US Politics: A Mickey Mouse Operation

[DireWolfSpirit]

Hey I got an idea, the public should start building our own damn wall around the infested occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Keep the vermin in, have your children help build the wall one brick at a time, right around the Trump infested White House!

https://news.yahoo.com/children-were-told-to-build-the-wall-at-white-house-halloween-party-153024720.html

[Zorral]

9 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

You are obviously very unaware of Amy Goodman if your making the claim "the only person in all media across the board....... ".

You're right about Amy Goodman -- and our local public radio station dropped her program, which was very common at that time. They also got rid of every non-white voice on the local news beat, etc.

[DireWolfSpirit]

16 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You're right about Amy Goodman -- and our local public radio station dropped her program, which was very common at that time. They also got rid of every non-white voice on the local news beat, etc.

And Donahue got canned by tv execs for not being sheepish enough around that same period. It was a blunt reminder that U.S. news divisions are to be viewed as simple entertainment programs because very little actual journalism can be tolerated, in fact it will be punished by the corporate overlords.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Wisconsin still showing Biden as a favored nominee, will be interesting to see if he slides here soon, as he has elsewhere apparently.

Early on, but these are tight numbers currently as the snapshot of who voters here say they favor.

Added Oct. 23, 2019

President: general election
	Wis. Oct 13-17, 2019 799 RV	Marquette Law School	Buttigieg 43% Trump 45%
	Wis. Oct 13-17, 2019 799 RV	Marquette Law School	Warren 47% Trump 46%
	Wis. Oct 13-17, 2019 799 RV	Marquette Law School	Sanders 48% Trump 46%
	Wis. Oct 13-17, 2019 799 RV	Marquette Law School	Biden 50% Trump 44%
President: Democratic primary
	Wis. Oct 13-17, 2019 379 LV	Marquette Law School	Biden 31% Warren 24% Sanders 17% Buttigieg 7% Harris 5% Klobuchar

[DMC]

Head-to-head polls are rarely anywhere close to predictive at this stage in the cycle, use lots of salt.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 hours ago, DMC said:

Head-to-head polls are rarely anywhere close to predictive at this stage in the cycle, use lots of salt.

Followed your shitty advice and now I'm dying of hypernatremia.  I suppose it's MY FAULT though OH THE AGONY

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^^^^^^ I like the last bit there on that link that reads.

" It’s never too late for shame to play a role when it comes to steering clear of foreign agents. Donald Trump’s 2020 opponents should want to lead the way, not follow in his wake"

[Altherion]

48 minutes ago, Triskele said:

This seems not great.

 

Sounds like this government has really flown under the radar in terms of awful regimes around the world.

Almost every government on the planet has multiple connections to either high-level American politicians or massive American corporations or both. Even near-pariah states like Libya under Gadaffi gave money to the American finance industry. This is not widely advertised, but it is not a secret. That's why Biden's son had no qualms about taking money from the Ukrainian energy firm or, later, the Chinese one: as long as this is dressed up as employment or a client relationship for an affiliated corporation, it is not illegal and, up until very recently, there were no political repercussions for it.

[Zorral]

In the meantime bedbug has informed his supporters that he has sekrit and true polls about impeachment and nobody wants him impeached.  Now you know.  That's that. Over and out.

 

[argonak]

So, what does everyone think of this new rumor that Kushner told MBS to go ahead on arresting Khashoggi, and the Turks got it on tape, then used it to push for the syria withdrawal?

Four years ago this would have seemed an off the wall conspiracy, but after everything we've been through it sounds plausible.  It certainly connects some strange dots.  Even the GOP was confused by Trump's syria withdrawal.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, argonak said:

So, what does everyone think of this new rumor that Kushner told MBS to go ahead on arresting Khashoggi, and the Turks got it on tape, then used it to push for the syria withdrawal?

Four years ago this would have seemed an off the wall conspiracy, but after everything we've been through it sounds plausible.  It certainly connects some strange dots.  Even the GOP was confused by Trump's syria withdrawal.

Sounds like a theory.

[IheartIheartTesla]

On 11/2/2019 at 4:14 PM, DMC said:

Head-to-head polls are rarely anywhere close to predictive at this stage in the cycle, use lots of salt.

Thats a good thing to keep in mind as we parse Nate Cohn's poll match-ups between Trump and Biden/Sanders/Warren in swing states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There is a table in there that is worth taking a look at (in particular Arizona where Biden is ahead of Trump the most compared to any other entries). We are still a year out, but a note of caution that preliminary indicators show similar behavior to 2016.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, argonak said:

So, what does everyone think of this new rumor that Kushner told MBS to go ahead on arresting Khashoggi, and the Turks got it on tape, then used it to push for the syria withdrawal?

Four years ago this would have seemed an off the wall conspiracy, but after everything we've been through it sounds plausible.  It certainly connects some strange dots.  Even the GOP was confused by Trump's syria withdrawal.

