Master Index of Archived Threads


Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist Jan 03 2020 06:04 AM

Well, let's start off the New Year with a war with Iran. https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-strike-kills-qassem-soleimani-irans-most-important-military-commander?ref=home

MFS62 Jan 03 2020 06:42 AM Re: Politics 2020

I think one of the reasons for the aggressive act towards Iran (not that they haven't been attacking us) was to appease John Bolton so he won't testify in the impeachment hearings. Bolton has always been a hawk on Iran, and he was publicly for an attack for years. Later

Lefty Specialist Jan 03 2020 07:19 AM Re: Politics 2020

Because there's a Trump tweet for everything. Donald J. Trump ‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran. 11:48 AM - 29 Nov 2011

MFS62 Jan 03 2020 06:55 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Because there's a Trump tweet for everything. Donald J. Trump ‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran. 11:48 AM - 29 Nov 2011 Playback's a bitch. Now let's broadcast that, and what he did (because his supporters need the dots connected for them) all over town. Later

Edgy MD Jan 04 2020 03:06 PM Re: Politics 2020

Should I be connecting the assassination of Soleimani to the wave of resignations at The Pentagon in the weeks prior?

TransMonk Jan 07 2020 08:20 AM Re: Politics 2020

Am I the only one who thinks Bolton's offer to testify in the Senate impeachment trial seems like a Trojan horse? I try my best not to theorize about conspiracies, but I find it all too convenient that Bolton is only now openly willing to talk about Ukraine less than a week after Trump makes a major provocation towards Iran. Bolton has been hawkish toward Iran his whole career. It makes me think a deal has been struck. It would be ham-handedly obvious, but isn't that Trump's M.O.?

Lefty Specialist Jan 07 2020 08:26 AM Re: Politics 2020

It's an empty offer. McConnell will never subpoena him. Now, the House will most likely subpoena him, which is where things might get interesting. Holding on to the impeachment articles have been a gold mine, seeing all the info that's been spilling out. If there'd been a quickie Senate 'trial' before Christmas, all of this would have been out there to no effect.

seawolf17 Jan 07 2020 10:19 AM Re: Politics 2020

Here's a question - when the sham Senate trial happens, can the House bring him up on new articles? I'd have to think they could, right? He doesn't just get blanket immunity forever.

Ceetar Jan 07 2020 10:37 AM Re: Politics 2020

Here's a question - when the sham Senate trial happens, can the House bring him up on new articles? I'd have to think they could, right? He doesn't just get blanket immunity forever. Who's gonna stop them if they wanted to? no one. I don't think the Democrats have it in them, to stand up and say he's still doing crimes, were going to keep impeaching him for it, and properly deflect any criticism of taking the time to focus on it. And even if they did, when traitor Mitch decides "meh, we're not going to try the new charges, we did it already" no one will call him on it.

Lefty Specialist Jan 07 2020 10:58 AM Re: Politics 2020

Technically they can impeach him again, but no one's going to have the stomach for it. So evil runs free. That's why holding impeachment open has some appeal to it. The pressure's on Moscow Mitch here, as much as he denies it. The more that comes out, the worse his sham trial looks. And if something REALLY bad pops out, you can add it to the charges sent over.

Edgy MD Jan 07 2020 11:26 AM Re: Politics 2020

Hi, I'm Edgy. I'm an independent voter. I have the stomach for it. Heck, I have an appetite for it.

Lefty Specialist Jan 07 2020 11:46 AM Re: Politics 2020

Well, I don't think Democrats will have the stomach to go through all this again. It's a political act, and as you get closer to the election it'll be harder to do. If they need to impeach him in 2021, all is lost.

Edgy MD Jan 07 2020 01:22 PM Re: Politics 2020

It's a Constitutional act from where I sit.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 07 2020 01:44 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: It's a Constitutional act from where I sit. But you don't sit on the U.S. Senate.

Lefty Specialist Jan 07 2020 02:04 PM Re: Politics 2020

Moscow Mitch put the Constitution in a shredder 4 years ago.

Edgy MD Jan 07 2020 08:20 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: It's a Constitutional act from where I sit. But you don't sit on the U.S. Senate. Well, impeachment is the House's call. I'm certain that Speaker McConnell doesn't have the authority to shred the Constitution. The only thing that allows him to defy it is us'n.

kcmets Jan 09 2020 09:56 AM Re: Politics 2020

Trump babbling on CNN. Christ, he's aged this year and looks like hell warmed over.

ashie62 Jan 10 2020 01:55 PM Re: Politics 2020

I will not support Bernie Sanders

kcmets Jan 14 2020 06:47 PM Re: Politics 2020

I wasn't going to watch tonight, but now feel compelled to see if things will get nasty. I really think Warren is the only one who might be able to win in November, hope she does well tonight. Warren with one of the drop-outs, might just be enough.

kcmets Jan 14 2020 06:58 PM Re: Politics 2020

The count down thing make me want to hurl, they've been doing it for like two days. CNN really needs to be investigated and has to change their name and lose the middle N.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 20 2020 09:36 AM Re: Politics 2020

Here's a nightmare scenario that was pointed out on this week's Politically Incorrect HBO Bill Maher show that has so far, been pretty much totally overlooked: If Trump loses his re-election bid next Election Day, he'll likely run again in 2024.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 20 2020 09:44 AM Re: Politics 2020

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=30168 time=1579538173 user_id=68] Here's a nightmare scenario that was pointed out on this week's Politically Incorrect HBO Bill Maher show that has so far, been pretty much totally overlooked: If Trump loses his re-election bid next Election Day, he'll likely run again in 2024.

Not to mention the absolute hell Trump'll make every single day for the Democratic president all the way up to the 2024 election.

Willets Point Jan 21 2020 09:10 AM Re: Politics 2020

On the other hand, he'll no longer have Presidential immunity from prosecution for his many crimes. Hopefully if a Democrat takes office next January, they won't be all "let bygones be bygones" like Obama and make sure to nail Trump for everything they can.

seawolf17 Jan 21 2020 09:51 AM Re: Politics 2020

He'll be pushing 80 at that point. I'm not saying he won't be a miserable asshole until the end of time, but he's not going to be in any shape to run again in 2024. His idiot kids, however...

kcmets Jan 21 2020 10:14 AM Re: Politics 2020

I looked the other day, he'll be 78. Same age as Sanders is now.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2020 10:17 AM Re: Politics 2020

He's going to pardon himself on the last day of his presidency. Then let the radical and partisan hack Supreme Court straighten out that one, too. It's going to be a clusterfuck no matter what happens with this assbole.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 21 2020 10:44 AM Re: Politics 2020

But unlike Bernie, he'll be a four-hundred pound orange tub of goo.

kcmets Jan 21 2020 11:15 AM Re: Politics 2020

Lol, as opposed to the 350 lb tub he is now!

Chad ochoseis Jan 21 2020 11:43 AM Re: Politics 2020

[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/if-mitch-mcconnell-ran-super-bowl/605233/?fbclid=IwAR2wAtcKXWeNSLH30W07aPeWsSE_UUg0zkRangwSjExboZiOxGLKwi1tMAE

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2020 02:23 PM Re: Politics 2020

Chad ochoseis wrote: [url]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/if-mitch-mcconnell-ran-super-bowl/605233/?fbclid=IwAR2wAtcKXWeNSLH30W07aPeWsSE_UUg0zkRangwSjExboZiOxGLKwi1tMAE I know. I'm pretty much totally tuned out of these impeachment proceedings. It's a rigged game and it's been a rigged game for most of this administration. And I'm worn out from all the blah blah blah and then some more blah blah blah and then nothing happens. And this is exactly what many people familiar with fascist and totalitarian governments predicted would happen. It's as if the criminal defendant gets to decide on what the criminal rules of procedure are gonna be for his trial. And then the defendant himself gets to pick his own jury. Patrick Henry predicted all of this. But he foresaw a complicit military instead of a complicit senate. This GOP led administration is probably the most extreme and radical government in the world right now. So far, every inherent danger that Henry saw in the proposed national executive has come to vivid life, and every safeguard upon which Madison assured the people of the country they could rely has utterly collapsed. WASHINGTON—The whole matter was never a sure thing. On June 14, 1788, in the Richmond Theater, delegates from all corners of Virginia set to debate the ratification of the new Constitution that had been produced, largely in secret, in a room in Philadelphia. Its main author, James Madison, faced formidable opposition at this ratifying convention, an opposition made even more formidable by the fact that it was led by no less an orator than Patrick Henry, who disliked Madison and who hated the Constitution that Madison had come to present. Henry considered the entire Constitutional Convention to have been illegitimate. He objected to the Constitution from its first three words on down; Henry wondered why the preamble began with “We, The People,” and not “We, The States.” In truth, the convention had been a bit of a three-card monte game. It had been called to correct defects in the Articles of Confederation and, thanks to Madison and others, it instead had tossed the Articles into the Schuykill River. And since, without Henry's rhetoric, there might not have been an American Revolution at all, his opinion carried no little weight. He inveighed against the whole business, raising the dreadful prospect of a tyrannical central government and, especially, that of an oppressive national executive. If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely — and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience think of this idea. Patrick Henry Address Henry was a gifted orator—far more so than Madison. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue? The last sentence was a nifty turn of the knife. It echoed Thomas Jefferson's line from the Declaration of Independence about “a long train of abuses and usurpation” evincing “a design to reduce them under absolute despotism.” Madison was not the orator that Henry was—hardly anyone ever was—but he was prepared, as he always was. He countered: There is one security in this case to which the gentleman has not averted; if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the vice-president...This is a great security. With the able assistance of George Mason, Madison carried the argument, the day, and, eventually, the vote on ratification. And here we are, 232 years later, testing the theories of both men. Instead of the actual standing military that Henry feared, a criminal president* has mustered an army of sycophants, cowards, criminals, and bounders to defend him from the proper constitutional judgment of his conduct. And Madison's faith in the Constitutional remedies is being tested even more vigorously. The House has done its duty and, by all indications, alas, the Senate majority, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, has abandoned the field and joined the ranks of the supine and worthless. Every inherent danger that Henry saw in the proposed national executive has come to vivid life, and every safeguard upon which Madison assured the people of the country they could rely has utterly collapsed. The stage for the farce was set Monday night, when McConnell predictably reneged on months of promises that the impeachment trial would be held according to the rules set by the Senate in 1999 when it considered the case against President Bill Clinton. Instead, McConnell arranged matters so that the trial will be an exercise in accelerated kabuki, something between a Soviet election and a 1930s dance marathon. From Talking Points Memo. The Senate is not going to automatically enter the House evidence into the trial record. A senior Republican leadership aide concedes this is a different provision from the Clinton impeachment proceeding because “the White House was denied due process throughout the 12 weeks of partisan House proceedings.” After the period for senators' questions, the Senate will hold an up or down vote on whether to even allow witness subpoenas. If witnesses and document subpoenas are allowed, then the two sides may make motions to issue subpoenas which will also be subject to Senate votes. So that first hurdle will be a key one. McConnell is shortening the time in which opening arguments may be given to two Senate days per side. The amount of time remains the same as the Clinton impeachment but constricted to a narrower window, forcing either long days or an abbreviated argument. You have to admit. That first one is a very loud and definitive “Fck You” to the House, and to the constitutional order. For example, there has to be a vote on whether to admit the testimony of, say, Fiona Hill or Marie Yovanovich. (It's possible that this nonsense is an opening bid by McConnell, giving his wavering senators something safely to vote against, and giving the Democrats a “win” that he can trade on later.) The constricted debate time guarantees that a good portion of whatever evidence is under debate will take place in the post-Kimmel hours of the day. When Chuck Schumer talks about skulduggery in the dark of night, he's not kidding. The country could get sold to Somali pirates and nobody would know until breakfast the next morning. Neither Patrick Henry nor James Madison would recognize what is going on in Washington this week. They certainly wouldn't recognize it as either patriotism or as the workings of a functioning democratic republic. But they would recognize the perils of it, and they would see the foul machinations of illegitimate power beneath the trappings of legislative farce. Those who would destroy self-government must first make it seem ridiculous. We're more than halfway there. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30608349/trump-senate-impeachment-trial-james-madison-patrick-henry/

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2020 03:16 PM Re: Politics 2020

Iranian lawmaker announces $3M reward to the person who kills Trump. https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiRmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZveG5ld3MuY29tL3dvcmxkL2lyYW4tbGF3bWFrZXItM20tY2FzaC1ib3VudHkta2lsbHMtdHJ1bXDSAUpodHRwczovL3d3dy5mb3huZXdzLmNvbS93b3JsZC9pcmFuLWxhd21ha2VyLTNtLWNhc2gtYm91bnR5LWtpbGxzLXRydW1wLmFtcA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

LWFS Jan 21 2020 06:11 PM Re: Politics 2020

And the guy seems beyond addled-- slurring words, trouble reading at moderate distance, yelling at people who try to explain things to him or protect him from his worst impulses-- on most days NOW.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2020 05:29 AM Re: Politics 2020

Florida man allegedly stabs and kills pro-Trump boss after political argument. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/florida-man-allegedly-stabs-and-kills-pro-trump-boss-after-political-argument

Lefty Specialist Jan 30 2020 03:11 AM Re: Politics 2020

37- mph winds blow down a recently-installed part of Trump's impenetrable border wall, landing in Mexico. I suggest they keep it and melt it down into something useful. .https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/us-border-wall-falls-over-high-winds/index.html

Edgy MD Jan 30 2020 06:59 AM Re: Politics 2020

[YOUTUBE]vAxg8nuvPKM[/YOUTUBE]

Johnny Lunchbucket Jan 30 2020 02:37 PM Re: Politics 2020

That song never fails to pump me the eff up. Our old friend Zvon posted a Call song on fb the other day and I streamed a buttload of old Call rekkids. There is much lyrical content very relevant politically today and singer brought an overbearing energy to often dark topics. [YOUTUBE]6mK2JYfZAmA[/YOUTUBE]

Edgy MD Jan 30 2020 03:01 PM Re: Politics 2020

I also noted for the first time Been plays guitar on "TWCD" instead of his usual bass, and if you believe the video, plays the solo on the last four bars of the break after giving the first half to special guest Garth Hudson.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jan 30 2020 03:05 PM Re: Politics 2020

And their lead guitarist is a lefty

LWFS Feb 04 2020 10:41 PM Re: Politics 2020

I think that my favorite strange development of the campaign so far is Bloomberg-as-insult-comic.

Lefty Specialist Feb 05 2020 06:29 AM Re: Politics 2020

https://twitter.com/i/status/1224897405247807489 Michael Steele @MichaelSteele And then there is Pelosi's response when asked why she tore up Trump's speech “it was a courteous thing to do considering the alternative.” #ouch

Lefty Specialist Feb 06 2020 08:16 AM Re: Politics 2020

Let the revenge begin! The Trump administration will no longer allow New York residents to enroll in Global Entry or other Trusted Traveler programs, citing new “sanctuary” policies that limit federal access to state driver's license data, acting homeland security secretary Chad Wolf said on Fox News late Wednesday. I use Global Entry, and it's a real time saver. Also gets you TSA Pre on all domestic flights.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 07 2020 10:47 AM Re: Politics 2020

Trump rolls. Another victory for the president as the DC Circuit throws out the emoluments lawsuit. Without the Senate and the Courts, the presidency is severely weakened but the Dems would rather make nice with Mitch McConnell than pack the courts and make states out of DC and PR. The next time these issues are debated, the next time one of the candidates appears on Lawrence O'donnell's show to talk about these issues- will be the first time. Now the president can openly steal as well as cheat.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 08 2020 01:22 PM Re: Politics 2020

Susan Collins opposes retribution against impeachment witnesses. She would also like Maine Republican voters to know that she supports Trump and Democratic Maine voters to know that she'll support the Dem presidential nominee.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 08 2020 01:25 PM Re: Politics 2020

If you're a Mets fan, so's Susan Collins. Unless you're a Yankee fan. Then, Susan Collins is a Yankee fan. Whatever.

Edgy MD Feb 08 2020 10:11 PM Re: Politics 2020

President Trump is guilty. I voted to acquit him. I voted to acquit him because knows he's guilty and he's learned his lesson. Actually, well, I hope he's learned his lesson. And yeah, he's certainly never admitted he's guilty, but I know he knows, and that's enough. Yes, I heard him bragging that he hasn't learned his lesson because there is no lesson to learn. I oppose the retaliation that immediately started right after I helped acquit him based on my professional judgment as a Senator that he had learned his lesson. The right decision was obvious on the face of it, and the president immediately proved me to be dead wrong, which everyone knew but me, but I hoped he had learned his lesson. And by "hoped he had learned his lesson," I mean that I hoped he would at least let the moon rise and set a couple of days before he immediately went to work demonstrating the exact opposite and exposing me for what I am. Vote Collins in 2020.

MFS62 Feb 09 2020 06:16 AM Re: Politics 2020

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=30233 time=1579627045 user_id=68] He's going to pardon himself on the last day of his presidency. Then let the radical and partisan hack Supreme Court straighten out that one, too. It's going to be a clusterfuck no matter what happens with this assbole.

He can pardon himself for Federal crimes, but not State and local - like tax evasion (based on improper insurance documentation).

Later

batmagadanleadoff Feb 09 2020 10:12 AM Re: Politics 2020

Susan Collins voted to acquit Trump in his impeachment trial with the promise that Mitch McConnell would give Collins a second impeachment vote in a few months, which Collins promises to use to convict Trump. All bases covered because everybody's so stupid.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2020 08:08 AM Re: Politics 2020

Susan Collins is set to have a hermaphrodite transplant operation. The typewriter senator from Maine said that with both a penis and a vagina, she'll be able to please all comers.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2020 10:09 AM Re: Politics 2020

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=31297 time=1581193372 user_id=68] Susan Collins opposes retribution against impeachment witnesses. She would also like Maine Republican voters to know that she supports Trump and Democratic Maine voters to know that she'll support the Dem presidential nominee.

Check that. Collins the typewriter was only against retribution against Ambassador Sondlund, the scumbag crony who paid $1M for his ambassadorship because with this crooked administration, they'll even sell what's nailed down. Collins was not against retribution against Vindman the patriot who has more integrity in the tip of his smallest fingernail than Collins has in her whole typewriter body.

Lefty Specialist Feb 10 2020 01:27 PM Re: Politics 2020

Retribution against patriots: OK Retribution against big donors: Not OK

ashie62 Feb 10 2020 08:38 PM Re: Politics 2020

I cannot stomach Bernie Sanders. Medicare for all, cancel student debt and the Green New Deal?? That troika may scare more voters than attract them Gonna laugh my azz off if Pete beats him in NH

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2020 10:06 PM Re: Politics 2020

So check out Trump's insane proposed budget cuts which of course will never pass in the House. He needs to shred Social Security and Medicaid because he gave it all to Betsy DeVos in the great GOP tax cut heist of 2017. And that was even Steven for the duffel bag stuffed with fifty million that DeVos probably delivered to Trump as payment for her cabinet position. So in the end, DeVos has a government position that she's as qualified for as driving a spaceship to Jupiter, Trump makes $50M cash, and the taxpayers get medical coverage taken away if all goes their way.

LWFS Feb 11 2020 05:39 AM Re: Politics 2020

Just curious: I understand what rubs folks' pickles the wrong way about student debt forgiveness, I think, but even if you don't quite agree on the specifics, what exactly is laughably hateful about national health care and an overarching plan to tackle the environmental national security threat? I'm addressing Ashie, yes, but I'll hang up and listen to anyone else who feels similarly about the stuff mentioned above.

Lefty Specialist Feb 11 2020 07:23 AM Re: Politics 2020

It can't be Bernie. He'll lead the Democrats to an epic defeat in November. Forget trying to take the Senate and they may even lose the House. There's so much crap in his closet that Democrats have been to scared to exploit for fear of losing his fanboys. Donald Trump will have no such problem, tying every Democratic candidate to SOCIALISM LIKE THEY HAVE IN VENEZUELA! It'll be a disaster. It's a bit tougher to make the socialist label stick on a Biden or Buttigieg or a Klobuchar. Warren would have the same problem to a lesser extent, and the way she screwed up on Medicare for All doesn't fill me with a lot of hope. Now MFA is something we should aspire to. Yes, it'll cost tens of trillions, but it'll cost less than the tens of trillions we're spending already. No one's connecting those dots, most especially the media, which is blinded by the bright object that is Donald Trump. The random factor here is Bloomberg. A month ago, I wouldn't have given a nickel for his chances, but he's injected himself into the conversation is a way I didn't expect. A lot of people are looking at the candidates and their flaws and saying 'meh'. Unlike Trump, he's actually a billionaire, and Bloomberg can spend Trump and Sheldon Adelson and the Mercers and the Koch Brother into the ground. And he actually has governmental experience, regardless of what you think of his tenure in NYC (cough (Stop & Frisk) cough). Bloomberg would put a stop to some of the Democratic wish list. No MFA, no student debt relief, no reining in the big banks. But he's good on guns, climate, choice to name a few. Not an endorsement. But if it came down to Bernie or Bloomberg, I wouldn't be voting for Bernie. The important thing is to beat Trump. That was Biden's whole rationale for his campaign, but he's stumbled badly.

Ceetar Feb 11 2020 07:38 AM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: The random factor here is Bloomberg. A month ago, I wouldn't have given a nickel for his chances, but he's bought [CROSSOUT]injected [/CROSSOUT]himself into the conversation is a way I didn't expect. fify Ceetar Feb 11 2020 07:40 AM Re: Politics 2020 And that pretty much says it all. He bought enough press that the press started talking about him. the nominee from the Democrats will be, just like the Mets manager, whoever they find palatable. And because nobody can be bothered to think past the easy answer, everyone that's NOT a democrat or trump will be ignored. Lefty Specialist Feb 11 2020 08:07 AM Re: Politics 2020 Has he bought his way in? Absolutely. But Steyer's been at it longer and been throwing just as much money at it, and he's gotten no traction at all. batmagadanleadoff Feb 11 2020 08:09 AM Re: Politics 2020 Meanwhile, Klobuchar's surging and Warren's fading. Oy. Ceetar Feb 11 2020 08:34 AM Re: Politics 2020 Lefty Specialist wrote: Has he bought his way in? Absolutely. But Steyer's been at it longer and been throwing just as much money at it, and he's gotten no traction at all. I don't even know who he is. Bloomberg's already been much more of a public figure, I suspect that's the difference. MFS62 Feb 12 2020 06:24 AM Re: Politics 2020 Since it looks like the Democrats might nominate a candidate who has no chance of beating Trump (cough, Bernie, cough) the New York legislature should extend the statutes of limitations on tax evasion and insurance fraud. Later Frayed Knot Feb 12 2020 06:28 AM Re: Politics 2020 Lefty Specialist wrote: The random factor here is Bloomberg ... Unlike Trump, he's actually a billionaire When asked, if he were to get the Dem nomination, whether a race between two billionaires would be a good thing for the country, Bloomberg replied; "Who would the other one be?" Which, if nothing else, shows that he at least is willing to fire shots back in Trumps direction something most current dems (and even more repubs) are unwilling or unable to pull off. HahnSolo Feb 12 2020 06:46 AM Re: Politics 2020 Meanwhile, Klobuchar's surging and Warren's fading. Oy. Klobuchar's like the kid in dodgeball who hides in the back to avoid getting picked off while all the big shots and jocks wear targets on their shirts. Before you know it, there's three kids left and she's one of them, and it dawns her like, "holy sh&*^t, I'm still here, and I better do something." Ceetar Feb 12 2020 07:12 AM Re: Politics 2020 =MFS62 post_id=31572 time=1581513893 user_id=60] Since it looks like the Democrats might nominate a candidate who has no chance of beating Trump (cough, Bernie, cough) the New York legislature should extend the statutes of limitations on tax evasion and insurance fraud. Later This is nonsense. Every candidate has the same chance of beating Trump and arguably Bernie has the largest group of supporters that would not vote were he not the nominee. They're literally all the same to Trump, they're the enemy, and he'll smear them all the same. It doesn't matter who they are, because Trump isn't going to use the truth anyway. The election will be won or lost based on getting people out to vote and mitigating the tampering the government is going to continue to do.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 12 2020 07:20 AM Re: Politics 2020

Meanwhile, Klobuchar's surging and Warren's fading. Oy. Klobuchar's like the kid in dodgeball who hides in the back to avoid getting picked off while all the big shots and jocks wear targets on their shirts. Before you know it, there's three kids left and she's one of them, and it dawns her like, "holy sh&*^t, I'm still here, and I better do something." Never imagined in a million years that after NH, the pundits wouold have Warren as the one struggling to get to Super Tuesday and not Klobuchar.

MFS62 Feb 12 2020 07:21 AM Re: Politics 2020

=Ceetar post_id=31578 time=1581516768 user_id=102] Bernie has the largest group of supporters that would not vote were he not the nominee.

And that's why Agent Orange is president today. Instead of supporting Hillary, they stayed away from the voting booths in droves.

Forget the example I used. You are right . DT would smear anyone. But my point was, if he does win, the statutes of limitations for those crimes in New York will expire before he leaves office (olavai). And I want to make sure he faces those charges.



Later

batmagadanleadoff Feb 12 2020 07:29 AM Re: Politics 2020 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 12 2020 07:53 AM

=Ceetar post_id=31578 time=1581516768 user_id=102] =MFS62 post_id=31572 time=1581513893 user_id=60] Since it looks like the Democrats might nominate a candidate who has no chance of beating Trump (cough, Bernie, cough) the New York legislature should extend the statutes of limitations on tax evasion and insurance fraud. Later

This is nonsense. Every candidate has the same chance of beating Trump....



The election will be won or lost based on getting people out to vote and mitigating the tampering the government is going to continue to do.


I agree. This election will be about turning out the vote and getting people who dont usually vote or didnt vote in 2016 to vote this time. Also, I dont get these dem voters and their electability issues. They're terrified of another Trump term, so they say, and no reason not to believe that. So why dont they just vote for the Dem candidate, whoever that is? Why is that so easy and obvious for GOP voters but not Dems with their Bernie or Bust attitudes and Ralph fucking Nader and Jill fucking Stein? What was the point of that? It got Dems Alito and Roberts and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. When will they learn their lessons?

Lefty Specialist Feb 12 2020 07:46 AM Re: Politics 2020

Agreed. This is a turnout election. Nobody gets to stay home because they're butthurt that their candidate didn't make it. We're facing an extinction-level event and whether it's Sanders or Klobuchar or Bloomberg or Buttigieg or Fudgie the Whale, everybody better get their ass out to vote. And if you're in a 'safely blue' state, help in other ways. We're already writing letters to Pennsylvania voters that are being banked and will be unleashed in October. Call your relatives. Harass your college friends. It's all hands on deck. One good thing is I'm not seeing any third-party option pop up. By this time in 2016 Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were already a thing.

Ceetar Feb 12 2020 07:59 AM Re: Politics 2020

I'm surprised Gary Johnson's not a thing .You'd figure he'd smell the votes of all those republicans that won't vote for a democrat but are at least a little offended by trump.

Lefty Specialist Feb 12 2020 10:39 AM Re: Politics 2020

Jill Stein apparently isn't running, but the Green Party will be filing a candidate in 2020. Expect them to get a big boost from Vladimir's troll farms.

Lefty Specialist Feb 13 2020 06:37 AM Re: Politics 2020

https://images.dailykos.com/images/765694/story_image/1474ckCOMICdonaldandjohn-supremeleader.png?1581462850>

Johnny Lunchbucket Feb 13 2020 10:35 AM Re: Politics 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: The random factor here is Bloomberg ... Unlike Trump, he's actually a billionaire When asked, if he were to get the Dem nomination, whether a race between two billionaires would be a good thing for the country, Bloomberg replied; "Who would the other one be?" Which, if nothing else, shows that he at least is willing to fire shots back in Trumps direction something most current dems (and even more repubs) are unwilling or unable to pull off. Bloomy (or his high-paid handlers) really seem to able to hit where it hurts. IWifey Bucket, who at one time worked for the city, doesn't care for him personally. I'll consider anyone at this point and have [TWEET]https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1227951551068721154 [/TWEET]

Lefty Specialist Feb 13 2020 11:14 AM Re: Politics 2020

Imagine the expansive power of the presidency Trump has claimed so far. Now imagine that same power in the hands of Michael Bloomberg. Or Bernie Sanders for that matter. This is the problem with breaking American democracy.

Double Switch Feb 13 2020 11:16 AM Re: Politics 2020

Trump doesn't notice he's losing the votes of short people. But why would he. Big Dim Donnie.

Lefty Specialist Feb 13 2020 12:01 PM Re: Politics 2020

By the way, Mike Bloomberg is 5'8". Of course Trump says he weighs 239 lbs, too. Bloomberg likes to zero in on Trump's insecurities in a way no other candidate seems able to do: "The president is lying. He is a pathological liar who lies about everything: his fake hair, his obesity and his spray-on tan,” Bloomberg National Press Secretary Julie Wood said in a statement.

metsmarathon Feb 13 2020 01:10 PM Re: Politics 2020

i think those lines of attack are perfect. they're concise, dismissive, insulting, and yet don't require stooping down to trumps level to deliver them. and then, most importantly, after a condescending handwave, as if swishing away an annoying gnat, you can return to talking like a grownup about important grownup things that actually should matter to voters, while trump fumes.

Lefty Specialist Feb 13 2020 01:44 PM Re: Politics 2020

Speaking of that spray-on tan...... https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/739/928/a08.jpeg>

batmagadanleadoff Feb 13 2020 03:39 PM Re: Politics 2020

Hey! The gang's all here again. Let's all welcome back that typewriting and favorite enabler of Trump after a two year hiatus - Hope Hicks. She's no doubt dipping her feet back in the scumbag pond after seeing that nothing's gonna happen to her no matter how many lies she tells and no matter how many crimes she covers up. Nothing to fear, here.

Double Switch Feb 13 2020 04:08 PM Re: Politics 2020

More proof of Trump's short-term memory loss along with reinstating Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer. Talk about recycling, it will be only a few more days before the return of The Mooch. And won't he be shocked to learn that his ol' buddy fixer Michael Cohen is in the slammer.

Ceetar Feb 13 2020 05:33 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: More proof of Trump's short-term memory loss along with reinstating Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer. Talk about recycling, it will be only a few more days before the return of The Mooch. And won't he be shocked to learn that his ol' buddy fixer Michael Cohen is in the slammer. he's probably shocked three times a day 'bout that, dementia and all.

Johnny Lunchbucket Feb 14 2020 09:10 AM Re: Politics 2020

avi

Lefty Specialist Feb 15 2020 05:02 AM Re: Politics 2020

So, I'm visiting Lefty Jr in DC this weekend and we're in the Cleveland Park Target when who walks right in front of us but Kellyanne Conway. Trenchcoat and too much makeup. Jr and I exchange knowing glances but say nothing. When she's out of earshot I say I'm going to follow her and start booing. Jr restrains me and says, "Dad, I've got to shop in this place." No sign of George, by the way, unless he was rummaging the produce department looking for tomatoes to throw at Trump.

Marshmallowmilkshake Feb 15 2020 09:20 AM Re: Politics 2020

Bloomberg trail-ballooning or attention-deflecting by telling Drudge he is considering Hillary as a running mate. [url]https://drudgereport.com/

batmagadanleadoff Feb 15 2020 10:01 AM Re: Politics 2020

Bloomberg trail-ballooning or attention-deflecting by telling Drudge he is considering Hillary as a running mate. [url]https://drudgereport.com/ Oh that's great. Hillary couldn't beat an unknown Barack Obama. Then she lost to Adolf Hitler! She'll bring out the deplorables like dogshit brings out flies.

ashie62 Feb 15 2020 11:20 AM Re: Politics 2020

Hillary lost to Donald Trump

Lefty Specialist Feb 15 2020 01:42 PM Re: Politics 2020

I'll bet a week's salary that they Hillary report came directly from the Trump campaign.

Ceetar Feb 15 2020 02:58 PM Re: Politics 2020

I mean, if Hillary was the nominee again she'd win in a landslide (again, depending on how you measure it)

ashie62 Feb 15 2020 04:12 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: I'll bet a week's salary that they Hillary report came directly from the Trump campaign. Ya think lol

Willets Point Feb 15 2020 10:39 PM Re: Politics 2020

I think Clinton would more likely be Biden's running mate.

Lefty Specialist Feb 16 2020 07:41 AM Re: Politics 2020

Hillary won't be anybody's running mate. She's damaged goods with a ton of baggage, fairly or unfairly. Donald Trump would LOVE to run against her in any capacity. Remember he's had 3 years of lies and a supine media. The Times had Hillary's e-mails on the front page for months in 2016. When she was completely resolved of all wrongdoing it was a small piece on page A18. When Ivanka, Jared and Trump himself had a FAR WORSE security breach, the media just shrugged. Hillary is Trump's wet dream. And I think she's too smart to put herself through all that again. That this story surfaced on Drudge is all you need to know.

ashie62 Feb 16 2020 08:10 AM Re: Politics 2020

Who is the candidate who can stand up to Trump's scorched earth debating If Pete gets it I want Trump to get dirty "f----t" out of his mouth onstage. That would help Pete is the only candidate Trump does not have a pithy nickname for, yet. Seems odd

MFS62 Feb 16 2020 08:38 AM Re: Politics 2020

I think Mike could give as good as he gets, being a New York homie and all. And I know he will have some beauties ready to use when the insults, or facts about finances, start to fly. Later

batmagadanleadoff Feb 16 2020 01:37 PM Re: Politics 2020

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/16/nevada-avoid-iowa-caucus-mess-115437 A COMPLETE DISASTER is looming in Nevada.

Edgy MD Feb 19 2020 07:46 PM Re: Politics 2020

Damn, everybody beating down on Mayor Bloomberg together.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 19 2020 08:10 PM Re: Politics 2020

Elizabeth Warren just said she'd roll back the legislative filibuster. Good for her and I'm in love. Because if the Dems win and don't roll back the filibuster, they've got squat. How refreshing compared to Amy "I'll make nice with Mitch McConnell" Klobuchar, the delusional.

Double Switch Feb 19 2020 09:23 PM Re: Politics 2020

For the few minutes I could stand to watch the beginning of the "debate," clearly Bloomberg is all hat. Just all hat. Biden is rote, Klobuchar is me, me, me, Sanders continues to leave me cold with his choppy bluster. I want Trump out of the WH. Bloomberg is not the man for the job. My ideal ticket is Warren/Buttigieg or Buttigieg/Warren. But what do I know - I'm just a west coast "lib." No matter what, the next president won't be a dictator (as long as it's not Trump).

Edgy MD Feb 19 2020 09:30 PM Re: Politics 2020

Hasn't Mayor Bloomberg always kind of been all hat? The best argument for him seems to be that he's what Trump cultists think the president is supposed to represent — a fabulously wealthy winner in life whose acumen has made him a fortune multiple times over, and that same mind will hopefully help him make some strategic choices that see more than zero steps down the road. But while a guy who is all ideology with no acumen (Hello, Senator Santorum) can be terrifying, a guy who is all acumen and no ideology is really impossible to trust too. Might as well vote for Mark Zuckerberg.

Double Switch Feb 19 2020 10:38 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Hasn't Mayor Bloomberg always kind of been all hat? Not being an East Coaster or a New Yorker, I had no prior experience with Bloomberg. So, I guess if I see him as all hat and you say he's always been all hat, then he is at least not fooling anyone. It's sort of like having an opinion about a baseball player I seldom ever saw. That would be the detested Jeter. Really never watched the MFY play so have no idea about Jeter at all except how many people get upset about him.

Lefty Specialist Feb 20 2020 05:55 AM Re: Politics 2020

Bloomberg was an 'eh' mayor if you were white. Did some good things, did some bad things. Stop and frisk was pretty egregious, and a simple apology in one black church isn't quite enough. I suspect he'd be a lot like a Democratic Trump without the Twitter feed if elected. Close group of aides controlling policy, not a lot of transparency. He has good stances on a lot of things but no juice with the House or Senate, so legislation would be difficult. Warren was feisty last night. I liked that although I fear it's too little, too late.

Johnny Lunchbucket Feb 20 2020 07:11 AM Re: Politics 2020

Yeah I really want Warren to better succeed but I don't see the Bernie crowd moving to her, much less anyone else. It's a tough position, as I agree Bernie won't carry the middle as well as anyone else on the stage. I felt like Biden was his best last night too in these debates, Amy went backwards, Mike was a punching bag. Any Biden bounce would hurt Booty & Amy I think, really paving the way for Bernie. I like that Bloomy has some conviction on economic power generally: He's got the bread to take on guns and soda pop but they're going to smear him, and I wish he's throw up his hands and plow that $$ into Warren, which he won;t do. I still don't think Booty has had a bad debate. He's a sharp guy, whether or not he's left enough for you.

TransMonk Feb 20 2020 08:09 AM Re: Politics 2020

Where is this "middle" everyone keeps worrying over? I'm not sure why Dems should worry about converting anyone who didn't vote for Clinton in 2016. The Dem strategy should be GOTV in Milwaukee, Detroit and Philly. Whenever I see any right-leaning TV head fret over Bernie, I want to scream that Democrats should not let Republicans tell Democrats how to vote in a Democratic primary.

Ceetar Feb 20 2020 08:28 AM Re: Politics 2020

There were definitely people that voted against Hillary in 2016 that you could woo I guess. Ones that are compassionate and feel all the evil trump's doing and would vote for someone to oust him... ...but unless you're basically a republican, they're not going to. They're going to ignore that, satan willing, trump will run again in 2024 and that voting will be even more of a rigged contest. They're going to figure America's fine, it'll work itself out, term limits, blah blah blah. That's better than giving in to all the propaganda and lies they've been fed about abortion, or immigrants, that a candidate that's actually trying to make the country better would be pushing for. There are 100% people that are thinking "trump's really bad but Warren/Bernie/etc is going to take my guns and I'd rather wait out the 4 years of a bad president than give it up" But for every one of those there are 3 people that are going to struggle to make it to the polls, because of childcare, or two jobs, or racist voter ID laws, or because they've been purged from the registers without knowing or having the time to fix it. THOSE should be the focus.

Vic Sage Feb 20 2020 08:37 AM Re: Politics 2020

Booty would go into a general election with 1 hand tied behind his back, as the religous right would be more provoked to oppose his candidacy than any candidate in history. Of course, there is the thought that anybody who would actively campaign and vote against a person because he is gay is ALREADY voting for Trump, so perhaps Booty isn't particularly limited. As this campaign season has gone on, however, I'm coming around to believe that the best candidate against Trump isn't about appealing to the "middle". There is no "middle" in this country; there is "them" and "us". So the winning democratic candidate is one that can galvanize and activate the left to not only vote, but to campaign. Plus, those who voted for Trump out of economic desperation and anger but don't like him are more likely to flip for another candidate who is equally able as Trump to mobilize and speak to that anger without the stupidity and moral turpitude. So i'm ok with the Bernie surge. he has a core constituency that is excited by him, he can also pick off some portion of the Trump vote (particularly in places like Michigan and Wisconsin, where the Trump votes were based predominantly on economic anger, unlike the rest of the racist/xenophopbic/anti-abortion Trump coalition). And to the extent there is a "middle", do you really think they'll be more offended by Bernie's brand of democratic European socialism than of Trump's demonstrable threat to our democracy? I think we'll lose no more of those voters than we'll gain, as the rational folks will vote for anybody against Trump, or they'll just stay home, where their votes will be replaced by flipped Trump voters and progressives who would never support conservative Democrats. I personally prefer Warren, but i'm going to vote for anybody against Trump. Bernie doesn't scare me.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2020 08:46 AM Re: Politics 2020

A co-worker was saying yesterday that a gay man can't be elected President. I replied that people were saying the same thing about a black man in 2008. He then said that a gay man wouldn't be tough enough to negotiate with foreign leaders. I replied that this gay man is a military veteran and he'd have the power and authority that comes with being President of the United States. He'd be fine. This is an example of the kind of stuff that Pete is facing. It's not just those who think that gay people are immoral, it's also those who think a gay man is "weak".

TransMonk Feb 20 2020 08:55 AM Re: Politics 2020

Bernie's not my first choice, but I'm not scared of him either. I can make a pretty strong argument that a Bernie/Abrams or Bernie/Harris ticket has the best chance beat Trump in a general out of any of the nominees, no matter what the middle says. I like Pete, too. I worry about his youth and inexperience more than his sexual orientation.

Edgy MD Feb 20 2020 09:15 AM Re: Politics 2020

I think there's a middle. I feel certain of it. I think Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania think there's a middle, too.

Vic Sage Feb 20 2020 09:19 AM Re: Politics 2020

I love the idea of Bernie/Abrams! She could definitely help mobilize people of color to turn out for Bernie (which is a problem for both Bernie AND Booty right now). Harris? Her record and reputation as a tough DA doesn't endear her to her own community in quite the same way. Abrams has developed a national profile based on her run for governor (when Bernie endorsed her) and her selection as the respondent to Trump's state of the union. She is a Yale Law grad who can orate, and is accomplished both as a state legislator and leader, and in grass roots organizing. As a (relatively) young southern woman of color with a religious christian family background, she would also give the ticket the kind of balance it would require for New England's old, white, Jewish Bernie.

