Gorn Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 My bigger point (in addition to correcting Kalbear's obviously untruthful statement) is that you can only campaign in contests that actually exist. Also, does anyone want to argue that Clinton would have won, say, Washington or Colorado or Maine if they held primaries instead of caucuses? The only difference is that the popular vote margin would have been more favorable to Obama/Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Also, until all states settle on the same method of electing party delegates (caucuses, closed primaries, open primaries, etc), primary vote totals are a meaningless metric. You can't (or at least shouldn't) add together California primary voters, Washington caucus goers and Iowa "delegate equivalents" (whatever the fuck those are), because they're apples and oranges and... I dunno, corn stalks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryk Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 27 minutes ago, mormont said: He claims to. In UK politics, you have to claim to do this, even while you privatise it. Right up to the point where it costs businesses a single penny, at which point his 'support' evaporates. Well if he's lying then obviously it's a different story. Sadly I lack the power of telepathy and so cannot tell if he is or not. But you'd never see a Republican politician even paying lipservice to the possibility of doing either of those things. I mean, it is. There's no need to take my word for it. It's there on the screen. Haha, is it now? People must find you very persuasive in a debate. "What you just said is nonsense and I don't need to explain why because you said it" To take the most egregious example, you were asked for evidence that Clinton's position on the Iraq war actually cost her votes in the election and wasn't just parroting a Sanders talking point, and you cited the fact that there are left-wing vloggers on YouTube who were parroting the same talking point. This isn't evidence, it's an example of confirmation bias in action. Okay, so what would suffice as proof for you? Do I need to do some kind of mass survey of American voters to find out if the Iraq War and Hillary's reputation in general affected her? Well I can't deliver that ridiculous expectation, but here's an article quoting a Boston University study. And a poll showing Biden's Iraq War vote is already a liability for him. And a Guardian article on how war-weary America is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 New NPR poll has Sanders with a slight edge with non-white voters, is this a first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 27 minutes ago, Darryk said: Well if he's lying then obviously it's a different story. Sadly I lack the power of telepathy and so cannot tell if he is or not. If Johnson is talking, he's lying. Or rather, he's bullshitting. He says whatever he thinks will gain him the most advantage at any given time, regardless of truth. His statements may intersect with the truth occasionally, but it's largely coincidence rather than intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 2 hours ago, Gorn said: My bigger point (in addition to correcting Kalbear's obviously untruthful statement) is that you can only campaign in contests that actually exist. Also, does anyone want to argue that Clinton would have won, say, Washington or Colorado or Maine if they held primaries instead of caucuses? The only difference is that the popular vote margin would have been more favorable to Obama/Sanders. Sorry, I was inaccurate. That said, Washington has primaries and caucuses, and Clinton DID win that primary. So...yes, I think it's quite easy to say that clinton would have won a primary because she, ya know, did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 On state Russian television, Russia declares bedbug their "Russian Agent." https://www.salon.com/2019/12/16/state-media-claims-that-president-donald-trump-is-an-agent-of-russia_partner/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-their-agent? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Additionally bedbug is saying he's not going to debate because the Debate Commission is rigged and unfair to him. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/us/politics/trump-presidential-debate-democrat.html Or -- debate without having it set up by the Debate Commission, however that works! https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-says-hell-debate-democrat-2020-election-without-commission/2662273001/ Next step? 2024, no need for an election because the elections are rigged and unfair, therefore he is ruler for life. And a big part of the military may very well back him up, judging by the white supremacy sign flashed by Army - Navy members this weekend, which are being investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: Sorry, I was inaccurate. That said, Washington has primaries and caucuses, and Clinton DID win that primary. So...yes, I think it's quite easy to say that clinton would have won a primary because she, ya know, did. If one awards delegates and the other doesn't, they're not equally valid contests, are they? But point taken, I was mistaken as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Trump sits out debates. Democratic candidate calls him a 'loser' and a 'coward' in repeated attack adds. Trump blows up big time on national television - which produces more attack add material. Repeat. OR Trump goes to a debate. Trumps opponent put's Trump in a logical mousetrap. Trump throws temper tantrum on national television, possibly exposing his Alzheimer's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: Trump sits out debates. Democratic candidate calls him a 'loser' and a 'coward' in repeated attack adds. Trump blows up big time on national television - which produces more attack add material. Repeat. OR Trump goes to a debate. Trumps opponent put's Trump in a logical mousetrap. Trump throws temper tantrum on national television, possibly exposing his Alzheimer's. I expect that Trump will participate in the debates, this is just his standard show of dominance. And whoever the Democrats nominate, they'll be able to trounce Trump and his semi-intelligible offerings of lies and talking points. But it won't make a lick of difference. Trump was barely coherent in 2016, and Clinton wiped the floor with him every time. There's even less reason to think it'll matter now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Darryk said: Well if he's lying then obviously it's a different story. Sadly I lack the power of telepathy and so cannot tell if he is or not. But you'd never see a Republican politician even paying lipservice to the possibility of doing either of those things. It's a difference in the local situation, not the politicians. The NHS already exists, and has done for the entire lives of most voters; right-wing politicians have to be as careful about that topic as they do about Social Security in the US. And public understanding of the threat of climate change is somewhat stronger in the UK (though even in the US, it seems implausible that Republicans can get away with denialism for much longer - though ineffective lip service will keep them going for a while). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 5 hours ago, Darryk said: And I know full-well his record in caucuses were superior to hers, which makes sense because caucuses cater better to grass roots movements. And surprise surprise, the DNC is trying to reduce the amount of caucuses in the coming Democratic primary. Hmm, I wonder why. If they are all similar to the one I participated in back in 2016, it's because they are a disorganized shit show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Did anyone watch the Army/Navy game over the weekend? Trump was there and about 2 min in he donned a big new red "45" campaign hat with "Keep America Great" on the front. Isn't it blatantly illegal to campaign while performing your duty as President? Or am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, aceluby said: Isn't it blatantly illegal to campaign while performing your duty as President? Or am I missing something here? ?? Presidents campaign all the time. How is attending a football game part of his official duties? I'm also not totally sure what law you think is broken here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Maithanet said: ?? Presidents campaign all the time. How is attending a football game part of his official duties? I'm also not totally sure what law you think is broken here. The Hatch Act and he was definitely there as part of his official duties. It's not like he'd be doing the coin flip of the Army/Navy game if he wasn't President. If he was just in attendance, I wouldn't see an issue, but he was there clearly representing the office of the POTUS while also obviously campaigning for 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryk Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 27 minutes ago, felice said: It's a difference in the local situation, not the politicians. The NHS already exists, and has done for the entire lives of most voters; right-wing politicians have to be as careful about that topic as they do about Social Security in the US. And public understanding of the threat of climate change is somewhat stronger in the UK (though even in the US, it seems implausible that Republicans can get away with denialism for much longer - though ineffective lip service will keep them going for a while). Boris Johnson also wants to raise the living wage, which is the kind of thing Bernie would propose and be laughed at and called a socialist. The furthest I've seen any Republican go on climate change is acknowledging that "the climate is changing". Of course, when pressed further, they deny that humans are causing it. So that's their equivalent of lip service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, aceluby said: The Hatch Act and he was definitely there as part of his official duties. It's not like he'd be doing the coin flip of the Army/Navy game if he wasn't President. If he was just in attendance, I wouldn't see an issue, but he was there clearly representing the office of the POTUS while also obviously campaigning for 2020. I'm sorry, but just because it's traditional for the Army/Navy game to invite the President to attend and do a coin flip, that doesn't make it a "Presidential duty" to me. And the Wikipedia page on the Hatch Act says that it: prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice president, and certain designated high-level officials,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity. It went into law on August 2, 1939. So the President can't violate the Hatch Act -- it doesn't apply to the President. I know Wikipedia is not as reliable as other possible sources, so if you know Wikipedia is wrong about this, please feel free to make a correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Hmm, didn't know it couldn't be applied to the President. Guess it was just tacky then. Carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Odd that that a republican would support this. Desperation? A pretense of bipartisanship? Still, should it somehow pass, I have a number of quasi-relatives who'd qualify.... https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/mitt-romney-and-michael-bennet-just-unveiled-a-basic-income-plan-for-kids/ar-BBY3lK0?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=msnclassic On Sunday, Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) announced a bipartisan plan to do something pretty extraordinary: establish a basic income for children in the United States. The plan is relatively modest. Parents would get a guaranteed $1,500 in cash every year per child under the age of 7, no matter their income, and $1,000 per child aged 7 to 17. Another $1,000 in benefits per child, regardless of age, would phase in with income, as occurs under the Child Tax Credit already in the federal tax code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 In New York, as of today, undocumented immigrants can apply for and get a driver's license. This will make the roads and streets safer. I say this in all sincerity. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/hours-long-dmv-wait-as-undocumented-immigrants-apply-for-ny-drivers-licenses/2242715/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.