2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
varwoche said:
I mostly agree -- "any sort" is a bit much if indeed she lied
Click to expand...

Depending on the reason for, nature of, and effects of a particular lie, "any sort" can be entirely appropriate. There's reason for why "No, those pants don't make your butt look big" is generally not considered condemnation-worthy, to poke at a standard example.

varwoche said:
-- but here's where I have a problem as a voter who wants to see Trump defeated above all other priorities:

The way things are trending, there's a fair chance that Warren will be the nominee. I worry that she has a tendency to play loose with the facts about her personal bio, and more importantly, that's a sign of internal fragility that could manifest in the general. I want a candidate who conveys supreme confidence.
Click to expand...

I think that she expresses quite a bit of confidence, honestly - and that I would trust her less if she conveyed "supreme confidence," especially in times like these. Hope is not lost yet, but the challenges and foes that we face are, quite frankly, somewhat incredible. Going further with that thought, the Democrats in Congress, while wildly better than the Republicans, are generally very, very far from sainthood.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Biden denied knowing that said fundraiser was an executive in the oil & gas industry.

The guy worked for Biden yet Biden claims to not know:

It's the same old crap, pretend you are a people's candidate, when really you are a big business candidate because that's where the money comes from.
Click to expand...

This kind of thing is why Biden's pointedly on the bottom of my list of preferred major candidates. I fully admit that I'm deeply unhappy with the frequently overtly evil and immoral choices of the oil and gas industry leaders, though, and the very, very disproportionate political influence that they wield.

Also, as for the candidate who's best versus Trump... Again, Warren and Biden seem to currently be tied with a 10 point national lead on Trump, with Bernie coming in an oh so distant 3rd with his 9 point national lead. Even if one does think that beating Trump is the number one priority, that really doesn't point to a specific candidate at present. Going further, Biden has a much more problematic history than Warren, by the look of it, meaning a lot more avenues to attack him with.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
:confused:

I don't understand your post.
Click to expand...

Warren really did say at one point in the more distant past she "decided not to go back" to work as a special ed teacher after getting pregnant. She didn't bring up the "forced" aspect of her leaving until recently.

It's a really minor issue, though, and really just proves how desperate her haters are (and have to be, if they would prefer to not attack her on policy.)
 
SezMe said:
It's also an excellent example of how I think Warren would wipe the floor with Dump in a one-on-one debate with him.
Click to expand...

I'd guess she'll bring in Hillary's coaches, too, who ran though practice debates with different versions of Trump, since there are several of "them" "out there" in the guy.

Hillary really was masterful in the debates with Trump. Liz will be, too.
 
Aridas said:
Depending on the reason for, nature of, and effects of a particular lie, "any sort" can be entirely appropriate. There's reason for why "No, those pants don't make your butt look big" is generally not considered condemnation-worthy, to poke at a standard example.
Click to expand...
If she lied, trivial though it may be, it's not as trivial as your example. I'm pointing this out because these instances of minimization suggest to me that you cut Warren undue slack because she's your preferred candidate.
 
Might there be a reason why a woman might not want to bring that particular aspect of the issue up in every retelling? If the mention of leaving the job was a preface to some point they were getting to, bringing it up could then make the whole discussion about that or start an argument.
 
varwoche said:
If she lied, trivial though it may be, it's not as trivial as your example.
Click to expand...

That was simply a standard example of the disputed concept - that lies don't necessarily deserve condemnation of any sort, to be clear, given that what I said was that *most* of the actually believable reasons for there to have been lying in this case deserve no condemnation of any sort and you took issue with that. Also, to be clear, I think that "trivial" goes in a completely different direction from the point I was making. If a person was beaten up for something and tells someone who was showing concern that they're fine so that the person won't worry when they're obviously not fine, if they say that they fell down the stairs to try to prevent further harm occurring, whether to themselves, those who beat them up, and/or to people who might get themselves hurt because they try to retaliate... those are lies, too, and not at all condemnation-worthy.

varwoche said:
I'm pointing this out because these instances of minimization suggest to me that you cut Warren undue slack because she's your preferred candidate.
Click to expand...

Understandable, if you are only working with an extremely limited data set and have become rather used to obvious bias influencing opinions. With that said, I don't think that I'm cutting her undue slack here in the first place (though of course I wouldn't). I don't even think that I'm giving her unequal slack, for that matter, before getting to the question of whether I'd be giving her some because she is my preferred candidate. I tend to be hard on quite a lot of GOP lying, for example, because so much of it is vicious, deeply harmful, and employed for nefarious purpose, in short, not because it's GOP lying. Even when it comes to Trump, I have no problem giving him a pass for some of his individual lies while condemning many others, much as a conversation about Trump's lying will generally have more aspects than that.

Delphic Oracle said:
Might there be a reason why a woman might not want to bring that particular aspect of the issue up in every retelling? If the mention of leaving the job was a preface to some point they were getting to, bringing it up could then make the whole discussion about that or start an argument.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most likely scenarios, after all.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Warren really did say at one point in the more distant past she "decided not to go back" to work as a special ed teacher after getting pregnant. She didn't bring up the "forced" aspect of her leaving until recently.