Vic Sage Feb 20 2020 09:30 AM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: I think there's a middle. I feel certain of it. I think Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania think there's a middle, too. well, i agree there USED to be a middle. But i think the last 3 years have polarized us to the point that there is more "us/them" than "we" in the general electorate. Also the very notion of "middle" is muddled (a muddled middle? yup!) because people may take moderate views on certain issues and more extreme positions on others, so how exactly do you determine the "middle"? If people are rationally moderate on a wide range of issues, then that same rationality would lead them to see the problem for our democracy currently sitting in the white house, regardless of left/right ideology. There is a buffoon in residence, undermining democratic values, constitutional principles and social norms, the evidence for which is coming from everywhere that any moderate would care to look, including from the words of the president himself. If that isn't enough to drive them to the polls, even for Bernie, then i don't think they're really the "middle" anyway. You cannot be moderately pro-democracy, maintaining a balanced appreciation for fascism.

LWFS Feb 20 2020 10:46 AM Re: Politics 2020

You guys... Buttgieg is all parlor tricks and programmed rebuttals. He's intelligent, and "impressive"... but can any of you Booty people point to a single substantive stance or program that he's got in the hopper to differentiate him from the rest of this field? His ENTIRE argument is being tepid. Gay is besides the point... he's like a robot who learned how to speak by listening to 10,000 hours of Obama speeches. I look at Warren last night-- not just the Bloomberg takedowns, or the Buttgieg/Klobuchar one-line-eviscerations, but also the fact that everything out of her mouth was a 70-second detailed policy outline... even her rebuttals to attacks on HER-- and I think to myself, she's Bernie, only with a prosecutor's debate skillset and the ability to get shit done (see: legislative record; CFPB). I also think, "How the hell is THIS woman losing to THESE guys?"

batmagadanleadoff Feb 20 2020 11:15 AM Re: Politics 2020 Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Feb 20 2020 11:34 AM

Lefty Specialist wrote: Warren was feisty last night. I liked that although I fear it's too little, too late. I look at Warren last night-- .... I also think, "How the hell is THIS woman losing to THESE guys?" I feel so terrible about Warren's collapse. It's been a long time since I wanted a Democratic primary candidate to win as much as I want Warren to win. Warren aligns with my views prettty strongly. Also, I'm not as concerned with policy as much as most other voters are because I'm voting Dem no matter who the candidate is and what their policies are. I'm old enough to accept that no candidate will line up with me perfectly. And whoever the Dem candidate is will be a million times more preferable than Trump or even a moderate Republican, if those even exist anymore . But I'm very concerned with structural issues -- like the electoral college and voter suppression in all of its varieties and the unfair way in which the Senate is composed --- and of course, the courts. And Warren is hitting the bells here ... killing the legislative filibuster, packing the courts. Sanders, OTOH, who's looking more and more like he'll get the nomination, is on record as against packing the courts. Well, that's gonna be an extremely tough pull in any event, no matter who the Dem president is. Realistically, if a court-packing solution is destined to happen, it probably won't happen for many years anyway.

Lefty Specialist Feb 20 2020 11:27 AM Re: Politics 2020

Yeah, Warren's always been the best prepared. My hope is that others flame out and she's the 'more centrist' alternative to Bernie. She can compromise, Bernie can't and that unrelenting stubbornness will kill him. Look at the refusal to release full medical records of a 78-year-old who had a heart attack a few months ago. And the way she took apart Bloomberg is the way you take apart Trump. If only she gets the chance. I wished she'd been a little tougher on Bernie (the field STILL hasn't laid a glove on him and there's a LOT there).

Lefty Specialist Feb 20 2020 11:31 AM Re: Politics 2020

Also, while any Democrat will have to wear the 'Socialist' label, for Bernie it actually fits. This will be death for taking the Senate back, something no Democratic president can live without. Want to pick up Senate seats in North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona and hold the one in Alabama? Not happening with Sanders at the top of the ticket. Even Susan Collins may escape.

TransMonk Feb 20 2020 11:53 AM Re: Politics 2020

Warren's my #1 as well. I've donated several times and did a few phone banks before Iowa. I do believe Sanders can win and take back the Senate, but agree he needs to ease up on the stubbornness and DIDACTICALLY explain the definitions of capitalism, socialism and where he falls on the spectrum and why.

Lefty Specialist Feb 20 2020 01:02 PM Re: Politics 2020

I'm hoping that Warren has finally moved beyond her M4A debacle. She'd been far too passive in the past few debates, as if that was weighing on her. Maybe with her back to the wall, she said 'screw it' and came out swinging. She needs to finish strong in NV and SC, and unlike Pete and Amy and Joe, she's had staff in the Super Tuesday states for months now. So there's a chance if she can show some life, and finish second in both (Bernie will most likely win). Bad finishes in those two states might doom her, though.

Edgy MD Feb 20 2020 02:34 PM Re: Politics 2020

Vic Sage wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I think there's a middle. I feel certain of it. I think Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania think there's a middle, too. well, i agree there USED to be a middle. But i think the last 3 years have polarized us to the point that there is more "us/them" than "we" in the general electorate. Also the very notion of "middle" is muddled (a muddled middle? yup!) because people may take moderate views on certain issues and more extreme positions on others, so how exactly do you determine the "middle"? If people are rationally moderate on a wide range of issues, then that same rationality would lead them to see the problem for our democracy currently sitting in the white house, regardless of left/right ideology. There is a buffoon in residence, undermining democratic values, constitutional principles and social norms, the evidence for which is coming from everywhere that any moderate would care to look, including from the words of the president himself. If that isn't enough to drive them to the polls, even for Bernie, then i don't think they're really the "middle" anyway. You cannot be moderately pro-democracy, maintaining a balanced appreciation for fascism. I didn't write that folks were rational, but the buffoon president lost the popular vote, and it's not like he lost it by a nose, either.

MFS62 Feb 20 2020 03:09 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Look at the refusal to release full medical records of a 78-year-old who had a heart attack a few months ago. Hey! I'd be glad to release the records of my heart attack and I'm younger than Bernie. I'm a veteran, and as such have learned to fake a Southern drawl when absolutely necessary. If asked, I will run as a moderate Candidate. Later

batmagadanleadoff Feb 20 2020 11:27 PM Re: Politics 2020

After today's revelations, it's indisputably clear that he's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he's still commanding troops. This is now a job for Captain Benjamin Willard. [FIMG=666]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Iir9LDSl7qI/SGmsmfoQ8QI/AAAAAAAAYXI/BAbdMau_-ko/s400/011.jpg[/FIMG] [YOUTUBE]ntPHFVWDIqM[/YOUTUBE]

batmagadanleadoff Feb 21 2020 06:34 AM Re: Politics 2020

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is going to war against the wingnut retrograde Federalist Society over accusations of GOP court-packing and dark money rigging judicial nominations and perhaps some of that dark money even going directly to the GOP justices themselves, and he means the justices at the top of the pyramid in scumbag 5-4 land, and the GOP fabricating engineered lawsuits to manufacture decisions. And I hope it's all true, which it probably is and I always suspected. Anything to light a fire under the sleepwalking Democratic collective asses. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a31027653/sheldon-whitehouse-federalist-society-supreme-court-packing Excerpt: The Supreme Court is now enmired in dark money. Dark money influences the selection of the justices. Dark money funds political campaigns for their confirmation. Cases are brought to the Court not just by regular real litigants, but by dark-money funded litigation groups that shop for, or manufacture, plaintiffs of convenience to bring strategic cases before the Court. The Court is swarmed with amicus groups funded with dark money (in one Supreme Court case, an anonymously-funded group backed 13 different amicus briefs). And because the Court has no ethics code and is so secretive about reporting gifts, travel and other emoluments, we don't know whether these dark money groups aren't also funding the justices' social lives.

Lefty Specialist Feb 21 2020 07:40 AM Re: Politics 2020

I was wondering where Ruth Bader Ginsburg got all of that fancy gym equipment.

Ceetar Feb 21 2020 08:39 AM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: I was wondering where Ruth Bader Ginsburg got all of that fancy gym equipment. i have a book about her, and there's a kids* board game too. that sweet sweet board game money.

ashie62 Feb 21 2020 06:55 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Also, while any Democrat will have to wear the 'Socialist' label, for Bernie it actually fits. This will be death for taking the Senate back, something no Democratic president can live without. Want to pick up Senate seats in North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona and hold the one in Alabama? Not happening with Sanders at the top of the ticket. Even Susan Collins may escape. You betcha

LWFS Feb 21 2020 08:46 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: I was wondering where Ruth Bader Ginsburg got all of that fancy gym equipment. i have a book about her, and there's a kids* board game too. that sweet sweet board game money. Don't forget that toy loot, bruh https://cdn.amightygirl.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/600x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/b/rbg_action_figure_1.jpg>

Johnny Lunchbucket Feb 24 2020 07:42 AM Re: Politics 2020

Would Bernie go with Warren as veep? Too Northeasty?

Benjamin Grimm Feb 24 2020 07:45 AM Re: Politics 2020

My guess: Stacey Abrams

LWFS Feb 24 2020 09:18 AM Re: Politics 2020

If we were going old-style-- veep serves as campaign attack-dog AND covers potential geographic or policy weak areas-- then somebody like Kamala Harris or Klobuchar makes some sense. But this campaign ain't like that, izzit? Abrams brings Warren-type political appeal with younger POC optics. Which... well... it's a sales job. (Not to say that I don't like Abrams a lot.)

TransMonk Feb 24 2020 10:22 AM Re: Politics 2020

Bernie has a lot of selling to do and he needs POC to have a chance. Abrams helps with both.

Lefty Specialist Feb 24 2020 11:45 AM Re: Politics 2020

A VP candidate should have at least some of these: Geographic balance, preferably with a state you're hoping to pick up. Think JFK and LBJ. Ideological balance/experience (so that you don't seem as scary to voters) Think Biden for Obama. An attack dog. Think Dick Cheney. Wow/Excitement factor. Think Sarah Palin. Notice that Tim Kaine didn't check any of these boxes, but that Mike Pence checked all of them (the Evangelicals were beside themselves over his pick, he was a former congressman, and Indiana had actually gone for Obama in '08). A new requirement these days is balance on the gender/race side. Hey. it is what it is. Abrams hits that part. Georgia is a state that's possible to reach, but less possible with Bernie at the top of the ticket, so she might help there. There is definitely a 'Wow' factor. She'll energize black voters like nobody since Obama. If you haven't heard her speak, she's realllly good. Breaks things down nicely, much like Elizabeth Warren can. But she has no Washington experience and she's pretty close ideologically to Bernie. Not sure how good of an attack dog she'd be, but I guess we'd find out if she was the pick.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 24 2020 12:06 PM Re: Politics 2020

Tim Kaine was a wet rag.

seawolf17 Feb 24 2020 12:33 PM Re: Politics 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Tim Kaine was a wet rag. Seriously. I wonder what would have happened if Clinton had a running mate who was actually a living, breathing human being.

Frayed Knot Feb 24 2020 01:41 PM Re: Politics 2020

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Would Bernie go with Warren as veep? Too Northeasty? It might be nice if at least one of the parties had someone on the ticket under the age of 80

Marshmallowmilkshake Feb 24 2020 06:42 PM Re: Politics 2020

When the top of the ticket is a 78-year-old with recent heart problems, the running mate needs to be someone who could step right in and run the federal government. The problem with Abrams is that her experience is 11 years in the minority side of the Georgia Legislature and losing a statewide election. She's a better candidate for Congress, then a presidential run in 2024 or 2028. She's still really young. Amy Klobuchar, a Midwesterner with Senate experience and running a decent campaign, might be be better.

MFS62 Feb 24 2020 07:16 PM Re: Politics 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Would Bernie go with Warren as veep? Too Northeasty? It might be nice if at least one of the parties had someone on the ticket under the age of 80 Ahem. I'm available (but just barely). Later

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2020 12:09 PM Re: Politics 2020

According to recent polls from Real Clear Politics and from Morning Consult, Bernie Sanders would beat Trump head to head in a Presidential election.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 25 2020 12:26 PM Re: Politics 2020

By popular vote? Or by adding up electoral votes?

Ceetar Feb 25 2020 12:57 PM Re: Politics 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: By popular vote? Or by adding up electoral votes? gloves at 50 paces.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2020 02:20 PM Re: Politics 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: By popular vote? Or by adding up electoral votes? The Morning Consult was a popular vote poll. And all participants were Dem primary voters -- i.e., registered Democrats.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2020 03:32 PM Re: Politics 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: By popular vote? Or by adding up electoral votes? The Morning Consult was a popular vote poll. And all participants were Dem primary voters -- i.e., registered Democrats. This Morning Consult isn't what it was cracked up to be. Some other article incorrectly claimed that according to the poll results, Sanders would beat Trump. In reality, the poll's finding is that a majority of Dem primary voters polled believe that Sanders has the best chance of the Dem candidates to beat Trump. Meh.

Edgy MD Feb 25 2020 08:24 PM Re: Politics 2020

My faith in such polls is touch-and-go. People may say they'd vote for Senator Sanders if the election was today, but the election isn't today. And by the time the election comes around, the president — running virtually unopposed — will have his base fired up with insane, fact-free rallies, while Senator Sanders will have had to have survived a brutal primary season and the rolling out of decades worth of damaging stories. He will be tattooed with a stupid nickname like Red Bernie, or Bolshevik Bernie, or somesuch — a name that the president is holding back on now because he's rooting like hell for Sanders to win. Fun fact: Now that Vice President Biden has fallen in the polls, you don't hear a whole lot of calls for his investigation, arrest, and prosecution from the president or Senator Graham or his other Congressional allies. It's almost as if they don't really care about corruption but were just targeting him for political purposes.

ashie62 Feb 26 2020 05:14 AM Re: Politics 2020

Predicting Biden rise in polls after last nights SC scrum Rough nite for Pete. The moderate appeal he has planted his flag on is melting. Poop, I feel very naive I won't vote for Trump but neither Bernie

kcmets Feb 26 2020 05:46 AM Re: Politics 2020

Bolshevik Bernie © 2020 - EMD, LLC (lol, fixed it for you)

ashie62 Mar 01 2020 03:26 PM Re: Politics 2020

Joe Biden ain't done yet

Frayed Knot Mar 01 2020 04:56 PM Re: Politics 2020

But Mayor Pete is (at least acc to some unnamed aide)

kcmets Mar 01 2020 06:50 PM Re: Politics 2020

A Biden/Buttigieg ticket could possibly beat Trump.

