Democrat candidates so far. . .

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39433
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 22 Aug 2019, 02:25

Seems Jay Inslee plans to end his campaign and focus on bringing his fellow ents closer to the embrace of the Earth Mother.

Nah, bless him. I hope he keeps hammering on his main issue.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 26 Aug 2019, 11:42



Bernie gets it.
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 28153
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby toomanyhatz » 27 Aug 2019, 01:52

Jimbo wrote:Bernie gets it.


Gets what? That these issues exist? Most everyone here has been saying the same thing. We're in agreement! Is there a single piece of suggested, passable legislation being discussed? What's his plan?

If he's not saying anything different from what we say here all the time, why not vote for the Baron? Machuki?

Personally, I'm going for Sneelock.
Jimbo wrote:My point is to save the world from WWIII.

Jimbo wrote:Trump is right. The collusion conspiracy theory has been debunked and you seem to refuse to look at the evidence.

1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017 2018 2019?

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 28153
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby toomanyhatz » 27 Aug 2019, 02:10

Bernie gets it:

Sanders' consistent climate change message can be summed up in a few words: it's real, it's here, we caused it, and we need to shift the whole economy away from fossil fuels. So he supports nationwide bans on fracking, on new fossil fuel infrastructure, and on fossil fuel leases on public lands. He supports high speed rail, electric vehicles and public transit. He has called for phasing out nuclear energy, and he supports spending money to adapt to climate change, such as defenses against wildfires, floods, drought and hurricanes.


Source: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2406 ... te-profile
Jimbo wrote:My point is to save the world from WWIII.

Jimbo wrote:Trump is right. The collusion conspiracy theory has been debunked and you seem to refuse to look at the evidence.

1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017 2018 2019?

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39433
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 27 Aug 2019, 14:42

toomanyhatz wrote:
Jimbo wrote:Bernie gets it.


Gets what? That these issues exist? Most everyone here has been saying the same thing. We're in agreement! Is there a single piece of suggested, passable legislation being discussed? What's his plan?

If he's not saying anything different from what we say here all the time, why not vote for the Baron? Machuki?



I'm Count Machuki and I approve this message.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Minnie the Minx
funky thigh collector
Posts: 30718
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Minnie the Minx » 27 Aug 2019, 15:03

toomanyhatz wrote:
Jimbo wrote:Bernie gets it.


Gets what? That these issues exist? Most everyone here has been saying the same thing. We're in agreement! Is there a single piece of suggested, passable legislation being discussed? What's his plan?

If he's not saying anything different from what we say here all the time, why not vote for the Baron? Machuki?

Personally, I'm going for Sneelock.


*looks for First Lady dresses*
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.

Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13542
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Sneelock » 27 Aug 2019, 16:32

I yam unfit. I never golfed a day in my life.
Jimbo wrote:BLOOMBERG 2020!

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 27 Aug 2019, 20:46

Jimmy Dore reminded me that Bernie has not yet mentioned the petty and unfair banning of Tulsi from the debates.
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39433
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 28 Aug 2019, 03:21

Jimbo wrote:Jimmy Dore reminded me that Bernie has not yet mentioned the petty and unfair banning of Tulsi from the debates.


Just because she didn't meet the requirements. So unfair.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 28 Aug 2019, 08:28

Count Machuki wrote:
Jimbo wrote:Jimmy Dore reminded me that Bernie has not yet mentioned the petty and unfair banning of Tulsi from the debates.


Just because she didn't meet the requirements. So unfair.


Where did learn to be so snotty? In fact it is unfair.

... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13542
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Sneelock » 28 Aug 2019, 22:56

Gillibrand just dropped out.
Jimbo wrote:BLOOMBERG 2020!

User avatar
Qube
Posts: 2602
Joined: 04 Dec 2007, 12:16
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Qube » 28 Aug 2019, 22:57

toomanyhatz wrote:Bernie gets it:

Sanders' consistent climate change message can be summed up in a few words: it's real, it's here, we caused it, and we need to shift the whole economy away from fossil fuels. So he supports nationwide bans on fracking, on new fossil fuel infrastructure, and on fossil fuel leases on public lands. He supports high speed rail, electric vehicles and public transit. He has called for phasing out nuclear energy, and he supports spending money to adapt to climate change, such as defenses against wildfires, floods, drought and hurricanes.


Source: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2406 ... te-profile


Bernie's denial of the necessity of nuclear power (the only carbon-free method of generating power on the scale we need) is as bad as republicans denial of climate change in the first place.

I voted for him in the primaries in 2016 with plenty of passion, but he'd be a disaster for the environment now. Renewables sound great, but until battery storage becomes remotely realistic and affordable (may as well have nuclear fusion by that point...), they'll be relying on a 24/7 carbon-emitting baseload, locking us into using fossil fuels for who knows how long. Just look at how Germany fucked all this up...

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39433
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 28 Aug 2019, 23:03

Sneelock wrote:Gillibrand just dropped out.


I like her okay. She was never going to be President, though.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13542
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Sneelock » 29 Aug 2019, 21:03

Politico did a post-mortem and it's interesting but sort of wrong headed to my way of thinking.
they seem to think she bombed out because of what she said and I think she bombed out because of how she said it (zzzz)

I think Politico and the like scurry to put the lid on things like full-throated support for a woman's right to an abortion. I don't think as many American Women see this as a problem as much as they just didn't take to her personality-wise.
Jimbo wrote:BLOOMBERG 2020!

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 28153
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby toomanyhatz » 29 Aug 2019, 22:17

This is the problem Dems seem to be having - they apologize for claiming that they are the mainstream party - when a majority poll of Americans' political stances are basically the Dems platform.

Full-throated support for abortion rights is only a problem for 30% of Americans at most. It's not a deal-breaker for the other 70. Just the opposite, in fact.
Jimbo wrote:My point is to save the world from WWIII.

Jimbo wrote:Trump is right. The collusion conspiracy theory has been debunked and you seem to refuse to look at the evidence.

1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017 2018 2019?

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23932
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 30 Aug 2019, 16:18

toomanyhatz wrote:This is the problem Dems seem to be having - they apologize for claiming that they are the mainstream party - when a majority poll of Americans' political stances are basically the Dems platform.

Full-throated support for abortion rights is only a problem for 30% of Americans at most. It's not a deal-breaker for the other 70. Just the opposite, in fact.


The problem is - that entire 30% votes, but only half of the remaining 70% shows up to the polls. So there’s more potential political danger involved than your comment allows for.

Not that I support being anything less than full-throated about it. But let’s not pretend that there’s no cost to doing so.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13542
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Sneelock » 30 Aug 2019, 17:29

Hillary won the popular vote in the 2016 and was as full-throated on that issue as a Dem candidate has been possibly ever.
I think that if we get the women and voters of diversity to show up that we don't need to soft-peddle where we stand on the issues.
I think it's really important right now to take a firm stand on the issues. I'd say this is the HOW in getting people to show up.
the days of "that's a really important issue and we need to look at that" just won't fly anymore IMO.
the other guys really suck. we need to not suck. we can't try to make people think we're like the other guys since the other guy are popular mainly because the other guys just ain't that popular. I think the issues are the reason. I'm PRO issues.

Carter and Clinton could run to the middle and it made strategic sense for them to do so. the middle has moved and it's moved a LOT. I know some right wing whack jobs who claim to represent the middle. "they suck because they stand for THAT, we don't because we stand for THIS." I don't see how we lose if we do that. too bad I just don't ever see us doing that. well, why not?
Jimbo wrote:BLOOMBERG 2020!

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23932
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 30 Aug 2019, 20:06

Let’s be clear. I’m not arguing for equivocation on abortion. I think we should take the right position because it is the right position.

But Hillary lost the electoral college by 77k votes, and who is to say that a different position on abortion wouldn’t have tipped those scales? Again - I’m not arguing that she should have done differently. But let’s not kid ourselves that the pressures to equivocate aren’t real.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 68497
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Diamond Dog » 30 Aug 2019, 21:22

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:But Hillary lost the electoral college by 77k votes, and who is to say that a different position on abortion wouldn’t have tipped those scales? Again - I’m not arguing that she should have done differently. But let’s not kid ourselves that the pressures to equivocate aren’t real.


Of course it could equally be that her position on abortion gained her votes, so she may have lost by more had she not been as explicit as she was.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.
When I was a kid, I inhaled. Frequently. That was the point.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23932
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 30 Aug 2019, 22:43

Diamond Dog wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:But Hillary lost the electoral college by 77k votes, and who is to say that a different position on abortion wouldn’t have tipped those scales? Again - I’m not arguing that she should have done differently. But let’s not kid ourselves that the pressures to equivocate aren’t real.


Of course it could equally be that her position on abortion gained her votes, so she may have lost by more had she not been as explicit as she was.


It could be. But it given who she was running against and the position he took - it seems likely that she was going to have the pro-choice vote regardless.

But sure, it is always tricky to say how much a position loses or gains a politician. What I’m mostly pushing back on here is the notion that there’s no risk to running a hard progressive campaign. It really depends on where you are running, and to whom. On a national level, running towards the progressive side appears to be a disadvantage in the electoral college.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo

Image