I just read about this.  That's the thing, there's nothing these people wouldn't do, so whether or not these things took place, by now it doesn't seem in the least unlikely that they did them and allowed them.

[aceluby]

On 11/1/2019 at 8:06 PM, Triskele said:

Do we believe Beto that he won't run for Senate?  Maybe because if he was going to it would behoove him to get right on it?  

He lost that opportunity as soon as he said he was coming for your guns.  He can't win in Texas with that over his head.  His political aspirations by way of Texas are pretty well dead in the water. 

[Fez]

53 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Thats a good thing to keep in mind as we parse Nate Cohn's poll match-ups between Trump and Biden/Sanders/Warren in swing states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There is a table in there that is worth taking a look at (in particular Arizona where Biden is ahead of Trump the most compared to any other entries). We are still a year out, but a note of caution that preliminary indicators show similar behavior to 2016.

I remain so disappointed in all three of Biden/Sanders/Warren. I think they are all sub-par candidates and really hope someone else can break through in Iowa (probably Buttigeig, though with him I worry there's enough swing voters who are homophobes that won't vote for him). And I remain so infuriated that so many Democrats are focusing on big, divisive policy issues (like Medicare for All), when the only issue should be defeating Trump.

At the same time, I do think each of the three can do better than what that poll shows. We've entered the point of the primary where some number of supporters for each candidate don't want to admit they'd vote for one of the alternatives; but will fall in line at the end. The Trump vs. Generic Candidate numbers in that poll help point to that issue (although those numbers are too rosy for Democrats since generic candidates always outpoll people since people can project their perfect candidate onto them).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Let’s see those taxes!!!

[Raja]

29 minutes ago, Fez said:

 And I remain so infuriated that so many Democrats are focusing on big, divisive policy issues (like Medicare for All), when the only issue should be defeating Trump. 

 

What are they supposed to do when healthcare is the issue in the US? I don't think having a divisive primary season is going to affect the dems in the general election. The republicans' divisive primary in 2016 didn't hurt Trump in the general.

I don't really understand this 'only issue is beating trump' so that's all we should talk about as opposed to the very real problems that the US currently faces ( and healthcare is one of, if not the biggest one)?  - I'm sure you'll find a pew/gallup poll that puts healthcare right up there as *the* issue among voters.

 

[Fez]

21 minutes ago, Raja said:

What are they supposed to do when healthcare is the issue in the US? I don't think having a divisive primary season is going to affect the dems in the general election. The republicans' divisive primary in 2016 didn't hurt Trump in the general.

I don't really understand this 'only issue is beating trump' so that's all we should talk about as opposed to the very real problems that the US currently faces ( and healthcare is one of, if not the biggest one)?  - I'm sure you'll find a pew/gallup poll that puts healthcare right up there as *the* issue among voters.

 

Democrats won't get any of their proposals implemented if Trump wins re-election. And, in truth, they won't get the big ones done even if they win the White House; even if Democrats take the Senate and get rid of the filibuster (unlikely) Democratic senators like Manchin, King, and Sinema will never vote for something like Medicare for All (in the way Sanders and Warren define it).

So why the hell are they spending so much time talking about something that won't happen and that is unpopular with enough of the swing voters that it hurts the Democratic electoral chances?

[Raja]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Democrats won't get any of their proposals implemented if Trump wins re-election.

Of course. But what do they propose in their healthcare debates now? Do they all stick with middle of the road plans? Do they just repeat that all the want to do is beat trump? I still don't get what they're supposed to say in these debates?

The whole point of the primary is for voters do decide what path they want to go down, weather that be Medicare for all or Medicare at 50. In addition, it's also possible for candidates to move to something like Medicare at 50 once they are nominated & elected ( unlikely, but given the approval rating and the incremental nature of American politics, I wouldn't rule it out)

You run on your issues to turn out your base. This is what the primary is for, to *choose* what direction the party is going to go in.

( As an aside, I hope we don't see Buttigeg anywhere close to the nomination. Ugh)

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Raja said:

Of course. But what do they propose in their healthcare debates now? Do they all stick with middle of the road plans? Do they just repeat that all the want to do is beat trump? I still don't get what they're supposed to say in these debates?

The whole point of the primary is for voters do decide what path they want to go down, weather that be Medicare for all or Medicare at 50. In addition, it's also possible for candidates to move to something like Medicare at 50 once they are nominated & elected ( unlikely, but given the approval rating and the incremental nature of American politics, I wouldn't rule it out)

You run on your issues to turn out your base. This is what the primary is for, to *choose* what direction the party is going to go in.

( As an aside, I hope we don't see Buttigeg anywhere close to the nomination. Ugh)

Against a normal GOP nominee, I'd agree. But I truly believe Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, especially if he gets another 4 years. Literally the only issue should be beating Trump. None of the other stuff matters; except to the extent of candidates saying that they will reverse Trump's policies. Run a return to normalcy campaign, and figure out what new policies Congressional Democrats will accept after the election is over.