It's a really minor issue, though, and really just proves how desperate her haters are (and have to be, if they would prefer to not attack her on policy.)
Click to expand...

It's nitpicking about this kind of crap that drives me crazy.

A politician or virtually any job applicant is going to gloss over something like this. This woman has been very successful and this is what people choose to focus on? What I see in Warren is someone who as best as I can tell is honest. That her description of something that happened 30 years ago was " I decided not to go back" as opposed to "I was forced out" doesn't make her untrustworthy. What kind of standard do you really expect?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Might there be a reason why a woman might not want to bring that particular aspect of the issue up in every retelling? If the mention of leaving the job was a preface to some point they were getting to, bringing it up could then make the whole discussion about that or start an argument.
Click to expand...

Oh, totally. It's really awkward stuff.
 
acbytesla said:
It's nitpicking about this kind of crap that drives me crazy.

A politician or virtually any job applicant is going to gloss over something like this. This woman has been very successful and this is what people choose to focus on? What I see in Warren is someone who as best as I can tell is honest. That her description of something that happened 30 years ago was " I decided not to go back" as opposed to "I was forced out" doesn't make her untrustworthy. What kind of standard do you really expect?
Click to expand...


The thing that bothers me about it is that I can't say I've been completely honest in my life about the details of embarrassing events, and I dearly love and completely trust people who have done worse, people being people and all, but it would be a nice excuse if I just didn't like Warren or mistrusted her in the first place. However, if that is really considered a disqualifying instance of behavior for a candidate, with the level of scrutiny that's given them these days, it's going to be really tough to field anybody who is also capable of doing a good job. In my estimation, Warren is fully capable of doing a good job and would restore a level of integrity and trustworthiness that would at the least go a long way toward making American normal again.
 
WilliamSeger said:
The thing that bothers me about it is that I can't say I've been completely honest in my life about the details of embarrassing events, and I dearly love and completely trust people who have done worse, people being people and all, but it would be a nice excuse if I just didn't like Warren or mistrusted her in the first place. However, if that is really considered a disqualifying instance of behavior for a candidate, with the level of scrutiny that's given them these days, it's going to be really tough to field anybody who is also capable of doing a good job. In my estimation, Warren is fully capable of doing a good job and would restore a level of integrity and trustworthiness that would at the least go a long way toward making American normal again.
Click to expand...

FTFY.
 
acbytesla said:
It's nitpicking about this kind of crap that drives me crazy.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Hear! Hear! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Let's suppose for the sake of the discussion that she did lie about how she left some 30 odd years ago.

And?

Her opponent in the presidential race will have lied about something quite significant about 5 minutes ago. Or two sentences ago. In this light we're supposed to focus on a trivial matter 30 years ago? Really?

It's maddening.
 
SezMe said:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Hear! Hear! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Let's suppose for the sake of the discussion that she did lie about how she left some 30 odd years ago.

And?

Her opponent in the presidential race will have lied about something quite significant about 5 minutes ago. Or two sentences ago. In this light we're supposed to focus on a trivial matter 30 years ago? Really?

It's maddening.
Click to expand...

Its mind boggling that a discussion somehow gets mired in this kind of trivia. There were almost a dozen accusations of sexual assault against Trump, Rampant fraud in his charity, non-stop lying, multiple bankruptcies and yet the media couldn't stop talking about Hillary's emails. Here we are now talking about a job that Warren had 30 years ago where her bosses may not have wanted her?

Big deal. She didn't cheat thousands of students or countless busboys and contracters so I'm good.
 
acbytesla said:
Big deal. She didn't cheat thousands of students or countless busboys and contracters so I'm good.
Click to expand...

Come on. No need to even joke about lowering your standards to the underworld!

With that said, it's worth remembering that Warren's current direct competition is not Trump. It's Biden and Bernie, with Buttigieg, Yang, and Harris trailing distantly behind and a fair few trailing well behind them currently. I dare to say that all of the others have much more significant problems than Warren, but that all of them would be overwhelmingly better than Trump.
 
I honestly don’t understand why the several candidates that weren’t invited to next week’s debate are even bothering to stay in the race.
 
SezMe said:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Hear! Hear! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Let's suppose for the sake of the discussion that she did lie about how she left some 30 odd years ago.

And?

Her opponent in the presidential race will have lied about something quite significant about 5 minutes ago. Or two sentences ago. In this light we're supposed to focus on a trivial matter 30 years ago? Really?

It's maddening.
Click to expand...

I don't base my vote for candidate X based on candidate Y. X has to earn my vote.
 
I just checked odds and Liz is clear favourite to take the Dem nomination now.

I have to admit to being surprised at how short she is, at $1-83 against Biden's $4-50.

Looks to be solidly that price all over.
 
If Liz is the favorite, I expect her to ramp up the pressure on an aging Donald Trump.

Make him look stupid to his own base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom