread for a fairly clear sample. The media has pushed it, the Democrat leadership has pushed it, civil rights groups have pushed it. The midterms were ugly; the next general election is going to be even uglier.

[allegro]

Whoa, progress ...

WGN and the AP are calling Lori Lightfoot as the winner of the Chicago mayoral race.

Lori Lightfoot is an African American lesbian married woman with a young daughter.

Several firsts.

This is awesome.

[Jinsai]

A bunch of Democrats were elected to the House and Democrats flipped the House based mostly on healthcare.

NOT on “we hate Trump.”

I don’t care about Trump’s base. They’d vote for him if he was brain dead hooked up to life support.

We are discussing what motivates Democrats to vote; in the Midterms, it was issues, mostly healthcare.

And I believe that issues MUST be the Democrats’ focus in 2020 if they want to win.

HRC focused WAY too much on “Trump sucks” and not NEARLY enough on the issues in 2016.
to dismiss the mid-terms in 2018 (which had a historic youth turnout) as largely fueled by anti-Trump sentiment?

Let's just call things what they ARE, not what we'd like them to be.

RE: Healthcare being a primary issue.... Besides "build the wall," Trump's biggest campaign promise was to kill Obamacare, and he convinced people ON OBAMACARE to follow him down that road. A lot of people don't understand the ramifications of what they're chanting for, but it's a mistake to dismiss them and their equal (or, due to our electoral college system, undue) influence as a voter.

I hate to say it, but we have to analyze and read the voting inclinations of the other side, even if it means evaluating what motivates bigots. I hate it, but it's a game that republicans are MUCH better at. If, for no other reason, to just alert them to the fact that they're fucking themselves out of brand loyalty.

[allegro]

But “kill Obamacare” was dead in ‘18 as far as Trump was concerned.

The Democrats revived the fight because now Democrats want Medicare for All, or some BETTER and CHEAPER version of the ACA.

They’re doubling down, not just “saving” the ACA but replacing it with what SHOULD have been in the ACA in the first place: the Medicare public option.

That’s not an anti-Trump sentiment. That’s a demand.

We have to stop analyzing the motivations of the opposition. It eats the left like a cancer, waters down arguments, wears down resistance. Fuck the right.

The way to victory is to build an enlarging coalition on the left that outnumbers the idiots on the right. It must cast a wide net, and be inclusive. Labor unions, working class, uneducated, educated, immigrants, people of all colors, all backgrounds, using the Constitution to support and protect civil rights and the right to basic needs like healthcare, an equal wage, an education, a career, equal housing, equal treatment under the law.

People won’t get this by sitting on their asses behind a computer.

[Jinsai]

But the “kill Obamacare” was dead in ‘18 as far as Trump was concerned.

Now that he's enjoying his victory lap, he's bringing it back. Hopefully it bites him in the ass because people will see he DOES NOT HAVE A PLAN, but like I'm saying, we need to blast that message to his supporters.

This is a fight against a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about, and they're plugging their ears, but there's got to be a way to bring it to their attention. There HAS to be. People fooled by this bullshit are the biggest threat when it comes to a Trump re-election.

[allegro]

Now that he's enjoying his victory lap, he's bringing it back. .

He already changed his mind on that. His own party leaders pushed back. Now Trump’s saying he can’t do anything until after 2020.

You CANNOT change the minds of people who love him.

No more than they can try to convince US to like him.

It’s futile to try. Forget it.

Focus on the Democratic voters who didn’t vote in 2016. Or COULDN’T vote in 2016.

[theimage13]

Now that he's enjoying his victory lap, he's bringing it back.

What do you mean? He's already said "nah fuck it" and put it back off his radar. He killed the notion of striking the ACA almost as quickly as he rekindled it.

edit: on another topic, a poll has found that "almost 70%" of Americans would be okay with a gay candidate.

Which means, for those who are good at math, over 30%, or roughly 1/3 of the country, would still be "not okay" with a candidate just because they're gay.

I know I keep saying this, but what a fucking stupid country this is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/nearly-70-percent-americans-ok-gay-presidential-candidate-poll-finds-n990211

[allegro]

What do you mean? He's already said "nah fuck it" and put it back off his radar. He killed the notion of striking the ACA almost as quickly as he rekindled it.
Yeah now he’s saying his father was born in Germany.

But his father was born in the Bronx.

[Jinsai]

What do you mean? He's already said "nah fuck it" and put it back off his radar. He killed the notion of striking the ACA almost as quickly as he rekindled it.

Then I guess he's testing the waters? I don't know, I can't keep up. I decided that until the fucking complete Mueller probe is released to someone other than Barr, I can't handle the stress of paying close attention to this shit anymore.


edit: on another topic, a poll has found that "almost 70%" of Americans would be okay with a gay candidate.

Which means, for those who are good at math, over 30%, or roughly 1/3 of the country, would still be "not okay" with a candidate just because they're gay.

I know I keep saying this, but what a fucking stupid country this is.

And that's just the 30% that's honest. You can bet your ass that a very upsetting chunk of that 70% would flip that opinion around in the privacy of a voting booth. There's a lot of things that have been coming out of the woodwork lately. A lot of it lands as "no shit, what rock have you been hiding under?" A lot of it is just stuff we don't want to admit; like that there's a scary number of ACTUAL NAZIs in America mobilizing under the guise of conservatism.

[ltrandazzo]

Elizabeth Warren - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/elizabeth-warren-will-unveil-bill-to-make-it-easier-to-jail-executives.html


Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., will unveil legislation Wednesday that would make it easier to criminally charge – and lock up – executives for a company's wrongdoing.

The bill, called the Corporate Executive Accountability Act, continues the presidential candidate's push to hold leaders more accountable for a firm's alleged abuses. Warren will also reintroduce a plan Wednesday that would ramp up scrutiny of big bank executives.

Warren's bill would widen criminal liability to include "negligent executives" of corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue that have reached certain terms related to alleged wrongdoing.

Dan Pfeiffer for Crooked Media - https://crooked.com/articles/trump-campaign-unoppposed/


Last week’s most alarming piece of political news was not that President Trump won’t face criminal charges for conspiring with Russia to sabotage the 2016 election, or for obstructing the investigation of his own campaign. It was a report from Acronym, a progressive digital organization, which showed that the Trump campaign has spent $6 million on digital advertising since the 2018 midterm election.

While more than a dozen Democrats are criss-crossing Iowa and New Hampshire talking to Democratic primary voters, Trump is already running a general election campaign. Trump can be beat in 2020, but not if he is allowed to strengthen his position in 2019.

And right now, too many Democrats and progressives are distracted by the primary or Trump’s latest tweet for our own good. If we don’t focus, and soon, Trump may get the berth he needs to bolster his standing and beat us again.

[Jinsai]

But what is the actionable suggestion to do something about Trump running an endless re-election campaign, ask him nicely to go back to work and do his actual job? You can’t fight fire with fire there, and you can’t do anything to legally pin anything to him it seems.... so?

[ltrandazzo]

But what is the actionable suggestion to do something about Trump running an endless re-election campaign, ask him nicely to go back to work and do his actual job? You can’t fight fire with fire there, and you can’t do anything to legally pin anything to him it seems.... so?

Dan has some ideas in the second half about Dem organizations and super PACs needing to spend more money on digital adverts to address the many controversies that have come up in just the last few weeks. He's not talking about taking legal action - he's talking about talking about these developments using an online megaphone in the form of digital adverts.


But it is a call for the Democratic establishment to get in the game, starting by investing millions of dollars in digital ads to make the case against Trump while the Dems fight it out amongst themselves.

