Jump to content

US politics - When the Barr's so low.


Lykos

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I think Warren is a deceptively weak candidate against Trump, but that just makes everyone ganging up on her worse to me.

I think she'd make for a promising president and would be strong in an election that was being fought over issues and policy. Against Trump I fear she's even more vulnerable to "asshole is a misogynist to female candidate" than any of the other women. I hope I'm wrong, but she really didn't handle the last time he really singled her out very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I'm not looking for perfect right now because I can't afford to.  I'm looking for the best chance to beat Trump

There's no guarantee that Trump will actually be the Republican candidate a year from now. It's not impossible he'll be able to hold on that long, but we should also be considering how well candidates would do against Pence, or whoever else they might put up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough with the worrying about Pence stuff.  It was the same ridiculous thing with Cheney.  If the President of the United States is removed or forced to resign from office within a year of his prospective reelection, then his party is going to lose that election.  Full Stop.  The Senate would be well in play at that point.  Everybody seems to be ignoring the ramifications of such a tectonic type of shift in the electorate for such a thing to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same wishful thinking that had actual adults thinking/campaigning/hoping that the Electoral College wouldn't vote to empower the orange bastard.

People actually sent money. American dollars. U.S. currency! To Jill Stein's recount scam.

Never discount the capacity for self delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about Warren's issues brought up by other candidates during the debate. I remember when Bernie first ran in 2016, and he began talking about middle class tax increases being necessary to fun better social programs and infrastructure (of course, the lion's share of taxes will not be on the middle class). I remember as a struggling middle class single parent, I didn't like this at all.

This time, he's been more precise in his language about it: "Yes, taxes will go up, but that increase for most Americans (not the rich) will translate into massive savings because 1.) you have no premium (which I hear loud an clear, for me and my son, we have 600+ a month in premiums, nearly 25 percent of my check) and 2.) you won't pay extra bills after already paying high premiums. Which again, that translates for me.

So I get it, but is this method still a losing strategy? I think it has to be better than not acknowledging it. 

Warren's great, but I think she needs good answers if she heads into the general elections. Working through difficult answers now is so important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah not mentioning her was not an oversight - I think you want someone more qualified when you're 77.

Does that matter in a post-Trump world? It feels like relying on conventional norms is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back these days.

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

Can you imagine Booker showing his age?  Can you imagine him being stumped by reporters question or giving cringe-worthy responses that become instant memes?*  Can you imagine him showing even the slightest sign of a lack of stamina?  

I have fond things to say about the three front-runners, but they all also seem so flawed, and I cannot believe that we're trying to save Democracy as we know it with any of the three of them.  I am grasping for an alternative.  I naively thought O'Rourke had potential which he obviously now does not.  I thought Harris seemed formidable too at one point but don't think it's her.  Pete has a lot of strengths and remains intriguing as an unconventional pick, but I see him really failing to catch fire with the Dem base.  

This is part of why the complaints about Booker baffle me.  He's not authentic enough?  Sure, I see that too.  And I"ve made the case that authenticity matters myself.  He's too cozy with wall street and pharma?  Sure, but we're going against Trump right now so that we even get to vote again someday.  

These things are actual flaws, but look at the rest of the candidates we have.  It is very easy to find flaws with all of them from many different angles.  

Booker has so many strengths though.  And he has game and energy and a keen-as-fuck mind.  And we're going against Trump.  And we're going with 70 year olds?  One is clearly in mental decline, another literally just had a heart attack.  

I am not in this post attempting to make even the slightest argument about who my preference is ideologically.  I am having my usual panic about how we're going to war to take out Trump and not feeling good about the generals we're going to war with.  

*everything and everyone's a meme now, I realize

He could be the first bald president!!!

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It's remarkable how completely shitty most Republican candidates are and no one even gives a single fuck about that, but Democratic candidates have to shit gold and cum ice cream. 

Seriously, GWB was a shitty candidate that was proven shittier and then got even more votes in 2004. Trump was one of the worst candidates in living memory for anyone. It kind of completely sucks that the US is so right-leaning that the default is Republican, and a Democrat has to prove that people enjoy things like not dying and not having race wars.

Yeah, it’s just like hearing someone say “we’re not talking politics here.” What they’re really saying is “we’re not talking liberal politics here.”   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Does that matter in a post-Trump world? It feels like relying on conventional norms is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back these days.

I'm not sure qualifications like that mattered in a pre-Trump world.  Plus she does have a decade in the Georgia House, whatever that's worth.  OTOH, first and foremost, I'm still allowed to have my own personal standards - and she's very untested facing any type of real press scrutiny.  Second, it could create a narrative similar to McCain/Palin, wherein the old experienced candidate chooses a young (*cough* female!) running mate not ready for the job out of desperation.  In fact it would invite the right to depict her that way from the get-go, and you know they'll try their damnedest.

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He could be the first bald president!!!

Weren't most of the first presidents bald?  Isn't that why they all wore those wigs?  Decorum my ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DMC said:

Still, there's something about Booker I just don't trust, and the last time I had that feeling for a Democratic presidential candidate it was John Edwards.  So, that's my hangup.

Agreed. Something about him just feels fake, and I have a hard time buying someone who is essentially selling themselves as a perfect human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I was thinking about Warren's issues brought up by other candidates during the debate. I remember when Bernie first ran in 2016, and he began talking about middle class tax increases being necessary to fun better social programs and infrastructure (of course, the lion's share of taxes will not be on the middle class). I remember as a struggling middle class single parent, I didn't like this at all.

This time, he's been more precise in his language about it: "Yes, taxes will go up, but that increase for most Americans (not the rich) will translate into massive savings because 1.) you have no premium (which I hear loud an clear, for me and my son, we have 600+ a month in premiums, nearly 25 percent of my check) and 2.) you won't pay extra bills after already paying high premiums. Which again, that translates for me.

So I get it, but is this method still a losing strategy? I think it has to be better than not acknowledging it. 

Warren's great, but I think she needs good answers if she heads into the general elections. Working through difficult answers now is so important.

Yes, they need to make it clear that people are ALREADY paying a massive amount of money for health insurance, between themselves and their employer, and that money would just instead go to medicare.  Medicare which has the lowest costs and no profit incentive.

There are certain services which we cannot afford as as society to allow to be run as unregulated private entities.  Fire departments, Police departments, water and electricity.  Health care and internet should be added to the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed. Something about him just feels fake, and I have a hard time buying someone who is essentially selling themselves as a perfect human being.

I'm really frustrated by the infighting amongst the DNC.  A political party should be better organized than this.   At this point I'd almost vote for a literal donkey over Trump.  Someone doing literally nothing would have run the executive branch better than mr orange ove the past few years.

Hell with the economy the way it is, the donkey would get re-elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not sure qualifications like that mattered in a pre-Trump world.  Plus she does have a decade in the Georgia House, whatever that's worth.  OTOH, first and foremost, I'm still allowed to have my own personal standards - and she's very untested facing any type of real press scrutiny.  Second, it could create a narrative similar to McCain/Palin, wherein the old experienced candidate chooses a young (*cough* female!) running mate not ready for the job out of desperation.  In fact it would invite the right to depict her that way from the get-go, and you know they'll try their damnedest.

Weren't most of the first presidents bald?  Isn't that why they all wore those wigs?  Decorum my ass.

Eisenhower and Ford were both bald. Tywin seems to think "bald" is a synonym for "fully shaved head." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon Sondland on why he told Bill Taylor to stop texting:

Quote

“Any implication that I was trying to avoid making a record of our conversation is completely false. In my view, diplomacy is best handled through back-and-forth conversation.”

Uh...isn't texting a back-and-forth conversation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So of all the craziness and general shittiness of the news cycle lately, Something cut through the awful to actually make me laugh (and not in a good way).

It's regarding the story of Trump inviting the family of the British boy killed by a US diplomat to meet said diplomat candid camera style. Trump, of course, said "Boris asked him to do it" - it wasn't his idea, of course not, he's just trying to help a friend. Boris says, "uh, no. Don't pin that shit on me dude."

It's just the daily (hourly) reminder that under all of the very serious shit the president has done, there's a layer of ridiculousness that your brain can't even hold. He's done so much clowntastic crap that I've already forgotten and at the time was sure nothing could top that. I've had to be reminded that his press secretary was caught literally hiding in the bushes, he used a ceremony honoring native American vets to press a Pocahontas joke, his insistence on that crazy handshake / yank that he thinks is strong.

Of course we're getting the book on the horrible crimes and misjudgements of Donald J Trump, I just really want to make sure we get the book that showcases his buffoonery because we need to remember that shit too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Gordon Sondland on why he told Bill Taylor to stop texting:

Uh...isn't texting a back-and-forth conversation?

The online Merriam Webster definition of conversation:

Quote

 

a(1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas… "we had talk enough but no conversation; there was nothing discussed.— "Samuel Johnson

(2): an instance of such exchange : TALK "a quiet conversation"

b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups "conversations among the senators"

c: an exchange similar to conversation "We had a conversation by e-mail."

 

As a 68 year old myself, my first reaction to the word "conversation" is to think it only refers to oral communication, as per the first definition. "Conversation" by texting or email strikes me as a very new use of the word and I don't think Sondland should be criticized for that word choice if what he meant was he thinks diplomacy is best done by oral communication. 

(I think he's probably lying; it's just that I think his meaning is clear to me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...