2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Belz...]

Religious overtones.

I hate you.

 

[acbytesla]

OK, screw it. "Amen."

 

[Hellbound]

How about a simple "You can say that again!"

 

[Belz...]

How about a simple "You can say that again!"

Religious overtones.

 

[theprestige]

How about a simple "You can say that again!"

Cliche'd. Also, enables That Guy.

acbytesla has the right idea. Don't be afraid of religious overtones. For one thing, not all religions are theistic, so it won't endanger your atheist credentials.

For another thing, sometimes you want religious overtones. Sometimes you want to convey that combination of formality and conviction. "So say we all" came about because the writers of BSG wanted to get that sense of religious commitment, without using Earthling religious jargon in their !Earth setting.

If "amen" is what works here, then use "amen". Perfectly cromulent expression that well captures the spirit of the moment.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not a theist, but I've been known to invoke a deity, at volume, in bed. Sometimes so have other people.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not a theist, but I've been known to invoke a deity, at volume, in bed. Sometimes so have other people.

Yeah, but as the Dread Pirate Roberts once pointed out, "my god, what is that thing?!" isn't something you ever really want to hear directed at you.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah, but as the Dread Pirate Roberts once pointed out, "my god, what is that thing?!" isn't something you ever really want to hear directed at you.

We are very different people.

 

[acbytesla]

Cliche'd. Also, enables That Guy.

acbytesla has the right idea. Don't be afraid of religious overtones. For one thing, not all religions are theistic, so it won't endanger your atheist credentials.

For another thing, sometimes you want religious overtones. Sometimes you want to convey that combination of formality and conviction. "So say we all" came about because the writers of BSG wanted to get that sense of religious commitment, without using Earthling religious jargon in their !Earth setting.

If "amen" is what works here, then use "amen". Perfectly cromulent expression that well captures the spirit of the moment.

WOW! Twice in the same day you said precisely my sentiments Prestige. Is that the 7th Sign?

 

[Stacko]

Andrew Yang's campaign is running into some white nationalist issues from going to "intellectual dark web" for support.

But while entrepreneur Andrew Yang has enjoyed a run of surprised, favorable press since he began raising money and generating interest from gamers, internet trolls, and extremely online individuals, his campaign is now facing an early backlash in the form of leaks, doxing, and an escalating rhetorical battle over who, exactly, owns the remaining male-dominated corners of social media.

…

But the meme swamps the Yang Gang calls home harbor all sorts of life — some of it far less affable. And the Yang campaign is learning that lesson the hard way. Over the past few days, its deputy chief of staff has become the target of a textbook 4chan harassment campaign. She's been doxed, harassed, and cast as the lead character in an outlandish conspiracy theory about a “Jewish plot” to manipulate 4chan users into sharing pro-Yang content.

…

Yang’s campaign, for example, has also attracted admirers from the far-right. White supremacist website the Daily Stormer has written about him. White nationalist leader Richard Spencer has enthusiastically tweeted about him. YouTuber James Allsup, another white nationalist, said Yang is the future. 4chan users declared him a savior of the white race for defending American workers.

Yang’s embrace of 4chan started going south earlier this month, after Yang's deputy Chief of Staff Carly Reilly tweeted, “UBI (universal basic income) is feminist.” The remark irked some on 4chan’s Politically Incorrect (/pol/) board, home to some of the community’s more hardcore white nationalists. They lashed out, infiltrated a pro-Yang Discord server, and started leaking screenshots, hoping to destabilize the Yang Gang.

When a pro-Yang Discord member posted a link to Reilly’s Calendly calendar and asked supporters to email her, some 4chan trolls snagged it and doxed her, posting her personal information and circulated a rumor that her former employer, RadicalMedia, was secretly being paid by the campaign to infiltrate 4chan to spread pro-Yang content.

 

[angrysoba]

Andrew Yang's campaign is running into some white nationalist issues from going to "intellectual dark web" for support.

We really are in the Twilight Zone if Andrew Yang is now considered the white nationalist choice for president.

 

[Stacko]

We really are in the Twilight Zone if Andrew Yang is now considered the white nationalist choice for president.

White nationalists have a clear ranking of non-white races and Asians tend to top it so they get axed last and it's a plus if they help you get there. They also love Tulsi Gabbard due to her bomb the middle east until its glass foreign policy,

 

[angrysoba]

White nationalists have a clear ranking of non-white races and Asians tend to top it so they get axed last and it's a plus if they help you get there. They also love Tulsi Gabbard due to her bomb the middle east until its glass foreign policy,

Her what...?

Does she really have a foreign policy calling for bombing the Middle East until it's glass?

 

[Stacko]

Her what...?