Every day Trump gives Democrats more ammunition. Imagine the ads that could have been run last week when the Trump administration tried to eliminate funding for the Special Olympics to help pay for tax breaks for corporations and billionaires. There are only so many opportunities that we can allow to slip by before it is too late.

[Jinsai]

For those ads to hit the target audience, you’d need to get Fox News to carry them. I’m not sure how effective net based ads would be either... his supporters live in a bubble that would never run the ads. And even then I don’t see the special olympics thing getting much traction... after all, he came out and said it was someone else’s mistake, and we don’t have him on tape saying “fuck the special olympics!” ...and even if we did, it’d be like “we didn’t elect Trump because we were asking for a saint” or something about Hillary

it’s really exhausting

[ltrandazzo]

For those ads to hit the target audience, you’d need to get Fox News to carry them. I’m not sure how effective net based ads would be either... his supporters live in a bubble that would never run the ads. And even then I don’t see the special olympics thing getting much traction... after all, he came out and said it was someone else’s mistake, and we don’t have him on tape saying “fuck the special olympics!” ...and even if we did, it’d be like “we didn’t elect Trump because we were asking for a saint” or something about Hillary

it’s really exhausting

The target audience of Obama/Trump voters, undecided voters, casual voters, low-information voters and independents don't live on Fox News. They live everywhere else on the internet. Those other places care solely about ad revenue and based on undertakings by groups like Sleeping Giants, individual websites don't always cater their ads to their audiences and vice-versa. Living in Memphis, TN and having Google ads disabled so they're just region-focused, I don't see any ads that look favorably upon Democrats. Dem groups with money could change that by opening up their coffers and spending money on ads that highlight things Trump says outside of them being reported on CNN.

It's about reminding people of the things Trump says and the things his administration is trying to do. Digital advertising would surely help spread that around and would do a lot to ask questions like "Will YOU continue to allow this administration jail children and defund the Special Olympics?" and "Send a message to the Trump administration that the wall is a waste of YOUR money." etc.

[Jinsai]

I'd like to believe that it'd be effective. I just don't understand people who haven't made up their mind one way or the other about Trump at this point.

[allegro]

I'd like to believe that it'd be effective. I just don't understand people who haven't made up their mind one way or the other about Trump at this point.

They exist?

[theimage13]

They exist?

I would say people (or, GOP office holders) who haven't made up their minds about whether to treat him as a political ally or political foe still exist, regardless of their personal feelings. But otherwise, I can't imagine there's anyone who doesn't know whether they like him, hate him, or are just too apathetic to give a fuck about him.

[Jinsai]

They exist?

They claim to... I'm dubious.

[Wretchedest]

There's a kind of person out there that aspires to ambivalence. I've known a few people who get really stuck up about not picking sides in a debate

[Jon]

I would say people (or, GOP office holders) who haven't made up their minds about whether to treat him as a political ally or political foe still exist, regardless of their personal feelings. But otherwise, I can't imagine there's anyone who doesn't know whether they like him, hate him, or are just too apathetic to give a fuck about him.

The bolded part is the majority of people I know and associate with. "I'm tired of hearing about Trump. I don't care." is something I hear more often than not.

[Demogorgon]

Biden proceeds to dig himself a deeper hole by joking about his tendency towards "affection": https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-hugs-union-leader-quips-i-had-permission/ar-BBVDKga?OCID=ansmsnnews11

[Jinsai]

The bolded part is the majority of people I know and associate with. "I'm tired of hearing about Trump. I don't care." is something I hear more often than not.

Well hopefully their general ambivalence will translate to a desire to just make all that Trump talk stop in the voting booth, or their mild irritation might be enough to make them actually mail in a ballot.

[ltrandazzo]

I appreciate the irony of sharing this article through a tweet, so I'll do both! - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

1115611086101684225

Myself: I've had eye-opening experiences by attending Shelby County Dem and Indivisible meetings in person as opposed to following the narrative on Twitter and Facebook. There are still good things to be gleaned from political activists on both platforms, but relying on the words of random Twitter accounts or blue-checkmarked accounts who got that status by being a professional opinion-haver (so, the same thing) is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight. This is an important article and I would encourage everyone to read it before we talk about what's lighting up Twitter in regards to these candidates.

[allegro]

ltrandazzo, GREAT article. Social media is an echo chamber of a lot of emotional hype, a circle jerk of likes and retweets (and ratings and hits and marketing pushed by MSM).

It’s become a combo of dizzying and nauseating; it got WAY worse after the Mueller investigation ended. It appears that a lot of these people on social media don’t do anything else; it is now a career, AND it has consumed them. And there’s hate all over. I’m now only following foster kitties on Instagram.

It’s totally true about the demographic. We go in days-long news cycles, now. Today’s HUGE “controversy” will be totally forgotten next week. Gov. Northam just rode out the blackface yearbook thing. Moved on, don’t care.


Today’s Democratic Party is increasingly perceived as dominated by its “woke” left wing. But the views of Democrats on social media often bear little resemblance to those of the wider Democratic electorate.

The outspoken group of Democratic-leaning voters on social media is outnumbered, roughly 2 to 1, by the more moderate, more diverse and less educated group of Democrats who typically don’t post political content online, according to data from the Hidden Tribes Project. This latter group has the numbers to decide the Democratic presidential nomination in favor of a relatively moderate establishment favorite, as it has often done in the past.

[...]

The relative moderation of Democrats who are not sharing their political thoughts on social media, and therefore of Democrats as a whole, makes it less surprising that Virginia Democrats tolerated Mr. Northam’s yearbook page. It makes it easier to imagine how Joe Biden might not merely survive questions about whether he touched women in ways that made them feel uncomfortable, but might even emerge essentially unscathed.

It also helps explain why recent polls show that a majority of Democrats would rather see the party become more moderate than move leftward, even as progressives clamor for a Green New Deal or Medicare for all.

[Jinsai]

and bottom line, the ability to manipulate the perception of public opinion on these social platforms is incredibly malleable. People don't have opinions anymore, they share memes.

[Demogorgon]

That goes for both parties too. There are a ton of conservative voters who, either through age or lack of interest, simply don't use social media to the extent that the loud, extremely vocal "MAGA, lock her up, build the wall!" crowd do. Here in Ohio, there are Trump signs everywhere. These people make their statement in their local communities and don't care at all about Twitter, or even how it works. Trump is everywhere putting on rallies and i think the Democrats need to not underestimate the effect that has, especially in the midwest. Whoever gets the Democrat nomination is going to have to hit the road and hit it hard.

[Jinsai]

That goes for both parties too. There are a ton of conservative voters who, either through age or lack of interest, simply don't use social media to the extent that the loud, extremely vocal "MAGA, lock her up, build the wall!" crowd do. Here in Ohio, there are Trump signs everywhere. These people make their statement in their local communities and don't care at all about Twitter, or even how it works. Trump is everywhere putting on rallies and i think the Democrats need to not underestimate the effect that has, especially in the midwest. Whoever gets the Democrat nomination is going to have to hit the road and hit it hard.

Yes, it goes to both sides...

But, I'd say one side is memier than the other in a general way (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-left-cant-meme)
On either side though, yes, of course, memes are not an acceptable way to offer a real opinion, outside of anything but mockery or sarcasm for the most part. "clever use" is a crazy rare thing.

