2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[The Great Zaganza]

Instead of having to pick a single candidate, can we agree on various percentages of Candidatetude from each, and splice them all into a single Super-Candidate using CRISPR?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Sooo... who's your candidate? Can each one of you say? If it were me, I'd put my money on Yang.

Mayor Pete. Most of the other candidates are too old, too scandal prone or too political. So far he's done a great job of ticking all the "decent fellow" boxes, which makes him a nice counterpoint to set against an elderly, racist orange jackass. I just hope his husband has the sense to stay out of the limelight. I can easily see the media latching onto the "First Spouse" story and turning the election into a referendum on having a gay president.

Instead of having to pick a single candidate, can we agree on various percentages of Candidatetude from each, and splice them all into a single Super-Candidate using CRISPR?

It's not that easy. What if you try to get Warren's policy, Biden's experience and Bernie's enthusiasm, but you end up with Bernie's hair, Biden's hands and Warren's ancestry?

 

[acbytesla]

Mayor Pete. Most of the other candidates are too old, too scandal prone or too political. So far he's done a great job of ticking all the "decent fellow" boxes, which makes him a nice counterpoint to set against an elderly, racist orange jackass. I just hope his husband has the sense to stay out of the limelight. I can easily see the media latching onto the "First Spouse" story and turning the election into a referendum on having a gay president.

It's not that easy. What if you try to get Warren's policy, Biden's experience and Bernie's enthusiasm, but you end up with Bernie's hair, Biden's hands and Warren's ancestry?

There is no chance that not happening if he becomes a viable candidate for President. None.

 

[Ziggurat]

Instead of having to pick a single candidate, can we agree on various percentages of Candidatetude from each, and splice them all into a single Super-Candidate using CRISPR?

Candidate Reorganization and Integration for Successful Political Results?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Candidate Reorganization and Integration for Successful Political Results?

 

[Venom]

Sooo... who's your candidate? Can each one of you say? If it were me, I'd put my money on Yang.

Putting money on Yang cause he'll put money on me.

lol

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just like Sanders' ideas are now almost Democrat mainstream, Yang's might become fashionable by 2024.
I give him no chance of winning the primary, though.

 

[Brainster]

Sooo... who's your candidate? Can each one of you say? If it were me, I'd put my money on Yang.

In a gambling sense, I'd bet on Sanders at this point. Of course, I wouldn't vote for him in a million years.

 

[Belz...]

No, Belz, it's not relevant, because I'm not making an argument about abortion.

Ok once again you're going to make excuses why you never have to follow through on your claims or declarations. I'm just not going to waste more time with you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok once again you're going to make excuses why you never have to follow through on your claims or declarations. I'm just not going to waste more time with you.

Once again, you're trying to assign to me a position I didn't take, and getting upset that I'm not interested in taking the position you want me to. Of course that's going to be a waste, not just of your time but mine as well.

 

[The Atheist]

In a gambling sense, I'd bet on Sanders at this point. Of course, I wouldn't vote for him in a million years.

The big mover is Butt-boy. He's currently 11:1 for the presidency and 6.5:1 for the Dem nomination.

You could have had 200 & 100 last week.

Sanders has moved to outright favourite for the nomination at 2.6:1, and 5:1 to beat Trump.

Yang is also surprisingly short at 13:1.

What this says to me is, the bookies, like everyone else, have no clue at this stage, so are hedging all bets. Except Trump winning.

 

[Venom]

If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination and Trump beats him, I will stop posting for a year.

 

[The Atheist]

If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination and Trump beats him, I will stop posting for a year.

Noted

 

[varwoche]

If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination and Trump beats him, I will stop posting for a year.

Not necessary! But, if Sanders fails to get the nomination, and you don't vote for the nominee, and Trump wins, your exile would be massively insufficient atonement.

 

[Travis]

"Shayla frequently missed school because she was in too much pain to leave the house or was hospitalized for long-term care. Her school was aware of these circumstances; it had records on file from the regional children’s hospital explaining that Shayla’s condition would necessitate unpredictable absences and special educational accommodations. Peoples and the school had worked together to set up some of those accommodations, which are required under federal disability law."

