Kalbear Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 In other *this country is shit* news, this asshole is using some tech from the campaign he was working at to call people and tell them that Biden has dementia. And hes livestreaming it. Note very specifically how I am not blaming any campaign for this. And I don't! This is just really horrible bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 55 minutes ago, DMC said: Not sure how you could possibly do any halfway decent study simply based on "this election," but link me and I'll take a look. Here ya go.https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/764179752/heres-which-presidential-candidates-women-have-been-donating-to There's some more links here too: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/1/6/21051898/elizabeth-warren-julian-castro-marianne-williamson-women-voters-men Quote No, it's not when you're just talking about Hillary Clinton. It's not just talking about Clinton. And no, I reject out of hand that every single action taken since 2016 is 'talking about Clinton'. Even if that were true, it doesn't matter in practice, because the effect is the same - Clinton lost, so now women can't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 8 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Clinton lost, so now women can't win. Only because people like you keep on saying and believing they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, DMC said: Only because people like you keep on saying and believing they can't. And we change that how? We changed the narrative of a black person by Obama winning due largely to a recession and a deeply unpopular second term. I concede that if a woman runs in that type of situation she might be able to win, but that happens roughly every 50 years. And no, again - it isn't just because of me saying or believing it. There are some people who view this as a fait accompli, but there are a whole lot of Dems in the party who are sexist or misogynistic and who will not vote for a woman. The same isn't true the other way around. Those people don't just go away any more the racists in the dem party went away with Obama; the difference in that case was that the racists either didn't bother voting or voted for Obama in spite of their racism because the other option (recession) was worse. And that's the real difference - that unless that white dude is going to be hurting a lot, they're fine with a Republican option for them, especially if it means not having to vote for a black person or a woman. It's only when they're actually suffering that they'll vote against their prejudices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: We changed the narrative of a black person by Obama winning due largely to a recession and a deeply unpopular second term. I concede that if a woman runs in that type of situation she might be able to win, but that happens roughly every 50 years. So you're saying a black male won't be elected president again for 50 years either? Latino male? You got some crystal ball there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 1 minute ago, DMC said: So you're saying a black male won't be elected president again for 50 years either? Latino male? You got some crystal ball there. Now that it's been shown that it can be done that barrier is over. Obama faced a similar issue with black voters in SC before he won Iowa; prior to that, he was another Jesse Jackson. But the barrier was dropped somewhat. Note that it's still somewhat - there are still plenty of people who will simply not vote for a black man who are Democrats. Obama got around that by massively increasing turnout, especially among youths, but again - recession. So probably not 50 years, but chances are good not for at least another 20. As to a Latino? Probably similar barriers. Maybe even worse ones in the US now, given the hatred of immigrants and different languages and the like. No, I don't see that changing any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJmR6jpwNps But who is who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimTuesday Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 16 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Here ya go.https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/764179752/heres-which-presidential-candidates-women-have-been-donating-to There's some more links here too: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/1/6/21051898/elizabeth-warren-julian-castro-marianne-williamson-women-voters-men It's not just talking about Clinton. And no, I reject out of hand that every single action taken since 2016 is 'talking about Clinton'. Even if that were true, it doesn't matter in practice, because the effect is the same - Clinton lost, so now women can't win. Seriously, Clinton sucked. The fact that she isn't stepping the fuck back and keeps inserting herself into everything only makes her loss more ever present. She lost because she is toxic and awful. Warren may be getting a bit of residual hostility but she also hired a bunch of the same people who ran Hillary's disaster after they got done murdering any chance Kamala had at the presidency. The fact is that if Warren had run last time instead of Bernie (which he urged her to do), we would be working on reelecting her right now, so forget Hillary, accept that Warren just has bad timing, and get onboard the AOC 2024 train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 18 hours ago, DMC said: Yeah this is my reaction to the recent discussion. Y'all are worried Biden's gonna get pwned by the likes of Donald Trump? Oh my concern wasn't about the impact on his debate performance against Trump, it was about depressing turn out if it becomes more obvious to his needed voters and most important his job performance if he manages to win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 36 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said: Seriously, Clinton sucked. The fact that she isn't stepping the fuck back and keeps inserting herself into everything only makes her loss more ever present. She lost because she is toxic and awful. Warren may be getting a bit of residual hostility but she also hired a bunch of the same people who ran Hillary's disaster after they got done murdering any chance Kamala had at the presidency. The fact is that if Warren had run last time instead of Bernie (which he urged her to do), we would be working on reelecting her right now, so forget