[allegro]

That goes for both parties too. There are a ton of conservative voters who, either through age or lack of interest, simply don't use social media to the extent that the loud, extremely vocal "MAGA, lock her up, build the wall!" crowd do. Here in Ohio, there are Trump signs everywhere. These people make their statement in their local communities and don't care at all about Twitter, or even how it works. Trump is everywhere putting on rallies and i think the Democrats need to not underestimate the effect that has, especially in the midwest. Whoever gets the Democrat nomination is going to have to hit the road and hit it hard.

Trump also has Fox News working as his own television network. I'm reading Omarosa's book, and she says Fox News was working with Trump's campaign during all of 2017. Both ways; Fox was informing the campaign, and the campaign was getting free coverage, 24/7. And Fox News is hooked into a TON of rabid Republican voters; I mean, like via an IV. My brother in Detroit says he works with people who DON'T WATCH ANYTHING EXCEPT FOX NEWS. EVER. Trump is still running his campaign via Fox plus he does on-the-ground rallies CONSTANTLY.

The Democrats don't really have an equivalent of that. And what Dems DO have - MSNBC and CNN - seems to be totally avoiding the women candidates; they're giving more coverage to the gay candidate right now (hey, don’t get me wrong, I like the gay candidate, but he also happens to be a dude to the MSM). Their message is: "This country ain't ever gonna vote for a woman, we found that out with Hillary, twice, and we aren't gonna make THAT mistake, again."* The liberal MSM is deciding the candidate, vs. providing equal information. All of MSM hung on DJT’s dick so much, that influence via free advertising is a lot of how DJT got elected. The MSM claims to base their coverage on polls. But the TOTAL UNRELIABILITY of polls was clearly demonstrated in the last Presidential election.

*edit: Even though HRC won the popular vote in the 2008 primary and the popular vote in the 2016 general election.

[bobbie solo]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/98bcfced43730d09fcbdfcbde940cb72/tenor.gif

[Jinsai]

The Democrats don't really have an equivalent of that. And what Dems DO have - MSNBC and CNN - seems to be totally avoiding the women candidates; they're giving more coverage to the gay candidate right now. Their message is: "This country ain't ever gonna vote for a woman, we found that out with Hillary, twice, and we aren't gonna make THAT mistake, again." The liberal MSM is deciding the candidate, vs. providing information about what voters might want.

The democrats have a spread out equivalent, and there's people out there who ONLY subject themselves to HuffPost etc.

The "gay candidate" right now is getting due attention; he's breaking ground and making sense, and nobody's really heard of him a few weeks ago really. Kamala Harris has been given a lot of attention, Warren has been given a lot of attention... we're not even to the point yet where we're really being realistic about these things, but I think it's a little premature to say that there won't be a strong female front runner for the primary nominee.

And now I'll piss everyone off and say that I think it's going to be Sanders, and I'm ok with that.

[allegro]

The "gay candidate" right now is getting due attention; he's breaking ground and making sense, and nobody's really heard of him a few weeks ago really.

Mayor Pete isn’t even an OFFICIAL candidate, yet.

He was on The View on January 31st. He was on again on March 22nd. He was on Chris Wallace’s show on Fox 3 weeks ago. He was on Meet the Press last Sunday. He’s also been on “The Week” and “Breitbart News.”

MSM has absolutely heard of him. I donated money to him almost a month ago (https://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/5099-11-3-2020-Still-a-year-and-a-half-away?p=450644#post450644).

Anyway, we have A YEAR until the first primaries.

[Jinsai]

Anyway, we have A YEAR until the first primaries.

yes, exactly... But regardless of his past visibility to you, he’s newly becoming a difficult-to-pronounce household name.

Im biting my tongue here. I don’t believe the America that just elected Trump is ready for a married gay man to be president , and I’ll admit it; my priority is just “no more Trump”

and i’d Love to see him beat Trump, but if he were to lose... my mind sorta breaks at the thought. That is a HUGE prospective gamble.

But yeah, that POTENTIAL potus bid is why he’s making waves along with that elephant in the room

[bobbie solo]

And now I'll piss everyone off and say that I think it's going to be Sanders, and I'm ok with that.

From your lips! Bernie would be a transformative president. He scares everyone that are comfortable with how this country is currently set up, or the right wing b/c they want to dial the clock back to 1958.

[r_z]

It's probably no coincidence that all that stuff about Biden is coming out now that a few candidates compete for the presidency, right? Biden's also clearly unterrating the lack of a sense in humor on the left side when discussing this. Which is too bad, because it were mostly moderate democratic candidates (like him) who got seats from the Republicans last November.

Also: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html

[Jinsai]

And now Barr is suggesting that Trump’s campaign was spied on... apparently Devin Nunes is AG. Release the fucking Mueller report.

I know it’s crazy talk, but what if he IS playing defense for Trump. It’s obvious Don likes sycophants

[M1ke]

And now Barr is suggesting that Trump’s campaign was spied on... apparently Devin Nunes is AG. Release the fucking Mueller report.

I know it’s crazy talk, but what if he IS playing defense for Trump. It’s obvious Don likes sycophants

We all had to know that the guy who wrote that that he believed the probe was illegal before he even got the job was going to determine that the president shouldn't be charged. We all had to see that coming, right? And I mean, we kind of had to know that we wouldn't really know what the actual report said until it was delivered to congress. Right?

I'm not saying that Barr's characterization of the report is inaccurate, but I think that it was pretty clear we wouldn't know what Mueller actually found until the report was handed off to congress. The fact that he's taking his time with this is not surprising either, this is a political game he's playing, and as long as the contents of the report aren't known to anyone but him, he's got the upper hand. Once he hands it off to congress it's over.

As long as he keep saying there's nothing criminal in it without anyone else being able to review it, the longer he can keep this to be the central issue that everyone's talking about without having the full picture. And Trump currently has deniability. His AG says that there's nothing criminal in the report. Nobody else has seen the report to dispute that, so he can just keep saying it over and over again. And Barr is going to do everything he can to delay the release of the full report. The longer he can delay this, the firmer it will cement the idea of a liberal conspiracy.

If he redacts anything incriminating against the president, and then ties the process of challenging up in court cases for the next 18 months, this could be the main issue in the 2020 campaign. And Trump's played that game before and won.

But the fact that he's launching a probe into one of Trump's delusional conspiracy theories is taking this to a whole new level. I think the only chance that anyone has at this point is the 2020 election. If he gets re-elected in 2020, I don't think he's leaving office until he's dead, and when he does leave I'd imagine one of his children taking over before a new election is held.

This shit is whack yo.

[Haysey_Draws]

But the fact that he's launching a probe into one of Trump's delusional conspiracy theories is taking this to a whole new level. I think the only chance that anyone has at this point is the 2020 election. If he gets re-elected in 2020, I don't think he's leaving office until he's dead, and when he does leave I'd imagine one of his children taking over before a new election is held.

This shit is whack yo.

But that can't happen...right? Please tell me that CAN'T happen!

[theimage13]

It can't. None of them are anywhere near the line of succession as laid out by the constitution, and none of them have the branding to get people to vote for them like their daddy.

[allegro]

FWIW My front runners right now are Warren and Buttigieg. They’re both SUPER smart with really good plans.

But, as said, the first primaries are a year away, more people could throw their hats into the ring. Too early to really decide.

[Demogorgon]

This story going around makes me wonder how much of Bernie's popularity was "organic" and how much was manufactured. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/438576-thousands-of-russian-accounts-targeted-sanders-voters-to-help-elect

[Jinsai]

This story going around makes me wonder how much of Bernie's popularity was "organic" and how much was manufactured. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/438576-thousands-of-russian-accounts-targeted-sanders-voters-to-help-elect

I thought we already knew this though? And isn’t it an obvious move to target people newly disaffected? A clever computer algorithm can target people vulnerable to spam...