By the way has anyone pointed out that no one actually went to jail for truancy? That the system worked by finding solutions and truancy is now less of a problem than before? Seems like that matters.

 

[Venom]

Not necessary! But, if Sanders fails to get the nomination, and you don't vote for the nominee, and Trump wins, your exile would be massively insufficient atonement.

I agree.

 

[Travis]

Hey, remember all the Birther nonsense with Obama? Thank goodness we never have to go through.....oh crap we have to go through it all again.


https://www.mysanantonio.com/opinio...-Harris-eligible-to-be-president-13751395.php


Yep, a guy that happily admits he was one of the people that never believed Obama was eligible now thinks Kamala Harris is also ineligible because he stans Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and thinks her having immigrant parents means she is not a "natural born citizen."


Although if you extrapolate that logic where only two "natural born citizens" can produce new "natural born citizens" wouldn't we have to disqualify a huge percentage of Americans?

 

[Belz...]

Once again, you're trying to assign to me a position I didn't take

I did no such thing. I'm asking you for your opinion on people who DO take that position. I want to know how you feel about that bit of related hypocrisy. Presumably, for some reason, you'd rather not answer because you think it'll hurt your position, though I can't really fathom why. "Well, I disagree with at position as well" would've been very quick to type and would've ended the discussion right there, after all. So is the actual answer the reverse? We're left to speculate, as usual, because you will never, ever be pinned down on anything, in any thread, ever.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did no such thing. I'm asking you for your opinion on people who DO take that position. I want to know how you feel about that bit of related hypocrisy.

You're assuming it's hypocrisy because you're assuming that there's no relevant distinctions to draw between them. You haven't established that this is true. In fact, you can't establish this is true. Given that the entire question is one of morality, which always rests on axioms, any distinctions which are drawn at an axiomatic level are automatically relevant to the person drawing them. On issues of morality, accusations of hypocrisy can work when discussing a conflict between stated principles and actions, but they never really work when discussing alleged conflicts between different principles. For example, accusing someone of hypocrisy for being in favor of abortion and against the death penalty won't work. They don't have to share your beliefs on what distinctions are relevant and which are not.

Presumably, for some reason, you'd rather not answer because you think it'll hurt your position, though I can't really fathom why.

I'd rather not discuss the morality of abortion and euthenasia because this thread isn't about abortion and euthenasia. I'm not interested in pursuing a derail that far. I'm not sure why you find that hard to fathom, and why my answer to an off-topic question matters so much to you. Presumably, for some reason, you're hoping that my answer will hurt my position. Gee, that's a fun game!

"Well, I disagree with at position as well" would've been very quick to type and would've ended the discussion right there, after all. So is the actual answer the reverse? We're left to speculate, as usual, because you will never, ever be pinned down on anything, in any thread, ever.

Are we to interpret this lie as simply hyperbole, like you claimed last time? Or do you intend it to be taken literally?

 

[Belz...]

You're assuming it's hypocrisy because you're assuming that there's no relevant distinctions to draw between them.

That's not the case. There are relevant distinctions, but there's also a single similarity that's crucial: both end a life, and we're told that all life is sacred. That's the hypocrisy. If the argument was "all life should get a chance" then the hypocrisy wouldn't exist, because those who are on death row have had their chance, according to those in favour of the death penalty.

I'd rather not discuss the morality of abortion and euthenasia because this thread isn't about abortion and euthenasia. I'm not interested in pursuing a derail that far. I'm not sure why you find that hard to fathom, and why my answer to an off-topic question matters so much to you.

Well, let me explain, then: you very often bring up these things, only to back away from them by using the excuse that they're off topic or somehow irrelevant. Why bring it up if you're not willing to discuss it at least summarily? Here's a bit of advice: don't bring something up if you're not willing to discuss it.

Are we to interpret this lie as simply hyperbole, like you claimed last time? Or do you intend it to be taken literally?

Are you seriously asking me if I literally meant that you've never voiced an opinion on any topic in your life?