Does she really have a foreign policy calling for bombing the Middle East until it's glass?

It's a little hyperbole but she's the most pro-drone bombing of any declared candidate in the ME including Trump.

 

[angrysoba]

You can think lightning will strike twice in the same place, but i find it unlikely.

2016 isn't 2020. People won't take 2020 for granted. Apathy and overconfidence will not be a factor. If you think people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will fall for Trump's BS again where his victories were by the slimmest of threads, be my guest. I think you're dreaming. My bet is that Trump will lose in 2020 and not by 3 million votes, but by 10 million.

You mean inured by it. I think to a certain degree that is a coping mechanism. But given a choice, I think people will be anxious to return to something less bizarre.

One of the things I heard from people about Trump in 16 was that he would be different after he was in office. But if Trump is different, it's that he is far crazier and far more corrupt than we imagined he could be.

I seriously doubt that apathy and complacency will be an issue. But I've been wrong before.

Don't you think it is ironic that you confidently predict 2020 is even more nailed on as a loss for Trump than 2016, but that Trump only won 2016 because people were over-confident?

Actually, my own view is that Trump was such an unknown in 2016 that there was genuine fear he could completely smash the political system, launch nukes, devastate the economy, close America off from the rest of the world... you name it.

What we have seen hasn't sunk to those depths and it all depends on whether those who took a chance on him are more or less satisfied with what they got and whether he is worth taking a chance on again.

 

[angrysoba]

It's a little hyperbole but she's the most pro-drone bombing of any declared candidate in the ME including Trump.

Is this actually true? And is it the reason she is popular with some far-right groups?

My understanding is that the far-right are against any kind of foreign intervention, preferring "America First" isolationism, and it is her non-interventionist arguments that have gained some sympathy from those circles. Her apparent support of Assad, for example, is seen as an argument against intervention in Syria.

 

[Stacko]

Is this actually true? And is it the reason she is popular with some far-right groups?

My understanding is that the far-right are against any kind of foreign intervention, preferring "America First" isolationism, and it is her non-interventionist arguments that have gained some sympathy from those circles. Her apparent support of Assad, for example, is seen as an argument against intervention in Syria.

It's her alternative to interventions.

And it still produces its fair share of bloodshed. Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”

It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”

“In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” she told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald last year. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

 

[acbytesla]

Don't you think it is ironic that you confidently predict 2020 is even more nailed on as a loss for Trump than 2016, but that Trump only won 2016 because people were over-confident?

Actually, my own view is that Trump was such an unknown in 2016 that there was genuine fear he could completely smash the political system, launch nukes, devastate the economy, close America off from the rest of the world... you name it.

What we have seen hasn't sunk to those depths and it all depends on whether those who took a chance on him are more or less satisfied with what they got and whether he is worth taking a chance on again.

I disagree. But that is what makes a horse race. A difference of opinion.

Go back and look at Trump's margins in those rust belt states. Note how razor thin they were. For Trump to win again in those states, he cannot lose a single point. Now hard core Trump supporters didn't and are unlikely to abandon Trump but if you think Trump has kept all those votes he got in 2016 you are IMV overly optimistic.

Look at the recent 2018 mid terms and the Blue Tsunami that resulted in 40 house seats being overturned. Were Democrats complacent? No, turnout was huge. And more importantly pretty much all those races were about Trump. Trump's ego wouldn't stand for it being anything but being about him.

That 40 seats flipped is because Trump inspires passion and it isn't the good kind of passion. Trump is the most hated President in my lifetime.

 

[angrysoba]

It's her alternative to interventions.

Honestly, I don't think an article from Jacobin magazine is the best source for showing how Gabbard is the most belligerent user of drones, still less that she has a desire to turn the Middle East to glass, still less that such a policy is what attracts her to the far-right.

I think a more likely explanation is that she is broadly anti-war, has naively fallen into trusting arguments that throw up dust on Assad's use of chemical weapons, may even have fallen prey to pro-Russian propaganda, but when grilled on her foreign policy has had to promote the use of drones as an alternative to direct troops-on-the-ground interventions, and has made herself the enemy of mainstream Democrats (who are keen to refer to her as Assad's nomination etc...) as well as the far left who want to pour scorn on any idea that she should be the pacifists' choice, etc...

 

[Delvo]

I've heard her talk anti-war multiple times. I've seen people criticize her for being anti-war multiple times, including accusing her of being an Asad supporter instead of just against taking sides & thus making Syria worse. I've seen her respond to those criticisms by having to explain to those critics the idea that war is bad.

Not once have I heard her say anything positive about drone attacks. Not once have I even seen her critics accuse her of being pro-drone-attacks. I not only don't believe this fits her real positions, but also don't believe that there are even really people out there claiming it does.