I would like to say its efficacy could be measured by the size of the “Bernie or Bust” crowd, but that’s not true. Now, because of the overstated size of Bernie/Bust people, now a bunch of people are reacting with anger to Bernie Sanders, and hating/blaming him for Clinton’s 2016 loss...

of course, a lot of the people angrily voicing that opinion online right now are Russian bots too...

This is only working at this point because it’s a “total witch hunt fake news.”

I guess it’s not technically “collusion” if the president just happens to approve of the message behind Russia’s propaganda campaign.

“Russia, if you’re listening...”

[Wretchedest]

We already knew that, but if ever a group of people liked to stick their fingers in their ears it's the fucking Bernie crowd

[Jinsai]

We already knew that, but if ever a group of people liked to stick their fingers in their ears it's the fucking Bernie crowd

because a lot of them are young, naive, and this is their first rodeo... and young people like memes, idealistic pandering, and being assured that they’re daring and special. I could program “the Bernie -turner” bot. This is a simple trick

Bernie Sanders is great though

[allegro]

https://twitter.com/adamcbest/status/1117524432199847938?s=20

[allegro]

My current fave “activism” is reporting crazy rampant racist Trump assholes and bots to Twitter and getting their accounts suspended. I’m currently at Pro level. I highly recommend it.

[theimage13]

My current fave “activism” is reporting crazy rampant racist Trump assholes and bots to Twitter and getting their accounts suspended. I’m currently at Pro level. I highly recommend it.

My s/o has a Twitter account for two reasons: the occasional academic networking RT, and trying to get banned from Chester Cheetah.

[allegro]

My s/o has a Twitter account for two reasons: the occasional academic networking RT, and trying to get banned from Chester Cheetah.

The shit I report is truly AWFUL racist or bullying stuff, “please go kill yourself, now, you ugly fat Libertards cunt” kind of stuff, which is the expressway to Ban Town, then the Right is screaming “CENSORSHIP OMG WE ARE TARGETS!”

The bots are getting easier to spot, too.

And Twitter sends friendly little status reports to you, e.g.


An update on your report

Thanks again for letting us know. Our investigation found this account violated the Twitter Rules:

Nadya Wall-Rossi
@WallRossi

Violating our rules against abusive behavior.

We appreciate your help in improving everyone’s experience on Twitter. You can learn more about reporting abusive behavior here.

[allegro]

Mayor Pete was on Maddow tonight:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4kbJwoM4A3M

[bobbie solo]

I thought Bernie did a great job overall at his Fox News town hall tonight, and hopefully set the tone for how to handle those bastards (Brett Baier was fine actually, but that other fembot...) for the other Dem candidates that will be doing this in the future:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ozAACcc8I&ab_channel=FoxNews


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSnxuzDm7C0&ab_channel=FoxNews

[ltrandazzo]

Looks like Biden is in next week - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/joe-biden-running-president/587560/

I think this should be the last announcement of entering into the race because, quite frankly, if you've waited this long and you're still undecided, you have zero chance of an impact once Biden is in. Looking at you Seth Moulton and Bill De Blasio.

[Patrick_Nicholas]

And with Biden almost officially getting in, preparation for the opening ceremony for the 2020 shitstorm is almost complete. Then it will be another nine months and change for the Iowa caucus to officially kick off the primaries. Things are about to get ugly. Really ugly.

As for De Blasio, I think he's better off keeping NYC from falling apart. The last thing NYC needs is to turn red over the mayor having other priorities.

[ltrandazzo]

Elizabeth Warren is first major Dem candidate to call for the impeachment of Donald Trump -
1119331296470237185

[bobbie solo]

Don't forget about Stacey Abrams. She was on Desus & Mero the other day and reiterated that she will announce something before the end of the month. Guess we'll see if that means the presidency or not. She's awesome. Whatever she does, she needs to stay in the nat'l political convo & hopefully become one of the new leaders on the left.

As far as Warren, good for her. That piece of shit bully has fucked with her for years now, and she should never back down to him unlike pussies like Hoyer and Pelosi. Take the fight to that motherfucker. Again, playing hardball is the only way to defeat these monsters on the right, Trump especially. They don't compromise, they don't give an inch unless forced to at the very last possible second. Time more Dems play the same exact way for the time being. Zero sum game.

[bobbie solo]

If you need an example of how the right fights and why I categorize it as a zero sum game, the new abortion restrictions passed in Ohio are the best example of that. They have now limited abortions to only prior to when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is somewhere between 6 and 8 weeks I believe. Absurd. They know none of this passes muster, but put the new law in place anyway knowingly so it can be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it can be codified there, and/or Roe vs Wade can be challenged. The right wing never loses focus on this one issue. This one issue arguably determines a large portion of their domestic policy actually. It's what they vote on, and it drives their base and almost everything they do. They can't be reasoned with on this...they will never compromise. As such, I don't see how voting for any of them or trying to seek some common ground ever makes sense for those of us that care about women's right/being pro-choice. We have to vote as many of them out of office at every level of gov't and limit that party in size and power as much as possible. The only way for progress is to get them out of the way, not try to find an "agreement" with them.

[allegro]

Don't forget about Stacey Abrams. She was on Desus & Mero the other day and reiterated that she will announce something before the end of the month. Guess we'll see if that means the presidency or not. She's awesome. Whatever she does, she needs to stay in the nat'l political convo & hopefully become one of the new leaders on the left.

As far as Warren, good for her. That piece of shit bully has fucked with her for years now, and she should never back down to him

Abrams, I totally agree. I *LOVE* her. I really do hope she runs for President. She is totally awesome. OPRAH loves her. I just think Abrams has a GREAT chance of winning.

I love Warren, as well, and she can't go wrong because she'll still be a great force in the Senate for many more years.

[Patrick_Nicholas]

Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton is now in the race.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/rep-seth-moulton-latest-democrat-enter-2020-field-n996881

[ltrandazzo]

Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton is now in the race.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/rep-seth-moulton-latest-democrat-enter-2020-field-n996881

IBB (In Before Biden)

And yes, Stacey Abrams is the exception to post-Biden because she's a superstar and should be the governor of Georgia had they counted all of the votes and not rigged the election.

[allegro]

Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton is now in the race.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/rep-seth-moulton-latest-democrat-enter-2020-field-n996881

Gotta admit, I *LOVED* this guy in “No End in Sight.” He totally earned 100% of my respect in that documentary, and I’d hoped he would eventually run. I’m glad to see him throw his hat into the ring.

[ltrandazzo]

Mayor Pete not wanting to discuss policy at a televised town hall on the day Elizabeth Warren continues to make headlines about her policy proposals is a mistake on his part. However, his answer on if currently incarcerated people should be able to vote is a major fucking bummer. (https://splinternews.com/yes-incarcerated-people-should-be-able-to-vote-1834237775)

Kamala Harris had a good night saying that she would take executive action on gun control if congress can't pass legislation. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/kamala-harris-gun-proposal/index.html) She also said she supports congress taking steps towards impeachment of Trump.

Elizabeth Warren kept talking about her student loan debt cancellation proposal (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/elizabeth-warren-student-debt-college-tuition-plan/index.html) along with impeaching Trump.

