Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Jaicee said:
uran10 said:

Unfortunately for you, you're wrong. But I will say I never cared for Pressley and she was the only Justice Dem I've been sceptical of from the start...ETC.

Close enough, PAY UP!

Its not close enough in the slightest. I'm holding her to the same degree I hold everyone else. Is it my fault they do things that make me suspicious of them? The only thing I did was read up a bit on them and I was always eh on Pressley. But that just leads to be diving in on how I felt that Justice Dems was somewhat co-opted by the establishment after Kyle left. He unfortunately still treats the organization the same, but I feel like they're falling into that ID pol hole and its a little frustrating. But anyway, if you were right that would just mean that the politician in question just happens to be corrupt because I'm not out here claiming things without receipts :)



Japan Switch Sales comparison vs 3ds and Wii u: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=226216&page=1

Around the Network
uran10 said:

Its not close enough in the slightest. I'm holding her to the same degree I hold everyone else. Is it my fault they do things that make me suspicious of them? The only thing I did was read up a bit on them and I was always eh on Pressley. But that just leads to be diving in on how I felt that Justice Dems was somewhat co-opted by the establishment after Kyle left. He unfortunately still treats the organization the same, but I feel like they're falling into that ID pol hole and its a little frustrating. But anyway, if you were right that would just mean that the politician in question just happens to be corrupt because I'm not out here claiming things without receipts :)

I got the video part wrong (...so far...), but I got the spirit of your response right, so...I get 75 percent? I think I'm owed that much.

Anyway, the fact that you're more suspicious of where Ayanna Pressley's loyalties lie than you are of where Tulsi Gabbard's do says a lot to me.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 09 November 2019

Jaicee said:
uran10 said:

Its not close enough in the slightest. I'm holding her to the same degree I hold everyone else. Is it my fault they do things that make me suspicious of them? The only thing I did was read up a bit on them and I was always eh on Pressley. But that just leads to be diving in on how I felt that Justice Dems was somewhat co-opted by the establishment after Kyle left. He unfortunately still treats the organization the same, but I feel like they're falling into that ID pol hole and its a little frustrating. But anyway, if you were right that would just mean that the politician in question just happens to be corrupt because I'm not out here claiming things without receipts :)

I got the video part wrong (...so far...), but I got the spirit of your response right, so...I get 75 percent? I think I'm owed that much.

Anyway, the fact that you're more suspicious of where Ayanna Pressley's loyalties lie than you are of where Tulsi Gabbard's do says a lot to me.

Definitely not owed that much, I didn't say she's corrupt or a fraud. Not yet at least. At this time I can simply say she's not as left leaning and as long as she doesn't try to pretend that she is I wont have too much of a problem with her, also as long as she keeps her hands away from big money we good.

And its quite easy to see why I think that way. Tulsi endorsed Bernie, Presssley went for Hillary. Tulsi has really good FP, has great election integrity bills, is for whistle blowers, joined politics because she's a climate activist and has one of the best climate change bills in congress (the OFF act) and she has the balls to call out both parties for being corporate trash. She hasn't taken corporate pac / big money for a while now so honestly, she can get pass a good amount of my tests. My problem is her walking back support for M4A, and how she keeps giving in to right wing framing on some issues (open borders), but other than that. She's pretty good in my book. she's #2, and its not a close #2, but she's still there out of the 2020 candidates. She's the last one I'd be able to stomach voting for. Tulsi has a hell of a lot of smears going around at her, and unfortunately, some are sticking. Its sad to see, but it is what it is. The one thing I can say is that unlike Pressley and Warren, she sticks to her guns and is trustworthy.



Japan Switch Sales comparison vs 3ds and Wii u: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=226216&page=1

Jumpin said:

Trump is toast!

He's pretty much toast. The only thing that can go wrong is if the Bernie or Bust cult of personality types ramp up their propaganda campaign against the left again.

Honestly, I now think this is true (that Trump is toast). I mean I think people here know that I'm not one who is given to hype and other forms of undue optimism, but there is simply no way of looking at the present situation objectively and concluding that Trump will likely be re-elected. If you want the most compelling evidence there is, just look at the election results we've seen since 2016. The 2017 off-year elections. The 2018 midterms. The 2019 off-year elections. There is a clear pattern here. I mean it's normal for the party opposing that of the president to do well in midterm elections, but it's not as usual for that to continue the following year, historically speaking. And yet it just did. The Trump people have been all "REMEMBER 1998!" about the impeachment proceedings, insisting that the pursuit of Trump's impeachment would be politically devastating to the Democrats. And yet in reality...Tuesday's election results say otherwise. Decidedly.

I'll point you in particular to the result of the Kentucky governor's race, which saw a 30-point swing in the Democratic Party's direction compared to Trump's performance there in 2016! The average swing toward the Democrats in last year's midterm elections, for comparison's sake, was 10 points, and that was good enough for a pick-up of 40 House seats: the biggest midterm-election gain for the Democrats since 1974; the year of Nixon's resignation. And again, this was in Kentucky; not exactly a blue state. Kentucky is among the more rural and whitest states in the country, and also among the poorest. It's not immensely dissimilar from neighboring West Virginia in those ways, especially in the eastern part of the state. Lots of old, run-down coal towns. Kentucky gave Trump his fifth-largest margin of victory in 2016 (30 points) and the governor, Bevin, was elected the preceding year by a similar margin. Bevin went on to reverse the state's Medicaid expansion, throwing countless people off their health insurance, and to try and cut the pension of the state's teachers, among other things. By the end of it all, even the Fraternal Order of Police, an institution not exactly known for their liberal attitudes, had turned on him and he polled as the least popular governor in the country. His personality was frequently compared to that of Trump, and his re-election campaign revolved centrally around his personal friendship with Trump. Trump visited the state to campaign for him and the two of them hyped up the threat of his impeachment as the core motivation for why Bevin deserved to be re-elected even though he has no vote in the matter as a state governor. And he managed to lose, and not just with the urban areas, as you might well expect, but also in the suburbs of the state and even in a number of rural coal towns in the east! The picture you get, inescapably, is that, if anything, Trump and Trumpianness are political liabilites, not assets, in this climate, even in normally-Republican states.

It's not the only extraordinary case we've seen in recent years. Kansas elected a Democratic governor last year too, and Alabama a Democratic Senator the year before that. Individually these sorts of Democratic victories can be explained away as special cases with unique and rare circumstances, but taken together they form a picture; the picture of a president who is consistently unpopular and which is dragging down the party of its association, taking a whole generation of Republicans out with it, much as a certain Rick Wilson (the Never Trump Republican author of the now-famous book "Everything Trump Touches Dies") has always predicted he would.

Here's the real key: Trump won in 2016 without the popular vote, and even that victory was dependent, even in the Republican primaries, on the support of independent voters. Half of independents today tell pollsters that they not only disapprove of the president's job performance, but believe that he should be impeached and removed from office! That's how much the situation has changed. Republicans might love Trump, but they're alone in their affections today and they've become too arrogant and oblivious to figure that out.

There was a survey of voters in key Midwestern states that Trump unexpectedly carried in 2016 or else nearly carried (voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota specifically) conducted by the Cook Political Report and the Kaiser Family Foundation over the course of about a month recently, so this one was particularly extensive and thorough. It found that between 57 and 61% of voters in each of those states disapproves of President Trump's job performance and at least 64% in each state, furthermore, supports the Green New Deal. Across those four states, "defeating President Trump" ranks in as the overall top priority of voters by a wide margin, while "re-electingn President Trump" and "defeating a Democrat" are the combined top voting priorities of only about one-third as many people, by contrast.

One-term presidencies are uncommon, but it's really starting to look like we have one on our hands. Another indicator of that, actually, is the simple fact that, as I pointed out a bit ago, Democrats generally believe Trump will be re-elected. That's actually kind of a good thing. It means that Democrats will be motivated to actually show up and vote next year. Compare to 2016. In 2016, polls showed that Democrats were confident that Clinton would be elected. The result was that they didn't show up and Trump won. By contrast, polls leading up to last year's midterms showed that Democratic voters believed the Republicans would win. The result? The Democratic voters showed up and won an enormous victory. Just as examples. The lesson here is that arrogance is the enemy of victory. Unlike yours truly, many people won't vote if they think victory is likely, so it's actually kind of a good thing that Democratic voters possess this somewhat irrational fear of defeat right now in a way.

All of this points toward the conclusion that we will have a Democratic president in 2021. And quite possibly, just mathematically speaking, also a Democratic Senate. And a situation wherein most governors are Democrats too. I mean usually things down the ballot go the same direction as the presidential election. So I mean I think there is a considerable possibility of the result of next year's election being that essentially a generation of Republican leaders will have been wiped out by the Trump presidency and Democrats will emerge with unified control of the government and the overall prevailing position in American politics generally. THAT situation probably won't last for more than a couple years, but I think it's probably more likely than not to happen. Anyway, point is that, you know, the Republicans are constantly reliving their 2016 victory because it's all they've got to cling to really. Yeah, Trump (technically) won in 2016. And his party hasn't stopped paying for it since. Maybe they'll finally figure something out after he becomes a rare one-term president.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 09 November 2019

Bloomberg just entered the crowded ring. White, rich and male power engage...



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

Around the Network

So who are Tulsi Gabbard's supporters, you ask? Well, according to the most recent survey data from the Economist and YouGov, Tulsi Gabbard's supporters overall are...

...Trump voters...

24% of Trump voters support her.
1% of Clinton voters support her.

...who are conservative...

16% of conservatives support her.
2% of moderates support her.
1% of liberals support her.

...and aren't Democrats...

5% of independents support her.
1% of Democrats support her.

...and are rich...

6% of people making over $100,000 a year support her.
3% of people making between $50,000 and $100,000 a year support her.
1% of people making under $50,000 a year support her.

...and male...

4% of men support her.
1% of women support her.

...and old...

3% of those 65 and older support her.
3% of those between 45 and 64 support her.
1% of us between 30 and 44 support her.
2% of those under 30 support her.

...and white.

4% of white people support her.
1% of black people support her.
0% of Hispanic Americans support her.

(See pages 168-170.)



This is so ridiculous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtQinzGBSYw

Billionaires are really upset about the discussion of a wealth tax.

To get the perspective on the entitlement Cooperman and Gates show here: they get a public platform on TV to rail about the hurtful wealth tax. But how much of a platform get the 550,000 homeless people in the US? What is with the 27.5 million people without health insurance, get they a chance to cry on TV about it? What is with the relatives of the 45,000 people that die each year because they lack health insurance? Gates and Cooperman have a massive privilege and use it to attack plans that would take away a small part of their wealth and could help so many people. This is beyond pathetic.

EDIT: By the way, this is why Bloomberg now runs and we hear rumours about Clinton. Because these rich people fear to give away a small part of their fortune for helping the ones in need. They actually fear these plans from Sanders and Warren if one of them becomes the democratic candidate, they will try their best to get Trump reelected.

Last edited by Mnementh - on 09 November 2019

Greatest game event 2019: SIGN UP NOW!

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:

This is so ridiculous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtQinzGBSYw

Billionaires are really upset about the discussion of a wealth tax.

To get the perspective on the entitlement Cooperman and Gates show here: they get a public platform on TV to rail about the hurtful wealth tax. But how much of a platform get the 550,000 homeless people in the US? What is with the 27.5 million people without health insurance, get they a chance to cry on TV about it? What is with the relatives of the 45,000 people that die each year because they lack health insurance? Gates and Cooperman have a massive privilege and use it to attack plans that would take away a small part of their wealth and could help so many people. This is beyond pathetic.

EDIT: By the way, this is why Bloomberg now runs and we hear rumours about Clinton. Because these rich people fear to give away a small part of their fortune for helping the ones in need. They actually fear these plans from Sanders and Warren if one of them becomes the democratic candidate, they will try their best to get Trump reelected.

Y'all hungry ladies and gents?? Because billionaires are on the menu and I'm famished.



 

tsogud said:
Mnementh said:

This is so ridiculous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtQinzGBSYw

Billionaires are really upset about the discussion of a wealth tax.

To get the perspective on the entitlement Cooperman and Gates show here: they get a public platform on TV to rail about the hurtful wealth tax. But how much of a platform get the 550,000 homeless people in the US? What is with the 27.5 million people without health insurance, get they a chance to cry on TV about it? What is with the relatives of the 45,000 people that die each year because they lack health insurance? Gates and Cooperman have a massive privilege and use it to attack plans that would take away a small part of their wealth and could help so many people. This is beyond pathetic.

EDIT: By the way, this is why Bloomberg now runs and we hear rumours about Clinton. Because these rich people fear to give away a small part of their fortune for helping the ones in need. They actually fear these plans from Sanders and Warren if one of them becomes the democratic candidate, they will try their best to get Trump reelected.

Y'all hungry ladies and gents?? Because billionaires are on the menu and I'm famished.



Greatest game event 2019: SIGN UP NOW!

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Stefan.De.Machtige said:
Bloomberg just entered the crowded ring. White, rich and male power engage...

There's nothing wrong with being rich, white, or male. I dont understand why people sya that to look down on Bloomberg.