US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

[Mexal]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Klobuchar is a non-factor.  Outside of @Tywin et al.'s dreams.

It’s too bad. I think she’d be really good at it.

[DMC]

Great VP candidate.  Won't overshadow anybody and will never embarrass you.

[Gertrude]

Yeah, I like her. Couldn't tell you why right now, just an impression built up over the years. No idea what her specific platform would look like.

[Kalbear]

I think she's a perfectly decent politician who has almost no ability to energize a single person. She's a revamped Al Gore. The energy of her compared to Harris or Booker or even Biden is unfair. 

I like her fine, but she's very dull. 

[DMC]

Been talking myself into a Harris/Klobuchar ticket for the past couple hours.  I think it's the best option.  Of course I'll change my mind tomorrow.  But really, Trump can try and grab them both by the pussy to no avail, then Pence can not even participate because he's not allowed to play at recess or something.  The idea is really growing on me.

[Fragile Bird]

Truly the most hilarious declaration of the night was Trump's announcement that America will not be a socialist country. Even more hilarious was listening to Republicans on CNN declare universal healthcare was socialist.

[DMC]

Universal healthcare IS socialist.  It's time to go on the offensive with this and stop bullshitting around.  The polling isn't great, but it's a lot better than it's looked in a long time.  And is worth massaging.

[SpaceChampion]

 

[DMC]

Ralph Nader is over a year older than my dear grandmother, my oldest living relative.  I love my grams, and I've met Nader and respect him, but I could give two shits about either of their political opinions in 2020.

[OldGimletEye]

7 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Truly the most hilarious declaration of the night was Trump's announcement that America will not be a socialist country. Even more hilarious was listening to Republicans on CNN declare universal healthcare was socialist.

Maybe universal healthcare is socialist or maybe it isn't. But, the key, when dealing this sort of issue is make to Republican knuckleheads commit to a definition of socialism and then once they've picked that definition, don't let them change it, as they like to be extremely squirrely with that term and change that meaning as it suits them. And once, they've committed and you've made them commit, then you can nail them. For instance, if universal healthcare is socialism, and I have no particular strong objection to calling it that, nor do I have any particular objection to being called a "socialist" for supporting it, then so are Medicare and Social Security, which happen to be fairly popular programs. And then just point that out to Republican knuckleheads and then ask them why are they being so dishonest and cowardly in trying to eliminate those programs, trying to hide behind "fiscal responsibility" when their real objection is that they are "socialism". And then you can point out things like universal education are likely socialist too and whether we should eliminate them. And well the military is also an exercise in socialism. In fact, it probably is the most socialist institution in America. Certainly it's not a place where one does radical or rugged individualism. It's interesting that so called "libertarians" need a highly socialist institution to defend the "free market". And then of course, you can point out that in reality Americans can be quite fond of "socialism". FDR won four elections because it turned out that Americans liked "socialism", even if they start to hyperventilate a little bit, whenever they hear the term.

Perhaps by throwing around the term "socialism" conservatives figure they can "own the libs" or something. But I'd suggest they need to learn how to own basic logic first.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

First, I've never been a paid staffer on a campaign.  Second, sounds like you've been partaking with the paranoia.  Could someone figure out my identity if they really wanted to on here?  Sure.  Actually really easily if you closely followed my posts.  But I'd like to think there's some inherent trust with the regulars here that'd be able to do that.  And even if they did "publicize" it, I'd just deny it and say I was lying.  It's a handle on a fantasy series message board.  This isn't social media with a picture of me as an avatar.  Third, I frankly don't think I'll ever be important enough in any way that anyone would either go through such effort, or on the other end care if they did irt prospective employers.

Time for a regular public service reminder that posts on this board are publicly available. Anyone, not just 'regulars', can read them, and some boarders can tell you of experiences where they found that out, to their cost. Just a little something we encourage users to bear in mind...

[OldGimletEye]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

In terms of Trump's speech, it's pretty clear he's at the point in the Rocky movie where Mick is like "ya got nothin left Rock!"  Sounding like a guy all out of fight.

Trump would be the lazy version of Rocky. Unlike Rocky, who worked his butt off in order get into the ring with the heavy weight Champion, Trump would just talk about he was the greatest fighter ever, hoping if he talked about it enough, it would be true.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Trump and Rocky both have pet turtles.

[Morpheus]

Ivan Drago could be a friend, we’ll see, we’ll see. Our boxers kill lots of opponents in the ring too, we aren’t so innocent.

[Rippounet]

10 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

It seems pretty reasonable to not hold it against them if you don't believe weed should be illegal in the first place. What if they hooked up friends with alcohol in high school?

No, not necessarily. Policy is often more a matter of pragmatism than morality. Legalizing a drug that was illegal means you believe repression is too costly (in human and economic terms) compared to its efficiency (preventing drug use from spreading). At some point, if repression isn't efficient, legalization and regulation may be far better for society as a whole.
This type of calculation has nothing to do with morality however. Tobacco is legal, and I wouldn't dream of making it illegal in my lifetime*. Yet, today we know that tobacco is poison and that anyone involved in the business is basically making money out of selling lung cancer. Now, I wouldn't go around blaming or judging random individuals working in the industry, but I wouldn't find it easy to befriend an executive working in a tobacco company, and would certainly be suspicious of any former Big Tobacco executive running for office. It's worse when considering politicians, who are likely to design policy based on their individual morality and experience. I'm sure you'll agree that a former executive from Philip Morris would have to address his past before running as a leftist politician, since the left is more concerned about collective responsibility than individual responsibility. And let's not get started on a former executive for Smith & Wesson, eh? As for alcohol, there have been documentaries in France about strategies by Pernot-Ricard (or other companies) to sell their products (especially to the young) while disregarding health issues for society, and there is the beginning of a meek push to fight "Big Alcohol" in the country.
So hooking up friends with alcohol in high school would be one thing. Making tons of money with dangerous moonshine would be another.

There are other examples where morality, idealism, and pragmatism don't go well together. For instance, soliciting a prostitute in France has recently become illegal. You'd think that would be a good thing, because we want to help sex workers. But according to prostitutes such a policy isnt helpful at all, since they've had to go underground to continue their business, their services have to be sold for lower prices, and they're actually more at risk from pimps or violent customers. Tricky issue.

*and big tobacco is a fairly good example, given the history of the industry preventing health issues from being known through lobbying, and thus preventing further regulation.

Then, where drugs are concerned there are deeper issues. What type of society do we want? I've been hoping for legalization for most of my life. But now that it's happening in North America I'm having second thoughts. Legalizing weed, when combined with an ideology that puts the onus on individual responsibility is actually rather perverse. It could end up being another way of blaming the poor for their individual failures. Because personal responsibility is used to blame minorities rather than systemic racism and discrimination, to blame women rather than systemic sexim, or the poor rather than socio-economic structures, legalizing drugs may be an insidious way to deal with the emergence of a permanent underclass of unemployed low-skilled workers. After all, you only need to throw in a minimum UBI à-la-Friedman to have the perfect dystopian neo-liberal society in which the poor can be associated with drug addiction, like poverty was associated with alcoholism in ages past.
 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

Ivan Drago could be a friend, we’ll see, we’ll see. Our boxers kill lots of opponents in the ring too, we aren’t so innocent.

Yeah pretty sure Trump would be cheering as Drago kills Creed.  If he dies, he dies.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

 

10 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Kloubuchar to announce her intent to run or not on Sunday. Can't see that it's going to be no.

I really like her. I hope she doesn't get overshadowed in the field. I want to better understand her policies/stances, but there isn't a ton out there. I also love Abrams after last night. I only knew of her previously, but listening to her really was great. She made you feel like...people aren't shitty and evil. I don't know.

 

And I now officially have moved my Pelosi meter from "Pretty, pretty, pretty good" to "I love her." Her clapping at Trump is just the best thing ever. I love how she handles him.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 hours ago, DMC said:

I liked earlier when Pelosi seemed to be reading from some big..things, I don't even know how to describe what those were.  Pelosi should have came out with a newspaper.  Like Norm MacDonald.

Funny, I had the exact same thought. Personally I wish she had busted out a tabloid with Stormy on the cover and then from time to time set it in front of Pence.

12 hours ago, DMC said:

The woman thing was the funniest thing I've seen on television in awhile.

To be fair, Trump can claim credit for the record number of women in Congress, but for all the wrong reasons.

[Fragile Bird]

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe universal healthcare is socialist or maybe it isn't. But, the key, when dealing this sort of issue is make to Republican knuckleheads commit to a definition of socialism and then once they've picked that definition, don't let them change it, as they like to be extremely squirrely with that term and change that meaning as it suits them. And once, they've committed and you've made them commit, then you can nail them. For instance, if universal healthcare is socialism, and I have no particular strong objection to calling it that, nor do I have any particular objection to being called a "socialist" for supporting it, then so are Medicare and Social Security, which happen to be fairly popular programs. And then just point that out to Republican knuckleheads and then ask them why are they being so dishonest and cowardly in trying to eliminate those programs, trying to hide behind "fiscal responsibility" when their real objection is that they are "socialism". And then you can point out things like universal education are likely socialist too and whether we should eliminate them. And well the military is also an exercise in socialism. In fact, it probably is the most socialist institution in America. Certainly it's not a place where one does radical or rugged individualism. It's interesting that so called "libertarians" need a highly socialist institution to defend the "free market". And then of course, you can point out that in reality Americans can be quite fond of "socialism". FDR won four elections because it turned out that Americans liked "socialism", even if they start to hyperventilate a little bit, whenever they hear the term.

Perhaps by throwing around the term "socialism" conservatives figure they can "own the libs" or something. But I'd suggest they need to learn how to own basic logic first.

Lol, were you watching CNN too? There’s this rotund, balding lawyer who worked in the WH for Trump who is so aggressive and obnoxious who was arguing universal healthcare is socialist with a black Democrat (Bacardi?) on Cuomo’s show, and Bacardi was making all of your points, including the FDR one, and the Republican kept yelling ‘don’t change the topic’ and he kept answering ‘I’m not changing the topic, it’s the same topic!’, so the Dem’s must be following this strategy!

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

*and big tobacco is a fairly good example, given the history of the industry preventing health issues from being known through lobbying, and thus preventing further regulation.

Man I feel like this thread took a time machine to the thirties and just finished watching Reefer Madness.  Do we really need to rehash the legalization debate and/or pot vs. alcohol or tobacco?  What year is this?  Weed is an objectively and demonstrably less dangerous substance than either alcohol or tobacco.  I say this as an avid consumer of all three products for the past twenty years.  First and foremost because it's not physically addictive, while tobacco executives have spent the past 200 years making cigarettes as addictive as heroin and coke.  And since when is selling weed in high school comparable to being a Big Tobacco executive?  JFC.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Personally I wish she had busted out a tabloid with Stormy on the cover and then from time to time set it in front of Pence.

Ha!