Bernie waffled on reparations again - https://twitter.com/EmersonSOC/status/1120502108917248000

Amy Klobuchar was overly cautious about a lot of things - https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/amy-klobuchar-cnn-town-hall-takeaways/index.html

[allegro]

Klobuchar is still REALLY smart, a REALLY good Attorney. She’s being truthful, vs. just saying stuff people want to hear to win.

As much as I think coordinated background checks between states and shutting down online gun sale sites likes Armslist is a great idea, the Executive isn’t there to create laws and Harris knows that. Harris bitches about Executive overreach, then promises to do just that and set more precedent for it. Nope.

Warren’s (public college) plan is brilliant. Seriously, these are PUBLIC institutions totally acting as profit-generating entities where every student is paying a fortune in tuition and either T.A.s (grad students) or grossly-underpaid adjuncts are teaching most of the classes and NOBODY is receiving tenure, anymore. While the compensation to public university presidents is INSANE:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2016-07-17/survey-shows-university-admin-pay-rise.html

[theimage13]

Better half is a professor. At least, she wants to be. Been on the market full time for four years and no offers for anything - anywhere in the country - for a job that isn't a below-minimum wage adjunct job, and she's won multiple prestigious grants and had some pretty major things published. So help me, I will vote for anyone who helps fix that broken ass system and makes it easier for people like her to get proper jobs instead of this gig economy bullshit. Pretty sure I've already earned more this year than she will all year, and she works her ass off.

As for Harris saying she'll take executive action on guns: good luck. As soon as you get the "they're coming for your guns" nuts, you're losing a lot of independent voters. It doesn't matter that you're not talking about literally banning all guns nation-wide. You say you're going to take executive action on guns and people will immediately stop listening to you. I'd rather see her (or anyone) play dirty on that one...talk about legislation and cooperation all day long, then just flip everyone off and bust out the executive orders once you've actually managed to win. (I mean, go ahead and TRY to get legislation crafted first, but we all know that will NEVER happen.)

[bobbie solo]

Bernie waffled on reparations again - https://twitter.com/EmersonSOC/status/1120502108917248000

Bernie needs to have a firm answer on this. It's hurting him. There is no harm to him backing it fully, b/c imo that issue is DOA in Congress anyway. There's not enough support for it to get through either part of Congress. He's so virtuous that I guess he won't hedge his bets on something he isn't well versed in, but they're going to continue to dog him for this.

[allegro]

ANY Presidential candidate who wants the black vote (Democrat or Republican) MUST AT LEAST back H.R. 40 from now on, it’s gained that much momentum in the black voting community (since 1989).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/rep-john-conyers-still-pushing-reparations-divided-america-n723151


Yet there’s ample legal precedent for reparations, be it financial settlements in the 1980s for Japanese Americans who were placed in U.S. internment camps during World War II, restoration of lands to Native Americans, or billions that Germany paid Jewish Holocaust survivors.

Kamm Howard, a legislative committee co-chair with the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA) said despite the hurdles around reparations, advocates would push forward. He said the next step is drumming up more legislative support for H.R. 40—which references the “40 acres and a mule” promised by the Union in 1865 to an estimated four million newly freed slaves.

[allegro]

Better half is a professor. At least, she wants to be. Been on the market full time for four years and no offers for anything - anywhere in the country - for a job that isn't a below-minimum wage adjunct job, and she's won multiple prestigious grants and had some pretty major things published. So help me, I will vote for anyone who helps fix that broken ass system and makes it easier for people like her to get proper jobs instead of this gig economy bullshit. Pretty sure I've already earned more this year than she will all year, and she works her ass off.

That’s pretty much the norm, has been for decades, and it’s terrible. At these “Fight for Fifteen” minimum wage rallies, the organizers were fast food employees but ADJUNCT COLLEGE PROFESSORS were showing up (http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17855/adjunct_faculty_fight_for_15) in big numbers to protest. (See “Faculty Forward (http://seiufacultyforward.org/).”)

College professors have grad school degrees and huge student debts but they get these shitty limited gigs at terrible hourly pay and zero benefits while the school takes in disgusting levels of profits and the professors AND the students pay huge financial sacrifices.

Last March, the University of Illinois Chicago Teaching Assistants WENT ON STRIKE! (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-university-of-illinois-chicago-graduate-assistants-strike-20190319-story.html)


“We have students going to food pantries and going on food assistance,” said doctoral candidate Hailee Yoshizaki-Gibbons, 33.

Leaders of the Graduate Employees Organization, which represents more than 1,500 graduate student university workers, said they plan to strike indefinitely. Their previous contract expired in September, and 99.5 percent of members formally authorized a strike in February, the union said.

“Despite being highly educated professionals providing skilled labor for a multibillion-dollar institution, UIC grad workers live on the edge of poverty,” GEO leaders said in a statement. “Grad workers’ low pay, high fees, and often precarious employment negatively impacts their academic progress, professional development, and overall health, which only undermines UIC’s educational and research mission.”


On April 15th: Seven Loyola University Chicago Graduate Workers & Their Student Supporters Were Arrested During A Peaceful Protest. (http://seiufacultyforward.org/seven-loyola-university-chicago-graduate-workers-student-supporters-arrested-peaceful-protest/)


“If Loyola administrators thought today’s arrests would intimidate us, they were wrong,” said Yiran Zhang a graduate worker at Loyola University Chicago. “Their actions leave us no other choice. The prospect of facing more weeks, months, semesters constantly worried about making ends meet intimidates us more than taking arrest. If this is what it takes to get a contract, so be it. We’re calling on all of our colleagues and students to join us in a walk out on April 24th if administrators don’t agree to a fair deal with graduate workers. If we don’t get a contract, it will no longer be business as usual.”

A year after a faculty strike and student walkout over working conditions, tensions are mounting as the school again refuses to provide its employees with a contract and fair working conditions. Even though graduate workers – the masters and PhD students who do much of the research, teaching and grading on campus for extremely low pay – won their union back in February of 2017, the school has refused to come to a fair agreement.

[allegro]

Bernie Sanders just gave the best political answer on impeachment (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/23/politics/bernie-sanders-impeachment-cnn-town-hall/index.html)


"At the end of the day, what is most important to me is to see that Donald Trump is not re-elected president, and I intend to do everything I can to make sure that doesn't happen.

"But if -- and this is an if -- if for the next year, year-and-a-half, going right into the heart of the election, all that the Congress is talking about is impeaching Trump and Trump, Trump, Trump, and Mueller, Mueller, Mueller, and we're not talking about health care, we're not talking about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, we're not talking about combating climate change, we're not talking about sexism and racism and homophobia, and all of the issues that concern ordinary Americans, what I worry about is that works to Trump's advantage."

Sanders went on to say that he supports the House conducting an investigation into some of the seemingly obstructive behaviors by Trump documented by Mueller and that, once that investigation concludes, he was open to reassessing.

That seems to me to be right where Democrats need to be heading into 2020. And here's why:

1) Abandoning the Mueller report conclusions is unacceptable to the party's political base.

2) Impeachment will allow Trump to paint himself as a victim of overly partisan Democrats looking to run him out because they lost an election.

3) Senate Republicans will simply not abandon Trump en masse, ensuring that even if impeachment succeeds in the House, Trump will not be removed from office.

Given those three competing realities, Sanders' position -- we need to continue to investigate but we can't build the entire Democratic case against Trump in 2020 around impeachment -- is the most politically sound place to be.

Although Sanders didn't mention the 2016 campaign or Hillary Clinton's strategy against Trump in that race, it's clear that his position on Trump and impeachment is informed by that contest.

In 2016, Clinton's underlying (and sometimes overlying) message was something like this: Trump is awful and you will never vote for him. And I am the only other person running for president.