Johnny Lunchbucket Mar 02 2020 11:40 AM Re: Politics 2020

Klobuchar dropout clears more road for Biden. Not that she had much of the road to begin with

batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2020 11:52 AM Re: Politics 2020

Good riddance though I think I'd prefer Amy over Biden as pres. She didn't even make it to her home state. Will Warren? But what the hell is Warren hoping for at this point? (Sob.) I bet it's that Bernie has another heart attack because that's the only path I see for her.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2020 11:56 AM Re: Politics 2020

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=32577 time=1583175163 user_id=68] Good riddance though I think I'd prefer Amy over Biden as pres. She didnt even make it to her home state. But what the hell is Warren hoping for at this point? (Sob.) I bet it's that Bernie has another heart attack because that's the only path I see for her.

Edgy MD Mar 02 2020 12:01 PM Re: Politics 2020

I think she's hoping to succeed in taking support from others. Still active, by the way: Representative Tulsi Gabbard.

Lefty Specialist Mar 02 2020 12:20 PM Re: Politics 2020

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=32577 time=1583175163 user_id=68] But what the hell is Warren hoping for at this point? (Sob.) I bet it's that Bernie has another heart attack because that's the only path I see for her.

She helps take votes that might otherwise go for Bernie. Having Bloomberg in the race now is a major complication for Biden for the same reason.



I imagine Warren will drop out if her Super Tuesday performance is as bad as her performance in the first 4 contests was. Sigh.



Tulsi is there to run as a 3rd party candidate if Sanders gets the nomination.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 02 2020 12:30 PM Re: Politics 2020

We'll see. She's polling terribly for Super Tuesday, Terribly. Though those polls were taken before Pete and Amy dropped out. I don't see her picking up enough of those votes to make a difference in her campaign and I base this on her overall disappointing showing to date.

Ceetar Mar 02 2020 12:59 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: I imagine Warren will drop out if her Super Tuesday performance is as bad as her performance in the first 4 contests was. Sigh. *our

TransMonk Mar 02 2020 02:54 PM Re: Politics 2020

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=32577 time=1583175163 user_id=68] Will Warren? But what the hell is Warren hoping for at this point? (Sob.)

She'll see how she does on Tuesday as well as how Biden and Bernie do. If Bernie pulls away, I'm guessing she'll drop out sooner rather than later and work on explaining Bernie to non-Bernie Dems in a way that Bernie anhd his stans are seemingly unable to do so far. But if Biden keeps surging, I bet she stays in for a while if not all the way. Coming in third to a convention where no one has 1991 delegates would give her some sway. But if anyone starts running away with the race and 1991 becomes inevitable, she'll bail.



I'm guessing Bloomberg's strategy is somewhat similar.

G-Fafif Mar 02 2020 05:19 PM Re: Politics 2020

Chris Matthews is no longer playing Hardball. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chris-matthews-retire-msnbc-1282226

Frayed Knot Mar 02 2020 05:50 PM Re: Politics 2020

Matthews: "After a conversation with MSNBC, I decided tonight will be my last Hardball, so let me tell you why," he said. "The younger generation is out there ready to take the reins. We see them in politics, in the media, in fighting for the causes. They have improved the workplace. We're talking about better standards than we grew up with: fair standards." IOW, he was fired. Never was a regular (or even occasional) watcher of HARDBALL so I don't much care for the petty details here and I have no reason to either jump on or defend Matthews. But if it stems (as it likely does) from his recent Bernie/Germany flap then the network is being ridiculous. To review: Following a Bernie Sanders primary victory (probably the NH one) Matthews stated that he thought two early wins by significant margins made this race all but officially decided. In doing so he connected it to some recent reading of WWII history where a French general told Churchill that the battle for France was over early on and despite their large army. The press, or at least the 'Gotcha' portion of the media, pounced on this by claiming that the act of linking a Sanders victory to a Nazi victory was the equivalent of calling the obviously Jewish Sanders a Nazi. No it wasn't you idiots, he was simply pointing out a situation where you know something is over similar to how you might do so while watching a ballgame. Simply because a story involves Bernie Sanders and mentions Nazis doesn't mean you're calling him one.

TransMonk Mar 02 2020 06:18 PM Re: Politics 2020

https://twitter.com/speakertip/status/1234648183122169857?s=21 And, yes, I follow the Ghost of Tip O'Neill on Twitter.

Ceetar Mar 02 2020 09:21 PM Re: Politics 2020

I know next to nothing about Chris Matthews or whatever hardball is, but based on the reports i've seen, seems like a bad guy got his comeuppance. meanwhile ABC has seemingly suspended a Gold Glove winning journalist because the nazis told them to.

MFS62 Mar 03 2020 05:09 AM Re: Politics 2020

Matthews never let his guests speak without interrupting them, so I guess it was typical that he interrupted his own show. Later

batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2020 07:32 AM Re: Politics 2020

My favorite thing about Chris Matthews was that he never let up on Trump's kids, always taking digs at their ridiculous presence in this administration and always recognizing them for the oppprtunistic mediocrities that they are. He called them "The Romanovs", after the monarchs who ruled Russia for centuries before a hit squad murdered the whole family, thus ending their nepotistic reign.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2020 07:42 AM Re: Politics 2020

The timing of this was just about perfect. John Oliver included this on his show the day before Matthews stepped down, or was fired, or whatever. [YOUTUBE]8LMZODj3zIk[/YOUTUBE]

Lefty Specialist Mar 03 2020 07:45 AM Re: Politics 2020

I couldn't watch Hardball because Matthews would always talk over this guests, which I found incredibly annoying. But he'd made too many blunders recently, so this was coming one way or the other.

TransMonk Mar 03 2020 09:11 AM Re: Politics 2020

Yeah, Matthews has a horrible week: the Sanders/Nazi reference, repeatedly pushing back to Liz Warren on whether the Bloomberg accusers should be believed during a post-debate interview and confusing black SC Dem Jaime Harrison for black GOP Sen. Tim Scott. The article below didn't help. https://www.gq.com/story/chris-matthews-experience He was once a reliable insider who did a decent interview, but has been a rambling interrupter for years.

Willets Point Mar 03 2020 09:14 AM Re: Politics 2020

I voted! Very exciting to participate in an election where my vote may actually count.

Edgy MD Mar 03 2020 10:27 AM Re: Politics 2020

Hardball was one of the cable TV loud-opinion news shows I seem to recall blowing up around the time of the Lewinsky story — along with The Charles Grodin Show and I dunno ... I think Keith Olbermann's thingie came later — around the time of the Chandra Levy story. I found them embarrassing. Like somebody woke up and said, "Damn it, we can't let the right wing corner the market on obnoxious, unaccountable sensationalism and situational ethics." Like all of those shows, they were unavoidable if you hit the gym after work. My eyes had to fixate on something and it wasn't going to be Sean Hannity, but damn it, Matthews was annoying. Definitely interrupted my treadmill mojo.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2020 10:29 AM Re: Politics 2020

Fed makes emergency rate cut amid coronavirus fears and stock market surges. Welcome to the Trump dictatorship. He's got the courts in his pocket. The Justice Department is corrupt. He's taken over intelligence, too. And now the Fed.

Lefty Specialist Mar 03 2020 10:35 AM Re: Politics 2020

Surge didn't last long. Market is down 400 points. Monetary policy will have little or no effect in a situation like this.

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2020 01:49 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Hardball was one of the cable loud opinion news shows I seem to recall blowing up around the time of the Lewinsky story — along with The Charles Grodin Show and I dunno ... I think Keith Olbermann's thingie came later — around the time of the Chandra Levy story. I found them embarrassing. Like somebody woke up and said, "Damn it, we can't let the right wing corner the market on obnoxious, unaccountable sensationalism and situational ethics." Like all of those shows, they were unavoidable if you hit the gym after work. My eyes had to fixate on something and it wasn't going to be Sean Hannity, but damn it, Matthews was annoying. Definitely interrupted my treadmill mojo. As mentioned, I rarely ever saw HARDBALL But I happened to be watching one time when some no-name 1st or 2nd term Republican Congressman was on to talk about his proposal to more clearly define what constituted a 'Natural Born Citizen' as per the Constitution's requirement for the Presidency. It's an issue that has potentially come up several times* but never been tested in the courts to my knowledge. Since this was shortly after Obama's first election it was legitimate to ask whether this was in response to the whole 'Kenya question'. But of course Matthews didn't ask it, he just screamed; 'YOU'RE JUST ONE OF THOSE CRAZY 'BIRTHERS' WHO WANTS TO REVERSE THE RESULTS OF THE RECENT ELECTION!!!'. And even as the poor schmuck tried his best to calmly explain how this couldn't possibly affect Obama since it was a long way from passing and, even if it did, it contained language to where it wouldn't take effect until the 2016 election at the earliest, beyond any potential second term for Obama, Matthews just continued to act as if he never heard any of that because it would have ruined his rant. Don't think he ever did get around to asking the guy anything about the proposed bill. And I'm sure at some point after that he complained about he lack of civility in our political discourse. * George Romney - Republican primary candidate and Mitt's father, born in Mexico but to American parents John McCain - born in the Canal Zone, an American territory and to American parents Barry Goldwater - born in Arizona but prior to it becoming a state and more recently Ted Cruz and others

Chad ochoseis Mar 03 2020 08:06 PM Re: Politics 2020

Random speculation: Biden picks a relatively young woman as running mate and, if elected, steps down after two years to give her the presidency. He may even telegraph this during the campaign, though he can't come out and say it. My guess is Kamala.

Johnny Lunchbucket Mar 03 2020 08:08 PM Re: Politics 2020

Bloomberg pretty assuredly throws away $500 million

G-Fafif Mar 03 2020 08:48 PM Re: Politics 2020

Bloomberg reportedly about to “reassess” his campaign. Every zillionaire has his limit.

Edgy MD Mar 03 2020 08:52 PM Re: Politics 2020

His strategy was sound. His performance, and his product, not so much.

Edgy MD Mar 03 2020 09:19 PM Re: Politics 2020

Senator Warren comes up short in Massachusetts, so I guess her run is over. Only question is where her support goes. Big prizes in Texas and California still on the board.

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2020 06:26 AM Re: Politics 2020

Well, that was a helluva night for Biden, getting Texas as well. Bernie will probably creep closer in the delegate count when California's fully counted, but the message was sent. I'm not the biggest Biden fan; he's too old, makes gaffes, and Republicans are going to make Burisma his middle name. But people trust him and they want to defeat Trump most of all. He just better pick a young, vital running mate of color. Warren finishing third in Massachusetts is beyond embarrassing. I'd expect she'll drop out shortly and endorse Biden. There's too much bad blood between her and Bernie. And all Michael Bloomberg has to show for his $500 million is American Samoa. Lot of better ways that half-billion could have been spent. Hopefully he stays engaged and turns his operation into a 24/7 Trump-bashing machine.

MFS62 Mar 04 2020 06:43 AM Re: Politics 2020

Chad ochoseis wrote: Random speculation: Biden picks a relatively young woman as running mate and, if elected, steps down after two years to give her the presidency. He may even telegraph this during the campaign, though he can't come out and say it. My guess is Kamala. Kamala hasn't attracted voters of color. Biden has. I don't think he would need to pick her. Later

Benjamin Grimm Mar 04 2020 07:19 AM Re: Politics 2020

I think he goes with someone Hispanic. AOC isn't eligible yet, and probably too "scary" for the mainstream. Julian Castro, maybe? Is there a prominent Latina woman who I'm overlooking?

Ceetar Mar 04 2020 07:27 AM Re: Politics 2020

it'll probably just be Bloomberg.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2020 07:31 AM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Warren finishing third in Massachusetts is beyond embarrassing. I'd expect she'll drop out shortly and endorse Biden. There's too much bad blood between her and Bernie. You know, a few weeks ago, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and was throwing half a billion dollars (for starters) behind himself heading into a presidential race, casting himself as a savior. Chris Matthews had decades of entrenchment of prime pontificating time on the cable news network that fancied it always had the moral high ground. Now they are both notches in her belt, having seen their public images melted into a joke. I'm not so sure Senator Warren needs to be embarrassed here.

Willets Point Mar 04 2020 07:51 AM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: I voted! Very exciting to participate in an election where my vote may actually count. I guess my vote didn't count after all. Two brilliant candidates in Sanders and Warren, either one would have been the best President of my lifetime, and the Democratic Party wants Joe Fucking Biden. I guess they love losing to Trump as they've all but conceded the election.

Willets Point Mar 04 2020 07:52 AM Re: Politics 2020

Chad ochoseis wrote: Random speculation: Biden picks a relatively young woman as running mate and, if elected, steps down after two years to give her the presidency. He may even telegraph this during the campaign, though he can't come out and say it. My guess is Kamala. I expect it will be Hillary Clinton.

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2020 07:52 AM Re: Politics 2020

Biden picks up the all-important Cher endorsement. @cher JOE BIDEN SINK OR SWIM,I'M WITH HIM PRESIDENT OBAMA CHOSE JOE”TWICE”BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE WAS THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB.I KNOW PRESIDENT OBAMA THINKS JOE'S THE RIGHT MAN FOR THIS JOB… PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 4:15 PM · Mar 3, 2020

metsmarathon Mar 04 2020 08:13 AM Re: Politics 2020

do you think he might pick klobuchar? or would it be more likely that he pick someone closer to the progressive side of the spectrum. would a biden/warren ticket be a possible thing, and a good idea?

Willets Point Mar 04 2020 08:21 AM Re: Politics 2020

As long as we're pretending it's 1988, Dick Gephardt and Gary Hart are alive and eligible for VP.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 04 2020 08:27 AM Re: Politics 2020

I think Klobuchar is more likely than Warren.

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2020 08:35 AM Re: Politics 2020

Bloomberg ends presidential campaign, endorses Biden

Johnny Lunchbucket Mar 04 2020 08:36 AM Re: Politics 2020

shocka

Chad ochoseis Mar 04 2020 08:43 AM Re: Politics 2020

https://twitter.com/Staff7998/status/1235223693393104897?s=20

Edgy MD Mar 04 2020 08:45 AM Re: Politics 2020

And just like that, the Dow bounces back 700 points.

Willets Point Mar 04 2020 09:00 AM Re: Politics 2020

If Bloomberg, Steyer, Buttitigieg, Klobuchar, et al really want to make a difference, they will spend the next 8 months tirelessly raising money and campaigning for Democratic senatorial candidates in the 23 campaigns where Republican incumbents terms are up and the 1 campaign where a current Democratic incumbent is at risk of flipping to the Republicans.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2020 09:17 AM Re: Politics 2020

I'm not sure any of them are the face to help hold Alabama, but they could sure stand to throw money at that race.

Willets Point Mar 04 2020 09:58 AM Re: Politics 2020

And they have money to throw.

seawolf17 Mar 04 2020 10:24 AM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: Willets Point wrote: I voted! Very exciting to participate in an election where my vote may actually count. I guess my vote didn't count after all. Two brilliant candidates in Sanders and Warren, either one would have been the best President of my lifetime, and the Democratic Party wants Joe Fucking Biden. I guess they love losing to Trump as they've all but conceded the election. Certainly feels that way this morning.

TransMonk Mar 04 2020 10:33 AM Re: Politics 2020

Wow. Didn't see last night coming. I wish the general election was tomorrow. 8 months is a long time for Biden to lose momentum...especially since Joe was all but left for dead a week ago. I'm interested to see who Warren supports. The media seems to think she will back Bernie, but she endorsed Clinton (though it was late) in 2016. As far as Biden's VP pick goes, it's early, but I still would support Stacey Abrams as the best bet to get out the vote.

Double Switch Mar 04 2020 11:05 AM Re: Politics 2020

Don't forget Jaime Harrison running against Ms. Lindsey. I'm sending money to him and also to Amy McGrath running against the fn Grim Reaper. As for VP, I don't see Biden going with any of his present opponents and will tease us for months as to whom he will pick. What I do expect is he will be nominating his present and past opponents for positions in his cabinet that exploits their strengths that built their voter support, such as Warren for Treasury, Inslee for Interior, and so on. Every one of them (and to be clear, I don't include Steyer and Bloomberg) would make a powerhouse cabinet secretary. I read Team of Rivals and find that philosophy well founded. I'd like to see Washington Senator Patty Murray as Secretary of Education to remediate the damage done by Betsy DeVos. Murray has been all over DeVos since she was dredged up from a cesspool. I'd like to speculate on who would be Biden's Attorney General because wouldn't a really seasoned, experienced political office holder with a certified legal background be just the one to reorganize Justice? Hillary Clinton would not only be excellent at this but it would grenade the GOP stranglehold on destroying ... everything. What's that about payback?

Benjamin Grimm Mar 04 2020 11:14 AM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: Willets Point wrote: I voted! Very exciting to participate in an election where my vote may actually count. I guess my vote didn't count after all. Two brilliant candidates in Sanders and Warren, either one would have been the best President of my lifetime, and the Democratic Party wants Joe Fucking Biden. I guess they love losing to Trump as they've all but conceded the election. Certainly feels that way this morning. Are we that sure that Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump than Biden does? I'm not at all certain of that.

Willets Point Mar 04 2020 11:27 AM Re: Politics 2020

Joe Biden is the most similar candidate to Hillary Clinton: There both long-time establishment conservatives. They were both on the wrong side of a lot of issues that hurt America's most vulnerable people. They both make mind-boggling gaffes (Bosnian sniper fire/South African arrest) They both show little interest in motivating new groups of people to vote, but expect the people to just come to them. Clinton lost to Trump, in the most embarrassing fashion, losing three states that were solid blue for a generation. With the same package of flaws as Clinton, Trump will eat Biden for dinner. I believe Sanders, Warren, and even some of the other candidates that I don't particularly like, such as Buttigieg and Harris, have qualities that would make them far more competitive against Trump.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 04 2020 11:58 AM Re: Politics 2020

I'm hoping that there is so much Trump outrage out there that there will be a massive turnout for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is, like there was for the 2018 mid-terms. It wasn't that long ago that the top five or six Democratic primary candidates were all polling ahead of Trump, head-to-head in a presidential election.

Johnny Lunchbucket Mar 04 2020 11:59 AM Re: Politics 2020

Yeah, I get it. I'd have preferred others too. But Biden's surge at some level must be a signal that "America" thinks he's better equipped to beat Trump because I do believe all good people want to see Trump destroyed

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2020 12:09 PM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: Joe Biden is the most similar candidate to Hillary Clinton: There both long-time establishment conservatives. They were both on the wrong side of a lot of issues that hurt America's most vulnerable people. They both make mind-boggling gaffes (Bosnian sniper fire/South African arrest) They both show little interest in motivating new groups of people to vote, but expect the people to just come to them. Clinton lost to Trump, in the most embarrassing fashion, losing three states that were solid blue for a generation. With the same package of flaws as Clinton, Trump will eat Biden for dinner. I believe Sanders, Warren, and even some of the other candidates that I don't particularly like, such as Buttigieg and Harris, have qualities that would make them far more competitive against Trump. Now, I say this as a Warren supporter. She would have been a fantastic president but Democrats are too spooked to vote for a woman right now. But: Biden doesn't have a fraction of the baggage Hillary had. She'd been demonized by Republicans for 25 years. Biden hasn't. Joe was on the right side for marriage equality and pushing for the ACA. Wrong side? Plenty, but look who he's running against. You want mind-boggling gaffes, the Bloomberg team is assembling a mega-mix of Trump boners as we speak. And they'll have to keep updating it. The 'motivating new groups' thing doesn't really apply. For one, young people didn't come out for Bernie on Super Tuesday. African Americans came out in droves for Biden. One of the reasons Hillary lost is that AA voters didn't come out in Philadelphia, Detroit* and Milwaukee. They'll come out for Joe. Hillary's people were complacent. That won't happen this time around. It's an existential crisis. That's motivation a-plenty. Trump LITERALLY GOT HIMSELF IMPEACHED because he was afraid of Biden. That will resonate. Biden's fairly far down my original list. But Bernie was below him. Bernie would guarantee a Senate loss. Republicans were already painting themselves as a 'firewall' against a President Sanders. A lot tougher to do with Biden. Bernie would guarantee to lose you Alabama, N Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and probably Maine, because every Democratic candidate would be tied to The Socialist. There's a fighting chance with Biden. Same goes for the House. A lot of vulnerable Democrats would be hearing the question "Do you agree with Bernie Sanders on (X)?" All that gets short-circuited. I would expect that Biden's would be a 'Back to Normal' presidency, rebuilding institutions that were destroyed by the MAGA wrecking crew. Like Obama, he'll have to clean up after a Republican mess. But I also expect that he'll have a youngish, talented VP ready to go in 2024, because I doubt he'll serve two terms. *(Batmags brings this up often. With Democrats running Michigan and Wisconsin this time, there's less of a chance of the election day shenanigans that happened in Detroit in 2016.)

Lefty Specialist Mar 04 2020 12:18 PM Re: Politics 2020

One more thing. We're staring down the barrel of a nationwide medical crisis and the Trump team has completely botched it. That's not going to play well at all. Biden can tout all the preparation that the Obama administration did, only to see Trump tear it down because Obama did it. Plus, they'll actually be arguing in the Supreme Court to take away people's insurance coverage. Not a good look. Trump will have advantages. Incumbency. A dedicated propaganda channel in Fox News. All the Russian help he can handle. But I'm a lot more convinced Democrats can prevail than I was yesterday.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2020 12:42 PM Re: Politics 2020

I hope, in that spirit, that Candidate Biden will do better than Vice President Biden did in 2009, breaking with the administration during a swine flu scare and advising people to avoid public transit.

kcmets Mar 04 2020 02:12 PM Re: Politics 2020

How can in this day and age they can't announce a winner in California yet? I know people will jump down my throat but I trust nothing that goes on California voting wise (and a couple of other wise-s).

Johnny Lunchbucket Mar 04 2020 02:16 PM Re: Politics 2020

I used to go the same gym as Joe Biden and we're both Blue Hens, so there's that. Kamala Harris as running mate? I'm pretty sure Bernie Bros hate her but maybe not as much as some others

Willets Point Mar 04 2020 02:19 PM Re: Politics 2020

[BLOCKQUOTE]But Biden's surge at some level must be a signal that "America" thinks he's better equipped to beat Trump because I do believe all good people want to see Trump destroyed[/BLOCKQUOTE] Not so much "America" but a subset of America. Only 27% of Americans are registered Democrats and they're selecting a candidate in a series of contests where people not registered as Democrats are often not allowed to participate. And the people do participate are even smaller group of white, older, college-educated professionals based in prosperous suburbs and cities. These people LOVE Biden (and H. Clinton and Kerry and Gore). They have proven to not be the best judge of what would convince people who've soured on electoral politics to get out and vote, much less vote Democratic. [BLOCKQUOTE]Biden doesn't have a fraction of the baggage Hillary had. She'd been demonized by Republicans for 25 years. Biden hasn't.[/BLOCKQUOTE] Biden had to leave the 1988 race because of a plagiarism scandal. It's being brought up again already, as are several other things he's done over the years. [BLOCKQUOTE]Wrong side? Plenty, but look who he's running against.[/BLOCKQUOTE] They tried "We're Less Odious Than Trump" in 2016. Voters stayed home in droves because they felt neither candidate would represent them. Biden isn't going to bring them out. [BLOCKQUOTE]You want mind-boggling gaffes, the Bloomberg team is assembling a mega-mix of Trump boners as we speak. [/BLOCKQUOTE] Except that Trump can gaffe all wants and it doesn't hurt him. Were you even around in 2016? Trump did a lot of bullshit during and before that campaign? Do remember it getting covered or was there constant stories about an email server? Get ready for 8 months of "But Hunter Biden!" [BLOCKQUOTE] because every Democratic candidate would be tied to The Socialist. [/BLOCKQUOTE] Dating back to at least the 1920s, the Republicans have called EVERY. SINGLE. DEMOCRAT. a Socialist, and they will use it on Biden too. [BLOCKQUOTE]There's a fighting chance with Biden. Same goes for the House.[/BLOCKQUOTE] The Democrats have lost 1000s of seats in Congress and state legislatures, and governorships in the 30 years since they've adopted the Republican Lite platform, but sure, maybe it will work this time.

G-Fafif Mar 04 2020 02:20 PM Re: Politics 2020

=kcmets post_id=32789 time=1583356373 user_id=53] How can in this day and age they can't announce a winner in California yet? I know people will jump down my throat but I trust nothing that goes on California voting wise (and a couple of other wise-s).

Politico and AP have both called California for Sanders. Caution was taken in deference to the proliferation of mail-in ballots, which is how a lot of people vote out there.

kcmets Mar 04 2020 03:17 PM Re: Politics 2020 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 04 2020 03:50 PM

CNN (broadcast, not internet) is still not reporting it. Guess they know better than AP, or they're in Camp Biden so they'll just hold onto his good 'news' for as long as they can get away with it and keep Sanders big Cali-haul in the dark for as long as possible.

Willets Point Mar 04 2020 03:40 PM Re: Politics 2020

Is there a restriction against counting mail in ballots as they come in? It seems that they always wait until election day. Maybe it's a safeguard against someone leaking the early vote results or something.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 04 2020 04:58 PM Re: Politics 2020

Game on. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036

Frayed Knot Mar 04 2020 05:26 PM Re: Politics 2020

Circling back to Chris Matthews for a moment, despite his recent on-air WWII history lesson, apparently this race is NOT over as Bernie has NOT crushed the opposition like it was the French army. This means that instead of being merely inappropriate in some of his statements, he was also just plain wrong.

Chad ochoseis Mar 04 2020 06:08 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: As for VP, I don't see Biden going with any of his present opponents and will tease us for months as to whom he will pick. What I do expect is he will be nominating his present and past opponents for positions in his cabinet that exploits their strengths that built their voter support, such as Warren for Treasury, Inslee for Interior, and so on. Every one of them (and to be clear, I don't include Steyer and Bloomberg) would make a powerhouse cabinet secretary. I read Team of Rivals and find that philosophy well founded. I'd like to see Washington Senator Patty Murray as Secretary of Education to remediate the damage done by Betsy DeVos. Murray has been all over DeVos since she was dredged up from a cesspool. I'd like to speculate on who would be Biden's Attorney General because wouldn't a really seasoned, experienced political office holder with a certified legal background be just the one to reorganize Justice? Hillary Clinton would not only be excellent at this but it would grenade the GOP stranglehold on destroying ... everything. What's that about payback? Thomas Friedman had an article in the Times a few days ago saying pretty near exactly this. Yeah, I'm not seeing Biden picking Buttigieg or Klobuchar. I think it will have to be Kamala Harris - who clashed with him in the debates - or Stacey Abrams. He's going to get 90+% of the African American vote no matter what, but it's not going to do him any good if he can't get 60+% turnout.

kcmets Mar 04 2020 06:13 PM Re: Politics 2020

CNN (broadcast, not internet) is still not publicizing the Cali results. Hmm...

Double Switch Mar 04 2020 06:41 PM Re: Politics 2020

Chad ochoseis wrote: Double Switch wrote: As for VP, I don't see Biden going with any of his present opponents and will tease us for months as to whom he will pick. What I do expect is he will be nominating his present and past opponents for positions in his cabinet that exploits their strengths that built their voter support, such as Warren for Treasury, Inslee for Interior, and so on. Every one of them (and to be clear, I don't include Steyer and Bloomberg) would make a powerhouse cabinet secretary. I read Team of Rivals and find that philosophy well founded. I'd like to see Washington Senator Patty Murray as Secretary of Education to remediate the damage done by Betsy DeVos. Murray has been all over DeVos since she was dredged up from a cesspool. I'd like to speculate on who would be Biden's Attorney General because wouldn't a really seasoned, experienced political office holder with a certified legal background be just the one to reorganize Justice? Hillary Clinton would not only be excellent at this but it would grenade the GOP stranglehold on destroying ... everything. What's that about payback? Thomas Friedman had an article in the Times a few days ago saying pretty near exactly this. Yeah, I'm not seeing Biden picking Buttigieg or Klobuchar. I think it will have to be Kamala Harris - who clashed with him in the debates - or Stacey Abrams. He's going to get 90+% of the African American vote no matter what, but it's not going to do him any good if he can't get 60+% turnout. Ha! That's interesting to me since I don't subscribe to the NYT. Maybe I should again (tried it but give it up and went back to WaPo). Stacey Abrams would be a superb choice. Shall we speculate upon who his Secretary of State would be? No matter who, it will be vastly superior to Pompeo.

kcmets Mar 04 2020 06:54 PM Re: Politics 2020

You can get an online subscription to NYT for like $0.11 a day now if you dig around. What does WashPost charge these days?

Double Switch Mar 04 2020 07:03 PM Re: Politics 2020

=kcmets post_id=32809 time=1583373258 user_id=53] You can get an online subscription to NYT for like $0.11 a day now if you dig around. What does WashPost charge these days?

I did a NYT subscription for $10/3 months, or something like that last fall, but found the site oddly difficult to navigate and hard to post comments to. I ended the subscription before it could auto-renew. Posting crank comments to WaPo columns is my daily therapy. Very therapeutic and refreshing. My present WaPo subscription was offered to renew for $30/year within days of my ending the NYT. It didn't seem like a coincidence. Hard to say no and I didn't.

kcmets Mar 04 2020 07:22 PM Re: Politics 2020

The NYT's site would do better if they offered a .pdf menu of the paper. That will never happen, but just saying. The site kinda sucks.

Chad ochoseis Mar 04 2020 08:03 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: Posting crank comments to WaPo columns is my daily therapy. Very therapeutic and refreshing. My present WaPo subscription was offered to renew for $30/year within days of my ending the NYT. It didn't seem like a coincidence. Hard to say no and I didn't. I've posted a couple of times as "standard and poor". $58 or so per year for me. I'll have to non-renew in May and see what happens.

Double Switch Mar 04 2020 08:25 PM Re: Politics 2020

Chad ochoseis wrote: Double Switch wrote: Posting crank comments to WaPo columns is my daily therapy. Very therapeutic and refreshing. My present WaPo subscription was offered to renew for $30/year within days of my ending the NYT. It didn't seem like a coincidence. Hard to say no and I didn't. I've posted a couple of times as "standard and poor". $58 or so per year for me. I'll have to non-renew in May and see what happens. At first, several years ago, I took the $10/month subscription but when they offered $100/year, I changed to that. After a few years, I went into overload and quit completely. Then last fall I tried the NYT, which I mentioned, and agree with kcmet that it's a difficult format. I don't recall seeing your posts, but there was someone using "Great Googly Moogly" that I wondered if that were the person here who uses that as a signature. I change my alias about once a month just to entertain myself. I never used Double Switch, which is exclusively for here. In fact, it's about time I changed again and am inspired to use HDStanton's Cat. Yeah, that seems like a good next alias. If you let it run out or cancel it, I suspect you'll get a generous offer at a lesser rate.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2020 09:15 PM Re: Politics 2020

Returning Secretary Clinton to the cabinet as attorney general would be something. I don't see it, as it would burn a lot of political capital, but it's an interesting proposal. I really have trouble trying to look ahead to the outfitting of a Biden cabinet. I just want to see to it that the president goes down, and hopefully, Vice President Biden's mouth won't get ahead of his mind during the campaign. We really haven't had a lot of big hits for U.S. attorneys general this century, have we? I'll give credit to Acting Attorney General Yates though. One of the most magnificent 10-day tenures ever.

Lefty Specialist Mar 05 2020 05:59 AM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: [BLOCKQUOTE]There's a fighting chance with Biden. Same goes for the House.[/BLOCKQUOTE] The Democrats have lost 1000s of seats in Congress and state legislatures, and governorships in the 30 years since they've adopted the Republican Lite platform, but sure, maybe it will work this time. They got a few hundred of those back in 2018. That election was a referendum on Donald Trump the President as opposed to Donald Trump the Concept in 2016. 2020 will be another referendum on Trump the President. People are itching to vote against him. Understand that I think Bernie would have a pretty good chance to beat him, too. The problem would be the down-ballot races. People have seen the chaos and drama of the past 4 years and are saying 'enough'. That's what the votes on Super Tuesday were saying. Biden represents stability. Will we make giant strides on inequality, climate change, health care for all and a host of other things? No. But these things won't get worse, as they most certainly would under Trump. Down-ballot is hugely important because Ginsberg and Breyer can't hang on forever. We need the Senate.

Willets Point Mar 05 2020 08:05 AM Re: Politics 2020

If a Democrat wins in November, Ginsberg and Breyer should announce their retirement on January 21, 2021. Also, Bernie Sanders for Secretary of Labor. And I really want Elizabeth Warren to replace Chuck Schumer as Senate party leader. She would be so good in that role and I think would get more accomplished there than if she were President.

Lefty Specialist Mar 05 2020 09:11 AM Re: Politics 2020

Per the Times: Elizabeth Warren, Once a Front-Runner, Will Drop Out of Presidential Race Sad. She really was the best candidate on the issues, but it just never clicked.

Double Switch Mar 05 2020 10:18 AM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: I really want Elizabeth Warren to replace Chuck Schumer as Senate party leader. She would be so good in that role and I think would get more accomplished there than if she were President. Agree re Elizabeth. I voted for her in my state's primary and will wait to see how that works out next week. We vote by mail out here.

Lefty Specialist Mar 05 2020 11:25 AM Re: Politics 2020

Never happen. Warren is too far left in the caucus. And Schumer's not going anywhere.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 05 2020 12:13 PM Re: Politics 2020

Analysis from fivethirtyeight.com on Warren's failed presidential bid. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-warren-couldnt-win/ Also, Charlie Pierce's theory that Bloomberg's sole reason for running in the primaries was to sabotage Sanders and Warren's campaigns on behalf of the super-rich capitalists -- like himself. Michael Bloomberg Can Go Back to Being the Sugar Daddy of (Certain) Liberal Politics The liberal politics he likes. Not the Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren kind. Mike Bloomberg's wallet checked out of the Democratic presidential primary on Wednesday afternoon—$500 million lighter, but not any wiser, judging by the remarks of the guy who carries it around. From CNBC: “Today, I am leaving the race for the same reason: to defeat Donald Trump – because it is clear to me that staying in would make achieving that goal more difficult,” said the former New York mayor and billionaire, who had spent more than $500 million on his candidacy. I've always believed that defeating Donald Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it. After yesterday's vote, it is clear that candidate is my friend and a great American, Joe Biden.” What he's really saying, of course, is that the work of Mike Bloomberg's wallet is done. He got in when Biden was floundering and when it looked like either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren might sweep the field, and he and his lunch buddies hate that idea like death. (Sure, they might have thought neither of those people could have beaten the president*, but they were all scared down to their loafers that one of them might.) So in comes Bloomberg, and he carpet-bombs the Super Tuesday states with ads. Certainly, he had to sit through an improvised splenectomy performed on TV by Senator Professor Warren, but that was a small price to pay for helping to keep her non-viable in several Super Tuesday states. With Biden back on the rails, the essential money power is safe this time around, so why go through the fuss and bother of campaigning? He can go back to funding issue ads and so forth, and be a power behind whatever pieces of the throne are left when the current gang of vandals are done with it. He can go back to being the sugar daddy of liberal politics, keeping a weather eye open for any liberal politics that might cost him money he doesn't want to give away. The rich kid has left the playground, and we're all scrabbling for quarters at the snack bar. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a31229846/michael-bloomberg-drop-out-2020-presidential-race/

Edgy MD Mar 05 2020 12:20 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Never happen. Warren is too far left in the caucus. And Schumer's not going anywhere. Oh, I think that this last week may put ideas in people's heads.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 05 2020 12:22 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Never happen. Warren is too far left in the caucus. And Schumer's not going anywhere. Oh, I think that this last week may put ideas in people's heads. Whaddya mean?

kcmets Mar 05 2020 12:22 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: Agree re Elizabeth. I voted for her in my state's primary and will wait to see how that works out next week. We vote by mail out here. The voting by mail thing needs to stop unless someone absolutely needs to do an absentee ballot. The post office delivery rate sucks, postal workers can chuck out envelopes from people with last names they don't think vote like they do and there's like ten more things that could go wrong. Plus, you voted for someone who isn't running. Yay, what a system. Early voting sucks, it's crazy! Get your ass (not you, DS) to the polls, make election day an election weekend starting Fri night through Sunday evening if need be. Put me down for showing ID too, but I know that makes some heads spin here...

seawolf17 Mar 05 2020 12:28 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Never happen. Warren is too far left in the caucus. And Schumer's not going anywhere. Oh, I think that this last week may put ideas in people's heads. Whaddya mean? The fact that he threatened Supreme Court justices? Only the president and his goons can get away with openly threatening people, you know.

Double Switch Mar 05 2020 01:03 PM Re: Politics 2020 Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 05 2020 01:05 PM

Double Switch wrote: Agree re Elizabeth. I voted for her in my state's primary and will wait to see how that works out next week. We vote by mail out here. Plus, you voted for someone who isn't running. Yay, what a system. That will be dealt with. I'm not worried about it. As for the postal system, we actually have lots of neighborhood ballot drop boxes - mostly at neighborhood libraries, where I drop mine in. Also, no postage is required, so mailing in works too if you don't have a dropbox handy. I am not worried about anyone throwing away my ballot at the PO or fiddling with it electronically at a polling place. I should add that I can verify online that my ballot has been counted, which is one of the benefits of mail-in voting. I've done mail-in voting since back in the '90s and have faith in it. Maybe it's misplaced faith but it's one of the few things I believe in - the PO. The other is maniacal insistence upon voting no matter if "my" candidate didn't do well. They almost never do. That's why it's always disappointing to me when someone declares they refuse to vote for a candidate the majority favors out of a misplaced fit of pique (or petulance). If you cannot adjust to the majority rule ... that's childish and fits in the "cuts off nose to spite face" category. I'll be pissed if anyone decides to cut off their nose if Bernie fails to get the nomination. No one here would do that. Right?

Lefty Specialist Mar 05 2020 01:04 PM Re: Politics 2020

Vote by Mail works very well in Oregon and Washington. It also increases turnout. I always early vote by mail in NJ since it became available. I'd rather do that than vote on a machine built by the lowest bidder. Candidates dropping out isn't an issue since our primary's in June and there are only 2 choices in November. Would you rather vote by mail or wait on line for 5 hours, like some people in Texas did? Republicans don't want people to vote in non-Republican districts. That's a bigger problem than the US Postal Service. Schumer's already backtracked his comments after Mitch McConnell accused him of politicizing the Supreme Court. Yes, THAT Mitch McConnell, of Merrick Garland fame.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 05 2020 01:05 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Never happen. Warren is too far left in the caucus. And Schumer's not going anywhere. Oh, I think that this last week may put ideas in people's heads. Whaddya mean? The fact that he threatened Supreme Court justices? Only the president and his goons can get away with openly threatening people, you know. Lemme tell you something about this cocksucker Roberts who's now supposed to be the center of the Court (and what a scary thought that is!): He's done about as much as anbody else in this country to hinder democracy. Check out his oral argument on the first gerrymandering case that the court punted on. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand how insulting he was to anybody with half a brain with his "because we're all stupid" rationalization. Roberts claimed that the existing math isn't sophisticated enough to determine whether districts were extremely gerrymandered or not even though the math and data used to gerrymander is getting more robust and powerful by the day, so much so, that the statheads could probably rig district lines to ensure a Hitler victory if that's what they wanted to accomplish and Hitler was still alive. In Michigan, the scumbag GOP could retain power with, perhaps, as little as 25% of the vote. It's OK, though, when Trump tweets that Ginsburg and Sotamayor should recuse themselves from any cases involving the Trump administration, because they usually disagree with his policies. You can't make this shit up.

Double Switch Mar 05 2020 01:11 PM Re: Politics 2020

Don't forget Colorado. What would it be like if there were a National Primary vote by mail on one specific day? No state after state with one big day of states and then more states trickling in? I'd be in favor of that.