Hillary, accept that Warren just has bad timing, and get onboard the AOC 2024 train. In 2024 we’ll find out that AOC is in fact the wrong candidate at the wrong time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 20 minutes ago, Myshkin said: In 2024 we’ll find out that AOC is in fact the wrong candidate at the wrong time. I think it's fairly obvious that she's not going to be running for the presidency in 2024. She'd sooner be eyeing a run at Schumer's seat in the Senate in 2022 than she'd be considering trying to be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 The European markets are down about 6.5% right now. The Dow futures show an implied open of -1,300, but 6.5% suggests -1,625. (Note - there are curbs on the futures, they can’t show more than a 5% drop, 1,303 points.) This is going to be savage, folks. The Saudis and the Russians got into a fist fight and there is a lot of blood on the floor. Oil, actually. And American oil company debt has a lot to do with it. You know how Trump has been bragging endlessly about the US producing so much oil and exporting now? That’s been driven by the fact there’s so much debt in the oil industry. Production in the US keeps going up, which has pissed off the Saudis to no end. Ergo, their meeting on the weekend trying to cut production, which the Russians refused to do. Occidental Petroleum, a company worth about $60 B a few years ago, took over Anadarko (not Marathon, sorry) oil last August, using $40 B in debt. (Edit from saying a couple of years ago, it sure feels like it) Purchase price was $57 B. Last week after the sharp drops, the combined company was worth $25 B. This morning the combined company is worth $15 B. Trust me, there is going to be American blood on the floor now too. And Canadian blood, and British blood, and French and German blood and everybody else. The Saudis destroyed the Venezuelan oil industry in the late 90s when they stepped out of line. The Saudi cost to produce oil is rumored to be $3 a barrel. The US cost is $27 a barrel. The last time around the oil war devastated the US and Canadian oil industries and it took $100 a barrel oil to fix it. And Covid-19 has been the trigger overall, because the markets falling has uncovered the debt issue. And the bond market was warning us shit was going to hit the fan. The 10-year bond is below .5%. Remember I said a Japan? Japanese banks propped up zombie companies until they finally collapsed, and the Japanese stock market fell 50%. There will be bankruptcies. There will be lay-offs. We will all suffer, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 Oh. And I think the cruise companies can kiss off the idea of a bailout from the government. And the airlines and the hotels. eta: and with the price of a barrel of oil falling from $49 to $35 and potentially $25, I think Tesla and solar panel companies are screwed for years. So much for climate change. Try to bring in measures with the price of gas dropping through the floor. Think of the massive increase in pollution now. Thank you you #%^*+=# Saudis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 9 hours ago, SpaceChampion said: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-young-people-vote-super-tuesday-20200303-otex6bg2gnhobjxzyzw22mygjy-story.html Intent and excitement are wonderful. However, if they don’t cast a ballot they are worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 Has a sitting president ever declared bankruptcy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 39 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Has a sitting president ever declared bankruptcy? Banktrumpcy? As a person, he hasn't. Companies owned by him did, though, more than once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 Re: sexism in Democratic party. The notion that electing a woman as POTUS represents some kind of great milestone or requires major mindset shift is...dubious at best. And that's coming from someone who lives in country that is by almost all accounts more sexist than US, and yet had both woman PM and woman president in the last few years (and on top of that, one was moderate conservative, while the other was far-right populist). What changed was - nothing. People voted for their party's nominee regardless of their gender, sexism remained the issue in society and those positive changes that did happen - happened independently of president or government. Heck, Clinton outright won the presidential election few years ago (though for some mysterious reason America remains a country where you can become a president despite losing a popular vote. Even by 3 million votes); which would suggest that at least more than half of Americans (and that's republican voters included) will support a women president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 29 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said: Heck, Clinton outright won the presidential election few years ago (though for some mysterious reason America remains a country where you can become a president despite losing a popular vote. Even by 3 million votes); which would suggest that at least more than half of Americans (and that's republican voters included) will support a women president. I think this is really true. Pakistan for example has had a female prime minister. I also think while Republicans may use sexist attacks against a democratic nominee, most Republicans would have little issue voting for a female republican nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 Some Monday morning primary polling has dropped; and, if it's accurate (and it's across multiple pollsters, so its not a single outfit's potential bias) this thing is over.. National: Biden +16 over Sanders Michigan: Biden +24 over Sanders Michigan: Biden +21 over Sanders Missouri: Biden +30 over Sanders Mississippi: Biden +55 over Sanders Arizona: Biden +28 over Sanders (and this was a poll with Warren and Bloomberg still in it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 Ok, 5 minutes in the first circuit breaker has tripped : the S&P 500 just hit -7% so there is a 15 minute halt in trading. After trading starts again, the circuit breaker trips at 13% down. Then there’s another halt, and the next circuit breaker is 20%. If that level is hit, the stock market shuts down for the day. These levels have never been hit. Back in 1987 the old curbs were tripped once or twice, using different measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.