Yes, Clinton talked policy, too, but the overarching message was entirely focused on her belief that Trump was unfit for office. And voters agreed! Exit polling from that race showed that just more than a third of all voters liked Trump, thought he was honest and trustworthy or believed he had the temperament to be president. But even some of those who didn't like Trump voted for him anyway because they didn't like Clinton much more -- and, as importantly, they had no sense of what she would do differently.

In short, the 2016 race became a personality contest between two people that voters didn't like. So they chose the one they thought might change things more.

Sanders is clearly wary -- and rightly so -- of re-running that race. To that point, this part of his impeachment answer really hit a chord:

"If for the next year, year-and-a-half, going right into the heart of the election, all that the Congress is talking about is impeaching Trump and Trump, Trump, Trump, and Mueller, Mueller, Mueller, and we're not talking about health care, we're not talking about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, we're not talking about combating climate change, we're not talking about sexism and racism and homophobia, and all of the issues that concern ordinary Americans, what I worry about is that works to Trump's advantage."

That's a correct assessment. Democrats don't need to convince voters that Donald Trump isn't presidential or isn't their cup of tea. Most -- outside of Trump's hardcore supporters -- already believe that. What Democrats need to do is prove to voters that on the issues they care about, Trump's policies are dangerous. Whether that's on his call to repeal the Affordable Care Act or his decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Accord or his hardline immigration policies.

What Sanders is arguing is that the way you beat Trump is on policy, not on personality. And that if Democrats spend the next 18 months litigating whether Trump should be impeached for his decidedly unpresidential conduct during the course of the Mueller investigation, they are allowing the race to be about personalities, not policies.

[Demogorgon]

"What Sanders is arguing is that the way you beat Trump is on policy, not on personality. And that if Democrats spend the next 18 months litigating whether Trump should be impeached for his decidedly unpresidential conduct during the course of the Mueller investigation, they are allowing the race to be about personalities, not policies."

YES. This is exactly what i have been saying for months here in this very forum. Stop making your platform the "We hate Trump" platform, stop playing his brand of politics, STOP sinking to his level. Talk about policies, craft legislation, and SHOW the voters why you are the better choice.

[ltrandazzo]

Biden is officially in. (https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-finally-announces-presidential-campaign?ref=home)

[Jinsai]

Biden is officially in. (https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-finally-announces-presidential-campaign?ref=home)

And it seemed like his opening pitch is "Trump is going to be a disaster if he's re-elected."

Y'know, I'm glad a prospective candidate is clearly spelling that shit out, rather than trying to seem cool by talking about their iPhone playlists or offering vague platitudes or inspirational BS.

I'm not saying other candidates don't have important issues that they're holding central to their point, but the looming threat of a Trump re-election is almost becoming an elephant in the room here because everyone's afraid of being branded as a candidate running on "Trump hate alone."

[bobbie solo]

Jinsai, I agree that the "Trump is a disaster" message needs to be a large part of messaging for whoever the candidate is. I feel like Biden should have talked more about what HE wants to do as president in his very first video to be seen by people. That's the best way for any of these candidates to differentiate themselves from the 300 other Dems running. They all agree on Trump is a criminal dumpster fire. To launch with only that message and say nothing about your own platform and goals will not help him in the primaries imo. Am I wrong?

[Sarah K]

Watching The View because I was curious about Biden would have to say. When asked about apologizing to the women who have come out about his behavior, he basically said "Sorry if they felt uncomfortable, but I'm not sorry for my behavior" in about 700 words. He just keeps digging this hole deeper and deeper. They just gave him about 6 outs to realize what he was saying and doing, and he just kept doubling down.

Joy just direct asked him to apologize to Anita Hill "I'm sorry she was treated the way she was treated", and AGAIN never apologizes for his conduct in the matter.

Joy again asks him to apologize for his conduct, and again he says he was sorry for the way she was treated.

[Jinsai]

bobbie solo, yes, though I guess Biden has that “you guys know who I am already” advantage, so we can presume where he’ll side on most issues; regardless if that presumption is correct or not, it’s a way to skip the ice breaker blips that are often landing as phony and forced.

Also, I’m not sold on the “creepy Joe” thing... I hate when people invade my personal space and get touchy... one of my best friends has always been like that and occasionally it bordered on “get the fuck away from me man.” He’s that way with everyone though, and it was not sexual. I don’t see Biden’s contact as really dissimilar, though he should wake the fuck up about these sort of optics and understand why he should stop, and yeah, apologize.

Call me crazy, I want a president who will apologize when he fucks up.

Meanwhile, Trump just doubled down on his Charlottesville comments...

[allegro]

My Mom is 81. She campaigned for Obama in 2008; I mean, drove to one of his campaign offices and made phone calls, etc., every day for months.

Yesterday, in the car, she turned to me and said, “I got email from Joe Biden. Totally out of the blue.”

I said yeah probably because of all that work you did for Obama.

Mom: “I’m voting for Elizabeth Warren.”

[Sarah K]

I wish that Warren was about 20 years younger, but she is my favorite at this point.

[bobbie solo]

If Warren was 20 years younger, didn't have a penchant for longwinded personal stories when a simple answer would suffice, and in general didn't have that professorial manner of speaking, this race would be hers to lose imo. Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders let's gooooooo.

[Sarah K]

I'm no huge Mayor Pete fan, as his stance on voting rights for incarcerated folks turned me off, but is anyone following this shit?

https://www.businessinsider.com/pete-buttigieg-falsely-accused-of-sexual-assault-jacob-wohl-stunt-2019-4

Brief statement from the person who they created profiles to mimic.

https://www.facebook.com/hunter.kelly.9484/posts/393871731467948

[allegro]

^ Ugh, wtf. Jacob Wohl is an evil little turd.

[GulDukat]

Biden is the frontrunner:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/cnn-poll-2020-biden-announcement-bounce/index.html

Iowa is nine months away and a lot can happen, but I'd be surprised if Biden isn't the nominee. Sanders is Johnny-one-note and the rest of the nominees aren't picking up a lot of traction (and I like them all, pretty much).

[ltrandazzo]

A lot can happen, like in this poll where Joe Biden only gets 13% of support when voters had to name a candidate off the top of their heads. 54% of respondents have no preference yet - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-holds-a-slight-advantage-over-nearest-2020-rival-but-democrats-are-far-from-making-a-decision/2019/04/27/7749e8c2-66d8-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.0cb91a42c8e7


Biden tops the field with 13 percent among Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults, followed by Sanders at 9 percent and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 5 percent. Sens. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) are at 4 percent, while former congressman Beto O’Rourke of Texas is at 3 percent. Sens. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) are at 1 percent each.

[GulDukat]

A lot can happen, like in this poll where Joe Biden only gets 13% of support when voters had to name a candidate off the top of their heads. 54% of respondents have no preference yet - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-holds-a-slight-advantage-over-nearest-2020-rival-but-democrats-are-far-from-making-a-decision/2019/04/27/7749e8c2-66d8-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.0cb91a42c8e7I saw that. I think 2020 is anyone's guess, anything can happen. I just have a hunch Biden will win the nomination and election. Then again, I thought Clinton would win. I thought "Trump actually winning in 2016? You're nuts, will never happen..."

[ryanmcfly]

Biden's record on Cannabis reform makes him a hard pass in the primaries for me. Who knows what's going to happen though. It is still early.

[Jinsai]

Biden's record on Cannabis reform makes him a hard pass in the primaries for me. Who knows what's going to happen though. It is still early. he’ll officially flip on that as soon as he’s asked to comment. He’s a cardboard cutout politician; which sounds refreshing af after Trump

[Sarah K]

Rumor has it that Mayor Tall is announcing next week.

[bobbie solo]

I love De Blasio as mayor, but dude is out to lunch if he thinks he's gonna get any traction with a presidential run. I get that he's realy just angling for a cabinet position, but he's really going to piss off NY'ers, including those that don't hate him yet, with this nonsense. He needs to be here running NYC, not wasting his time running arounf NH, Iowa & SC for the next year. Really annoying.

[Sarah K]

I agree, btw. I don't think it is a good idea at all. I think that if these rumors are true and he is running, it will be more to establish name recognition outside of NY in order to make a serious run in 2024 or beyond.

Imagine the fit that Cuomo will throw if BDB is out on the road campaigning and not running NYC.

[ickyvicky]

De Blasio should NOT run at all.

[ltrandazzo]

Cory Booker lays out gun control plan that would limit firearms purchases - https://medium.com/@corybooker/corys-plan-to-end-the-gun-violence-epidemic-ab377d9fb112

[allegro]

Cory Booker lays out gun control plan that would limit firearms purchases - https://medium.com/@corybooker/corys-plan-to-end-the-gun-violence-epidemic-ab377d9fb112

A lot of that will never happen, some of it already did (bump stocks were already Federally banned), but in the very LEAST the portion about banning online gun sales should happen. Now.

[thelastdisciple]

Just putting this here for whoever it might interest. This is her second time on Joe's podcast but first since her candidacy announcement.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR8UcnwLH24

[Cookster426]

Montana Governor Steve Bullock enters the race:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/politics/steve-bullock-2020.html

[bobbie solo]

Cool, another person who can poll at 0-1% and make no noise. All these zero %'ers need to drop out asap and run for races in their states where they can hold or expand the Dem winning streak next November. I'm looking at you Beto.

[allegro]

Yeah, I wonder how much of this is just ego for a lot of these people, now. It does a greater service to run for the Senate. To help make changes locally. To work for your constituents for real change. Vs. just that great big Presidential ego job.

[theimage13]

And Bill de Blahblahblah has officially entered.

I can't wait to just vote for whoever ends up on the ballot, since I don't get a say in primaries anyway (yay, closed voting in my state!)

[Jinsai]

Gotta love Trump’s tweet claiming NYC hates De Blasio. Yeah... ok, “Mr New York,” I guess the irony’s lost on you...

[ltrandazzo]

Nothing but respect for my personal front runner.

1134444504889659393

[allegro]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Oakland CA yesterday :)

https://twitter.com/cmarinucci/status/1134666579168202752?s=21

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elizabeth-warren-oakland-rally-843278/


“It’s not just the mass shootings. It’s the ones that never make the headlines. It’s the kids who are shot at the playground, on the sidewalk, in their own homes. Gun violence touches families every day,” she said. “On the question of gun violence, I will be fearless. We will be side by side and we will protect our children.”

She also talked about the corrupting power of money in politics and government, one of her big issues: “Here’s the deal: When you’ve got a government that works great for those with money, works great for those who can hire an army of lobbyists and lawyers, works great for those at the top, but isn’t working for the rest of the people, that is corruption pure and simple and we need to call it out,” she told the crowd.

[Jinsai]

I think Warren can win this. I'd like that. Pick a good running mate and this should be a lock.

And it would be incredible to see Elizabeth Warren topple Trump. That, on some level, would undo some of the damage that's been done... but again, if she loses to him... I seriously can't process it. I have cheerier times contemplating some end-of-the-fucking-world scenario like the conclusion of Melancholia.

[allegro]

I think Warren can win this. I'd like that. Pick a good running mate and this should be a lock.

And it would be incredible to see Elizabeth Warren topple Trump. That, on some level, would undo some of the damage that's been done... but again, if she loses to him... I seriously can't process it. I have cheerier times contemplating some end-of-the-fucking-world scenario like the conclusion of Melancholia.

Yeah well ... I’d like it if she picked either Stacy Abrams or Michelle Obama as a VP.

I still don’t dig Harris.

But, as I’ve been saying on Twitter (taking my hint from you, Jinsai): I’d vote for the animated corpse of Richard Nixon instead of Trump.

[Jinsai]

if Warren ran with Michelle Obama as running mate, I'd throw some cents into a Vegas bet in Trump's favor just to possibly luck out and pay for my kid's college... if I ever have kids.

He will have no chance of winning that... it could feel like pandering, and maybe on some level it is, fuck it of course it would be, but then Trump would no longer be president and I'd have a party. Everyone associated with our short memory of a good president is a sure bet. It's why Biden doesn't even have to work for his approval.

[allegro]

It's why Biden doesn't even have to work for his approval.
Bingo.

My husband and I were just arguing about that at dinner.

He thinks Biden polls show Biden as popular with blacks because Biden is a “safe bet” to beat Trump.

Bullshit; Biden is viewed as “Obama Bro, Obama Part 2.”

Except Biden IS NOT Obama Part 2. Biden is a 90s conservative.

Michelle Obama?

Holy shit, THAT is a safe bet AND Obama Part 2.

(She’d never do it, though.)

[allegro]

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1134988619226198016?s=21

[bobbie solo]

I'm still behind Bernie all the way, but man I would have no problem with Warren. She's great & getting better. The key is that her & Bernie need to go after Biden hard in the debates & on the trail. They have carved out the progressive niche firmly amongst all 514 candidates. None of the rest of the progressive candidates will be able to touch them (Gabbard, Yang, etc.). They are friends & share almost all the same policy views (Warren was one of the progressives Bernie asked to run against Hillary in 2016 but she & others all said no so he jumped in himself). So now they have to make sure to tear down Biden's large lead in the polls. They will benefit a bit as the joke candidates bail out after they get no traction in the debates, but so will Biden. They have to expose him for what a terrible president he would be for working people & for his god awful voting record.

[allegro]

I see people on Twitter who seem to assume that Warren has been in the Senate forever.

What they don’t realize is that Warren first ran for the Senate in 2012, and won. Warren was serving her first term in elected office during the 2016 Presidential election; she had won a hard-earned battle in Massachusetts; she needed to accomplish what she was elected to accomplish by her constituents in 2012 and to gain more experience as a junior Senator.

Warren is now serving her 2nd term.

She also has the experience of having been appointed as a member of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel in 2008, and was instrumental in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

[Jinsai]

I wonder if a Warren/Sanders ticket would be a sure lock, or a little TOO progressive for centrist voters... or if the combined age thing would sink it. I hate having to consider pragmatically who the best option would be, without feeling like I'm sacrificing my personal inclinations and impulses to support whomever I feel is simply best. It's a head fuck for sure.

[allegro]

I wonder if a Warren/Sanders ticket would be a sure lock, or a little TOO progressive for centrist voters... or if the combined age thing would sink it. I hate having to consider pragmatically who the best option would be, without feeling like I'm sacrificing my personal inclinations and impulses to support whomever I feel is simply best. It's a head fuck for sure.

I doubt that Sanders would accept the VP role. He’s only a Democrat when he runs for a particular office, then switches back to registered Independent. He wouldn’t be able to do that as VP to a Democrat President.

(Note that he COULD switch as President. Which I’m assuming he would.)

I’m assuming, at this point, that any candidate will choose a POC as VP.

(Unless the candidate is a POC.)

[Jinsai]

I think if Sanders would accept the invitation to be VP on the ticket, it would be w/ Warren. They're peas in a pod.

