Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

Childlike Empress said:
The one delegate Tulsi Gabbard won in American Samoa should have won her a ticket to the next "debates" - if rules meant rules for the DNC machine: DNC Scrambles To Change Debate Threshold After Gabbard Qualifies




And yes, the site is down at the moment, likely under attack by "Russian bots". I'm quoting from my RSS feed. Just try again later.
Click to expand...

If you want people to take your postings seriously, then you need to stop using citations from crap sources.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
You do realize that "Pocahontas" is a racial slur that is considered insulting to large numbers of people of native American heritage
Click to expand...
.....and you know this how?
Click to expand...
From: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eth-warren-native-american-ncai-a9083001.html
Donald Trump’s repeated use of the name “Pocahontas” as part of an attack on Democrat Elizabeth Warren has been condemned as “an insult for political gain”, by the country’s largest indigenous rights groups...the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), which describes itself as the oldest and largest indigenous rights organisation in the US, formally criticised Mr Trump, saying his actions were part of a long tradition of insults endured by Native Americans and other indigenous groups.
 
Re: Tulsi making the next Democratic debates...
SuburbanTurkey said:
Is anyone but Tulsi die-hards going to care? It's a two candidate race. Any time spent on Tulsi is wasted.

People who are still undecided are choosing between Bernie or Biden. Nobody else should be on the stage.
Click to expand...
Your right, she shouldn't be on the stage. But, the question is how do you prevent her from appearing if the rules already say she has that right? (Remember the controversy when the Democrats changed the rules for Bloomberg.... last thing they need is more publicity by changing the rules again.)

Granted Tulsi is unlikely to win anything, or even pick up significant support, even after appearing in a debate.

She can however, throw a monkey wrench into the works in a couple of ways:

- With a much smaller field of candidates, she might get enough attention (and ultimately delegates) to prevent one of the candidates from getting a majority

- She could mess with the dynamics of the debate, drag up irrelevancies (such as Clinton) and make the Democrats look foolish
 
Warren's out of the race so is any of this jumping on her grave, racist or not, relevant? I loved her dearly but our journey together is over, it's time to move on.
 
Segnosaur said:
The way I see it it went like this:

Under Obama
Republicans: We are going to oppose everything Obama does
Democrats: Here is a perfectly competent lower court judges
Republicans: We are going to fillibuster, just because we're selfish jerks
Democrats: Guess we need the nuclear option

Under Trump
Republicans: Here is a judge that is totally unsuitable for the supreme court
Democrats: We don't think you should place an unsuitable judge on the supreme court
Republicans: We're going with the nuclear option because we really want that unsuitable judge on the bench.


Its possible for something to be 'within the rules' and still be considered unethical/selfish/harmful to the country as a whole.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. The subject was "competing interests" and my point was that "obstructionism" is fair play as long as it isn't cheating the rules. It's no surprise that the Dems considered Gorusch unsuitable; is there a nominee in the country that Trump could realistically offer (given that he wants to advance the party's interests) that the Dems would happily accept? I don't think so.
Obstructionism to advance one's interests is part of the game; in Gorusch's case, the Dems were engaging in some obstructionism of their own. The Republicans decided to blow that up right away to eliminate the obstacle.

If the roles had been reversed, you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing?
 
xjx388 said:
I totally agree. The subject was "competing interests" and my point was that "obstructionism" is fair play as long as it isn't cheating the rules. It's no surprise that the Dems considered Gorusch unsuitable; is there a nominee in the country that Trump could realistically offer (given that he wants to advance the party's interests) that the Dems would happily accept? I don't think so.
Obstructionism to advance one's interests is part of the game; in Gorusch's case, the Dems were engaging in some obstructionism of their own. The Republicans decided to blow that up right away to eliminate the obstacle.

If the roles had been reversed, you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing?
Click to expand...


And your point is simply naive and wrong, as has been repeatedly explained to you.
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0


It really depends on the law, you know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stipulated that Trump will viciously and relentlessly attack whoever the Democratic nominee is - it’s his MO and not even his lawyer and early and ardent supporters are immune - thinking Cohen and Sessions for two.

But I still think Sanders is especially vulnerable in this regard - as I said before, the attack ads on Bernie will write themselves.

Here’s one from my Facebook feed a few days ago:

49618371572_3bb16fb668_z.jpg


Now imagine the ads in S Florida painting Bernie as “praising” Castro.

I will support Sanders 100% if he’s the nominee. I support Medicare for All, so there’s that. But I’m not optimistic as to how he will fare in the general election once he’s the sole target of the Trump/Republican smear machine.
 
xjx388 said:
I totally agree. The subject was "competing interests" and my point was that "obstructionism" is fair play as long as it isn't cheating the rules. It's no surprise that the Dems considered Gorusch unsuitable; is there a nominee in the country that Trump could realistically offer (given that he wants to advance the party's interests) that the Dems would happily accept? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Probably. John Roberts sailed through. Someone like him would have again. Getting past a Democratic filibuster would be easy with a nominee that has some redeeming features other than a federalist society endorsement.
Obstructionism to advance one's interests is part of the game; in Gorusch's case, the Dems were engaging in some obstructionism of their own. The Republicans decided to blow that up right away to eliminate the obstacle.

If the roles had been reversed, you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing?
Click to expand...

I don't think the Dems have ever nominated someone that far away from the center who clearly has a political axe to grind, nor do I think they will. Nominating Gorsuch would be like nominating me. Dems keep nominating ex prosecutors and such, not career indigent defense leftists that would just go hog wild and do things like find the American Arbitration Act unconstitutional or start overruling any case finding exceptions to the warrant requirement and completely end qualified immunity for police officer misconduct or maybe literally find a constitutional right to healthcare and housing.
 
xjx388 said:
I totally agree. The subject was "competing interests" and my point was that "obstructionism" is fair play as long as it isn't cheating the rules.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on how you define "the rules".

(And no, I'm not trying to bob the thread.)

So much of the way the U.S. government functions wasn't fully defined in the constitution... it evolved over time in a way that kept things functioning smoothly. It wasn't against "the rules" (in terms of actual written guidelines) for Moscow Mitch to stonewall Obama's judicial nominees. But it was against the norms of the American political system that had been functioning for the past centuries. (whether you consider them unwritten rules, or a gentlemen's agreement). The effect will be an eventual collapse of the American system.

If the roles had been reversed, you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing?
Click to expand...
A decade ago? Probably not. The Democrats appeared to be following established norms, even as the republicans started blowing things up.

Now? Well, the republicans have shown themselves to be completely corrupt, and I suspect the Democrats have realized that they can't trust the republicans to act with any sort of decorum. For better or worse, they may start to adopt the same dirty tricks the republicans have.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Warren's out of the race so is any of this jumping on her grave, racist or not, relevant? I loved her dearly but our journey together is over, it's time to move on.
Click to expand...
I am very sad about this.
The only "good" choice left is gone.

I now need to find out what happens when a candidate expires or becomes incapacitated after getting on the ballot, but before the election.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Stipulated that Trump will viciously and relentlessly attack whoever the Democratic nominee is - it’s his MO and not even his lawyer and early and ardent supporters are immune - thinking Cohen and Sessions for two.

But I still think Sanders is especially vulnerable in this regard - as I said before, the attack ads on Bernie will write themselves.

Here’s one from my Facebook feed a few days ago:

(picture suggesting Sanders supported Iran during the hostage crisis.)
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that there are some inaccuracies in that particular ad...

- Sanders was never a 'leader' of the Socialist workers party, nor did he support all their policies
- Sanders himself did not publicly support Iran during the crisis

However, even though he wasn't a member, Sanders did associate himself with the Socialist Workers Party (such as speaking at their events), even after the Iranian hostage crisis. So even though he may not have agreed with their stance on Iran, his disagreement wasn't strong enough for him to break off all ties.

So, guilt by association?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-iran-hostage-crisis/
 
The Democratic nominee should definitely state the objective facts as they are actually happening.
 
theprestige said:
The question is, will the Democratic nominee viciously and relentlessly attack Trump? Should they?
Click to expand...

No. At least not the way they'd probably do it. Which is to beat the dead horse that he is a bigoted scumbag.

In 2016 Trump literally said that wages were too high. That should have been played on a loop in every rust belt state around the clock. That is the subject matter that will move the needle at this point.
 
Suddenly said:
No. At least not the way they'd probably do it. Which is to beat the dead horse that he is a bigoted scumbag.

In 2016 Trump literally said that wages were too high. That should have been played on a loop in every rust belt state around the clock. That is the subject matter that will move the needle at this point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cultural issues are always a weakpoint, but leaning into the undelivered promises about the economy are the ticket to Democratic victory.

Trump told one hell of a whopper about saving manufacturing and high-wage blue-collar jobs and hasn't delivered. Time to hammer him about this nonstop.
 
The people in the Rust Belt don't think the Rust Belt jobs are ever coming back. Nobody does.

Nobody believed Trump when he said he was going to save factory jobs. The Trumpers just heard it for the coded message that it was. "Yeah you and I know that factory ain't never gonna open up again, I'm just here to punish the people who did it, the people you think did it, the people you already hated and now are using this as an excuse to hate, everyone who's better off then you and you're jealous, and hell while we are at it just everyone you've ever wanted to punish for whatever reason."

This is why people are so confused when Trump outright says to his supporters "I'm going to do the thing" then doesn't do the thing and they still love him. Because they didn't hear "I'm gonna do the thing" they heard what he was actually saying "Listen we both know I can't do the thing, but me pretending I'm gonna do the thing is gonna troll the libs soooooo hard and isn't that just awesome?"

Trump didn't tap into some hidden well of hope in the rural areas and the heartland and the rustbelt that things were ever going to get better and he was going to lead them to it. This is spite and revenge and... just raw uncategorized, unorganized lashing out. It's not hope.

The rural areas of America haven't pinned any hope on Donald Trump, that's ludicrous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom