I thought they didn't double until the 3rd debates? Might they compete to get into the second debates, if they have the same requirements, and hope that being in a debate gets them the energy to stay in to the 3rd debates?

Well, quite a few candidates, like Gabbard, Warren and Sanders, want to reduce both the military expenses and the interventions, so at least that part could come to happen.

What do you mean with MMT? Modern Monetary Theory?

So, Andrew Yang made a Tweet basically denouncing identity politics obsession and, after hundreds (with thousands of likes combined) on Twitter got super pissed at him with angry replies, he doubled down. I'm definitely donating to this man's campaign now..

OK, had to dig up the tweet and it is pretty harmless. Many in the thread have the right idea:

According to the DNC, that's just a coincidence. I don't believe in coincidences like that. Relegating Elizabeth Warren to what sure the hell looks like a kid's table debate composed otherwise entirely of candidates polling at 2% or less tells me that this arrangement was NOT, in fact, random, but chosen deliberately in order to minimize the visibility of Elizabeth Warren specifically, whom I suspect they are viewing as the biggest threat to the current front-runner (their preferred candidate) right about now in view of the trend lines that recent polling have shown. This way many if not most viewers will tune in only to night two of the debate and won't see Warren at all. It's a smart strategy on their part.

If that's their plan, then it will backfire for sure.

I very much doubt Warren will move from her positions. And apart from Gabbard, it looks like she's in a room full of establishment democrats, which imo the DNC just sent to the slaughterhouse by pitting them against Warren.

Identify politics does nothing for me ND sometimes I find it cringe but I understand why the democratic party has top figures that play into it. I live in a very liberal city (nyc) and people really do like it when people go on about identity politics and it riles pethem up.

Yes, and there is nothing modern in it. Roman Empire applied it in order to pay for its huge expenses. But instead of turning on a printer press and print paper-fiat money in order to fund its deficts, they decreased the quantity of gold in its coins.

So Roman coins went from 95%+ gold to less than 5% gold prior to its colapse, hyperinflation took over the country, the result was its impending death.

If MMTers think USA is different from the Roman Empire, and just print dollars to pay all its liabilities instead of borrowing money from the market. Good look, dollar will be worhless in our lifetimes.

I don't care for identity politics either, though I have the feeling we mean different things by the term 'identity politics'.

What I'm referring to is a concept invented by the Marxist feminists back in the late 1970s to describe the idea that experiential knowledge (knowledge acquired through first-hand experience) is of greater value and importance than academically-acquired knowledge. For example, if I were to claim that I can't be wrong about any subject relating to women because I'm a woman, that would be a classic application of the politics of personal identity. Identity politics were the ideological forerunner to Kimberle Crenshaw's intersectionality theory (a subdivision of Marxist critical theory) that prevails in American feminist circles today.

Now you, however, I suspect are using the term in a very different, non-academic way to describe feminism in general -- the whole idea that women are a disadvantaged social class in need of a redress of this condition -- and I think that's where we'll part ways.

Yeah I think we're referring to different things. I'm not really aware of the history regarding identity politics and feminism like you described. I just know how it's used today by people of different identities (not only gender) trying to push for things that benefit people of their identity and politicians using this for political gain.