That said, I doubt she would put him in that position... it'd be "weird" for sure. But if Sanders proposes the idea, I doubt she'd reject it.

And why would he? I think he could grant more legitimacy to his democratic-socialist platform that way, and it would in general give him a larger pulpit. He could change his party affiliation right after being sworn in, and it would be an historic inclusion and a change of precedent, and that alone would make headway towards getting rid of this two-party nonsense.

[Wretchedest]

I'm at this point abdicating fro picking a horse in the race. Part of not getting sucked up into the bullshit from last time is figuring out what people will actually vote for and listening without bias

[allegro]

https://twitter.com/ashleempreston/status/1135042177896083456?s=21

[allegro]

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1136405607974617088?s=21

[versusreality]

I'm enjoying Andrew Yang lately, kinda just discovering him. I'd like to hear more about his policies, but he seems smart and knows how finances/technology works, which is very important.

[Mantra]

LOL @ Biden promising to cure cancer if he's elected president.

[theimage13]

LOL @ Biden promising to cure cancer if he's elected president.

I mean....if you're gonna promise something outlandish, I'd rather it be "I'll cure cancer" than "I'll kick out all the scary colored people so you'll be safe again".

[M1ke]

LOL @ Biden promising to cure cancer if he's elected president.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3i7zenReaUuI0/giphy.gif

Although on the plus side, he's talking bigger than Trump. Is that how to beat Trump? Take the insanity up a level?

I mean, if you're going to do something crazy, at least make sure it's something that will probably have some positive effect even if you fail.

Throwing resources at trying to cure cancer should at least make some significant progress, and that's not a bad thing. I'm down for this style of crazy.

[allegro]

LOL @ Biden promising to cure cancer if he's elected president.

Biden’s been getting (much-deserved) flack all day for this shit:

https://twitter.com/thelocalmaniac8/status/1138821179471474688?s=21

[ltrandazzo]

I think I'm gonna give Biden a pass on the cancer promise because it's something that's affected his family directly and something he's passionate about. I took it to mean more that he's going to focus as many resources as possible to curing it and holding everyone accountable to a high standard of research.

I have problems with mostly everything else - lecturing women that he's their big champion while assertively pointing, his long-term support of the Hyde amendment even though he's just now flipped on it, not being for medicare-for-all, and most importantly: thinking that getting Trump out of office will "fix" the problem with the Republicans and that all of a sudden Mitch McConnell is going to come to his senses and actually legislate. Come on now.

[ryanmcfly]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3i7zenReaUuI0/giphy.gif



Cox/Dorian 2020. Lets goooo. Just rewatched Scrubs and forgot how great it was.

On topic.... I think Mayor Pete is close to becoming my favorite candidate despite myself being a Beto supporter. Can't wait to see how they stack up in the debates in a couple weeks!

[Jinsai]

Biden is somehow screwing this up, even with the huge head start.

If the Democrats actually fuck this up in 2020, I’m going to need to find religion or something

[ltrandazzo]

Biden is somehow screwing this up, even with the huge head start.

If the Democrats actually fuck this up in 2020, I’m going to need to find religion or something

Yep, though, I can't help but wonder if that was always going to be his destiny. His enthusiasm among the folks supporting him now was declining before he even entered. Right now, based on this Iowa poll (http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/07/top2_ia_saturday.pdf), his lead is tightening and there are several debates ahead.

[allegro]

I know lots of people love this Medicare for All idea, but it ain’t happening.

The ACA was slapped together by insurance lobbyists because most of Congress is beholden to the insurance industry and the medical industry and Big Pharma.

So what likely WILL happen (first) is a PUBLIC option for Medicare. Which would actually strengthen Medicare because Medicare wouldn’t have nothing but old or sick people paying into it. And private insurance will remain an option for primary or supplemental insurance.

Universal healthcare would allow private health insurance (vs. obliterating it, which Medicare for All would do) which would allow us to have options. Currently, Medicare recipients pay for both Medicare and the supplemental private insurance of their choice.

[allegro]

Biden was big on the cancer cure thing when he was V.P.

Remember the “moon shot” to cure cancer?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/health/moonshot-to-cure-cancer-to-be-led-by-biden-relies-on-outmoded-view-of-disease.html?searchResultPosition=1

[versusreality]

so...can anyone convince me why I should be interested in Warren? I've already determined who I support. but if he loses, I'd have to go with Pete. Warren is my 3rd pick, but there's a far gap between 1 and 2 and an even further gap between 1 and 3.

[theimage13]

so...can anyone convince me why I should be interested in Warren? I've already determined who I support. but if he loses, I'd have to go with Pete. Warren is my 3rd pick, but there's a far gap between 1 and 2 and an even further gap between 1 and 3.

I'm not sure why you need to be convinced. Literally every candidate running so far is light years ahead of what we've got now. Vote your conscience in the primaries, and if that guy loses, vote for whoever gets the nod when the general comes around. Your other options are vote independent, no-vote, or vote for the toddler. I think you're smart enough to know that none of those are actually intelligent options in this election.

[ltrandazzo]

so...can anyone convince me why I should be interested in Warren? I've already determined who I support. but if he loses, I'd have to go with Pete. Warren is my 3rd pick, but there's a far gap between 1 and 2 and an even further gap between 1 and 3.

Yeah, I'd say stick with who you're supporting right now and change your mind later if you want. Dunno what state you're in, but you're six months away minimum from having to firm up your support to vote in the primary. Warren is a great choice along with Mayor Pete and I'd guess your number 1 is a great choice as well. Just make sure you vote in the primary and make your voice heard with it.

Same sentiment as theimage13 about the general election. We need you stick with us and start changing this shit.

[versusreality]

good points, thank you. like I said, I've become really interested in what Yang has been saying. he's very real about certain things, like how a $15 minimum wage can hurt small places, how automation is taking over factories and truck drivers and to think we can go back, it's just not happening. as he said, 20th century ideas in the 21st century won't work.

[ltrandazzo]

good points, thank you. like I said, I've become really interested in what Yang has been saying. he's very real about certain things, like how a $15 minimum wage can hurt small places, how automation is taking over factories and truck drivers and to think we can go back, it's just not happening. as he said, 20th century ideas in the 21st century won't work.

Dunno if you've seen this yet but Andrew Yang was just interviewed by Tommy Vietor from Pod Save America; it went live this morning - https://crooked.com/podcast/andrew-yang-on-the-universal-basic-income-and-why-he-hates-the-penny/

[Jinsai]

After Andrew Yang's Tweet about how we shouldn't talk about imprisoning former presidents because that's what "developing countries do," and we should instead focus on 2020.... You know what... FUCK YOU! You had NO chance of actually winning the primaries, and now you ass-barf this fucking opinion out there? FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU! I'll vote for Trump over your coward ass, get the fuck out of here with this shit.

[versusreality]

^ two things about that. he told that to Fox. that's actually a smart thing to say to Fox if you're a Dem trying to win over some of their voters. who's to say he won't backtrack on that comment in the future? maybe he does support it but isn't saying it now. secondly, he has also said it is up to Congress to decide. which is true.

I get the anger and I don't agree with his statement. but that's not going to deter me from supporting him, as disagreeable as that statement may seem with my beliefs. but he did lose a lot of points with me on this unfortunately.

thinking about it more, I almost feel like he's trying to sabotage his campaign. he made some questionable comments about Biden (I get it, mud slinging is part of it) and then this, before the debates? not a good look. I'm closer to being on the fence about him now than I was before. which is unfortunate.