Double Switch Mar 05 2020 01:14 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Vote by Mail works very well in Oregon and Washington. Don't forget Colorado. What would it be like if there were a National Primary vote by mail on one specific day? No state after state with one big day of states and then more states trickling in. I'd be in favor of that. Lefty Specialist wrote: Schumer's already backtracked his comments after Mitch McConnell accused him of politicizing the Supreme Court. Yes, THAT Mitch McConnell, of Merrick Garland fame. That took supreme gall, but that's Moscow Mitch's wheelhouse.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 05 2020 01:16 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Schumer's already backtracked his comments after Mitch McConnell accused him of politicizing the Supreme Court. Yes, THAT Mitch McConnell, of Merrick Garland fame. Because they're fucking wimps. McConnell would've doubled down. And Garland is just the tip of the iceberg. They Garlanded about 100 lower court nominees, en masse. They killed the SCOTUS filibuster to get these animals Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court. And they killed the blue slip for Circuit Court nominees so they could pack those court with extremist Federalist Society clones that are young, unqualified -- many of them legal charlatans whose opinions have been - LITERALLY - compared to Sean Hannity's most incoherent rants. And they'll be there for life while Dems debate health care policies that'll never pass in the Senate and in any event, would get struck down by Trump's 5-4 errand boys at the Supreme Court. They don't even need Congress anymore. Just have a retard state like Alabama pass a crazy law to kill abortion rights and have a redneck state like Texas pass an absurd bill to kill Obamacare after they couldn't kill it in Congress after a zillion tries. Then sit back as those cases wind up at the top where Roberts and his 5-4's take the hatchet to health care and abortion rights.

Edgy MD Mar 05 2020 01:44 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Never happen. Warren is too far left in the caucus. And Schumer's not going anywhere. Oh, I think that this last week may put ideas in people's heads. Whaddya mean? It's pretty clear, isn't it? Minority Leader Schumer damaged his reputation and his party's positioning by speaking foolishly and irresponsibly.

seawolf17 Mar 06 2020 07:02 AM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Yes, THAT Mitch McConnell, of Merrick Garland fame. The single worst human being in history.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 06 2020 08:13 AM Re: Politics 2020

Well, THAT'S arguable!

MFS62 Mar 08 2020 08:26 AM Re: Politics 2020

Just in case you haven't forgotten about the administration's fight against protection for people with pre-existing conditions: As seen on Yahoo news: [code]Trump was asked at a Fox News town hall how he would protect pre-existing conditions since his administration supports a lawsuit that would do away with Obamacare, which guarantees those protections. At a recent town hall organized by Fox News, anchor Martha MacCallum asked Trump how he would protect pre-existing insurance protections for patients. Obamacare is about to turn 10 years old this month, but Trump has tried weakening the law throughout his presidency. Trump's answer to Fox News was erratic and offered scant detail. In a headspinning week with President Trump making misleading claims as the nation wrestles with the outbreak of coronavirus, he also weighed in on an issue that could upend the lives of nearly 54 million Americans. At a recent town hall organized by Fox News, anchor Martha MacCallum asked Trump how he would protect people with pre-existing conditions, which are guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act. President Obama signed it into law in March 2010 and it's his signature legislative achievement. As the ACA enters its 10th year of existence this month, the Trump administration continues efforts to unravel and dismantle the law, popularly known as Obamacare. It backs a lawsuit, Texas vs. Aznar, led by 18 Republican states seeking to toss out Obamacare – and the case is headed back to the Supreme Court next year. The Trump administration has tried weakening the law, such as by introducing short-term insurance plans that don't cover people with pre-existing conditions or many types of pricey hospital care. But its protections for people with pre-existing conditions are popular with Americans across party lines. That part of the law bars insurers from hiking premiums or denying coverage to a person due to an pre-existing illness like cancer. Read more: Nobel laureate Robert Shiller identifies a rising 'existential threat' to the economy's expansion — and tells us why it's similar to what made the Great Depression so severe The president previously vowed Republicans would be known as "the party of healthcare," but the GOP has struggled crafting an alternative to the law it sought to wipe out. Though Trump has repeatedly claimed any legislation replacing Obamacare would carry similar protections for patients, there is scant detail on what shape it would take. At the town hall, Trump said Republicans have done a "great" job in "managing" the ACA. MacCallum then asked: "Because the issue of pre-existing conditions, you say you're going to protect them. But your administration is also fighting Obamacare in the courts. So how do you promise you're going to protect them based on that?" Here's what the president said, per a White House transcript. TRUMP: "That's what I said. We want to terminate Obamacare because it's bad. Look, we're running it really well, but we know it's defective. It's very defective. We got rid of the worst part. And that was a very important thing. You know getting rid of the individual mandate was a very important thing. But we want to get something — if we can get the House, you'll have the best healthcare and health insurance anywhere on the planet. But we have to get the House back. Now, that means we have to hold the Senate. We have to get the House. We have to, obviously, keep the White House. But, what we're doing is managing it really well. Now, it's a case; it's called Texas vs. — you understand — it's Texas who is suing. They want to terminate it. But everybody there is also saying, and everybody — we have our great senator from Pennsylvania. Thank you very much, Pat, for being here. (Applause.) And Pat Toomey. And — but, very important — and our — by the way, our great congressmen, I have to say, they were warriors. Right? Real warriors, in terms of the fake impeachment. I will tell you that. (Applause.) But, so Texas is trying — and it's Texas and many states — they're trying to terminate, but they want to put something that's much better. They're terminating it to put much better. And they've all pledged that preexisting conditions, 100 percent taken care of[/code] Be scared. be very, very scared. Later

41Forever Mar 08 2020 05:42 PM Re: Politics 2020

Went to see Bernie Sanders today. Ever since the kids were little, I've taken them to see presidents or candidates. I think it's good for them to see and hear these people in person and up close, and we've had some nice experiences. (Al Gore asked my daughter for a high-five when she was three and sitting on my shoulders. We have a great photo from a news photographer friend!) I also get to add to my campaign memorabilia collection. As we were walking into the event today, a Sanders staffer asked if we wanted to be on the stage as part of the human backdrop. Would be inappropriate for me due to my job and the two prior jobs, but my daughter had fun up there. Was a great experience for her. Some takeaways: The crowd was huge. I've seen crowds this big in this space for rallies for candidates after the have the nomination, but never for a primary. No sitting political leader spoke, other than a member of the state Board of Education. Most of the Dem establishment in the state have lined up behind Biden. He had a former US Senator who, honestly, I though had passed away. He's not been prominent in a long time. Jesse Jackson spoke. He looked frail. I understand he is fighting Parkinson's Disease. But that's some nice star power. My daughter isn't a huge Sanders fan. She was pulling for Mayor Pete or Sen. Warren. But we had some good discussions about issues and what might be realistic solutions to some problems. A good day.

Lefty Specialist Mar 09 2020 08:39 AM Re: Politics 2020

Steve Bullock decides to run for Senate in Montana. A huge get for the Democrats that immediately puts that seat into play. Evicting Moscow Mitch just got a little bit easier.

Johnny Lunchbucket Mar 09 2020 10:26 AM Re: Politics 2020

Global market meltdown and real recession risk. Given that orange fuckface "takes credit" for the markets this isn;t good. I saw an economist speak a few months ago who basically said the economy by July of election year is a solid re-electability indicator

batmagadanleadoff Mar 10 2020 01:54 PM Re: Politics 2020

DC Circuit Court rules that House is entitled to Grand Jury materials from Mueller investigation. 2-1 decision. Naomi Rao was the dissenting judge. She's a charlatan Trump appointed judge. To give you an idea, so far, Trump has lost every decision at every court level in the multitude of cases seeking his tax returns. In all of those tax return cases, the only judge that sided with Trump was Rao, in a dissenting opinion at the Circuit Court. Her legal opinion was practically universally derided as total nutjobbery.

Lefty Specialist Mar 10 2020 06:41 PM Re: Politics 2020

Biden wins Mississippi, Missouri and it looks like Michigan, too. Bernie's options are narrowing.

MFS62 Mar 10 2020 07:37 PM Re: Politics 2020

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=33133 time=1583870091 user_id=68] Her legal opinion was practically universally derided as total nutjobbery.

A brief, but accurate, description of all Trump appointments.

Later

ashie62 Mar 11 2020 04:13 PM Re: Politics 2020

Saw this elsewhere. Democratic voters are so fatigued by Trump most dont have the stomach to run Sanders revolutionary agenda against Trump. In other words Rule 1 Beat Trump Rule 2 Don't forget rule one

Lefty Specialist Mar 11 2020 05:37 PM Re: Politics 2020

=ashie62 post_id=33245 time=1583964800 user_id=90] Saw this elsewhere. Democratic voters are so fatigued by Trump most dont have the stomach to run Sanders revolutionary agenda against Trump. In other words Rule 1 Beat Trump Rule 2 Don't forget rule one

Yes. Vote blue, no matter who.

Double Switch Mar 11 2020 06:27 PM Re: Politics 2020

Democratic voters are so fatigued by Trump most don't have the stomach to run Sanders' revolutionary agenda against Trump. This is a strange quote in that an agenda doesn't run for president. Agenda: " list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting." A better quote might be: "What we've got heah is failyah to communicate." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A Strother Martin stands in for brutal authority while Paul Newman demonstrates how standing up for oneself gets punished. The sole agenda item is to rid the nation of brutal authority and that's it. Hence: Don't forget Rule One.

Frayed Knot Mar 12 2020 03:43 AM Re: Politics 2020

And while we're on the subject of COOL HAND LUKE, a tribute to your avatar [YOUTUBE]ckulh3cSPuU[/YOUTUBE]

Double Switch Mar 12 2020 09:33 AM Re: Politics 2020

I hope you've all seen "Lucky." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rJ8OSjhdM

Lefty Specialist Mar 12 2020 11:12 AM Re: Politics 2020

@EricTrump · Feb 28 In my opinion, it's a great time to buy stocks or into your 401K. I would be all in... let's see if I'm right...

Willets Point Mar 12 2020 12:27 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: @EricTrump · Feb 28 In my opinion, it's a great time to buy stocks or into your 401K. I would be all in... let's see if I'm right... https://media.tenor.co/images/206915fd3925e1e6543bb93c70438ab4/tenor.gif>

batmagadanleadoff Mar 12 2020 12:50 PM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: @EricTrump · Feb 28 In my opinion, it's a great time to buy stocks or into your 401K. I would be all in... let's see if I'm right... https://media.tenor.co/images/206915fd3925e1e6543bb93c70438ab4/tenor.gif> I'll betcha he didnt buy a single stock. If anything, he sold, and made that statement hoping he'd boost the market before he sold and also, help his grifting father by spreading confidence.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 12 2020 01:05 PM Re: Politics 2020

Brazilian official tests positive for coronavirus days after visiting Trump https://www.thedailybeast.com/fabio-wajngarten-brazilian-official-who-met-trump-at-mar-a-lago-reportedly-tests-positive-for-coronavirus A Brazilian government official who attended a meeting at Donald Trump's Florida resort on Saturday and posted a photo of himself standing next to the U.S. president and Vice President Mike Pence has tested positive for the 2019 novel coronavirus, Brazil's presidential office confirmed on Thursday. However, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement that Trump and Pence had “almost no interactions” with the senior aide and “do not require being tested at this time.” https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_669,w_1190,x_0,y_136/dpr_1.5/c_limit,w_1044/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1584028051/Screen_Shot_2020-03-12_at_11.47.02_AM_juvp8t> https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k/dpr_1.5/c_limit,w_690/fl_lossy,q_auto/GettyImages-1205709260_yartni>

Edgy MD Mar 12 2020 01:20 PM Re: Politics 2020

Not to doubt your report, but something's going on with those photos.

kcmets Mar 12 2020 01:30 PM Re: Politics 2020

Jeff Wilpon's head needs to Photoshop-ed onto Jared's shoulders NOW!! [FIMG=750]https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k/dpr_1.5/c_limit,w_690/fl_lossy,q_auto/GettyImages-1205709260_yartni[/FIMG]

ashie62 Mar 12 2020 02:39 PM Re: Politics 2020

The 2020 US Presidential Election has been suspended indefinitely due to the pandemic

MFS62 Mar 12 2020 02:51 PM Re: Politics 2020

Jeff Wilpon's head needs to Photoshop-ed onto Jared's shoulders NOW!! [FIMG=750]https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k/dpr_1.5/c_limit,w_690/fl_lossy,q_auto/GettyImages-1205709260_yartni[/FIMG] A bag of hammers is smarter than that group. Later

kcmets Mar 12 2020 03:11 PM Re: Politics 2020

=MFS62 post_id=33327 time=1584046280 user_id=60]A bag of hammers is smarter than that group.

Whatever.



Anyone think Sanjay Gupta is looking to run for Prez in 2024?

MFS62 Mar 12 2020 03:18 PM Re: Politics 2020

A bag of hammers is smarter than that group. Whatever. Anyone think Sanjay Gupta is looking to run for Prez in 2024? Surgeon General? https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnns-dr-sanjay-gupta-dumbfounded-by-trumps-coronavirus-advice?source=cheats&via=rss Later

Willets Point Mar 12 2020 05:35 PM Re: Politics 2020

This all could lead to President Pelosi before long.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 14 2020 01:34 PM Re: Politics 2020

Big rumblings in the legal community as the Harvard Law Review is set to publish an article penned by a sitting Federal District Court Judge destroying the Roberts Supreme Court. The article is unprecedented, both in its criticism, its harsh tone and that it was authored by an active judge. More on that later. In an unrelated development, a retired state judge from Hawaii who had argued several cases before the US Supreme Court in his distinguished career, resigns from the Supreme Court Bar out of protest to the extreme rightward radical shift of the judiciary. Here's his letter to Chief Justice Roberts: James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. He has appeared on briefs and petitions as part of the most prestigious association of attorneys in the country: the Supreme Court Bar. The lawyers admitted to practice before the high court enjoy preferred seating at arguments and access to the court library, and are deemed members of the legal elite. Above all, the bar stands as a sprawling national signifier that the work of the court, the legitimacy of the institution, and the business of justice is bolstered by tens of thousands of lawyers across the nation. On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter, reprinted in full below, Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations. The Chief Justice of the United States One First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20543 March 11, 2020 Dear Chief Justice Roberts: I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar. This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court's decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends. I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law. The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst. Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court's history, but not to today's extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry. Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today's polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise. It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America. I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around. I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can't vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide. Please remove my name from the rolls. With deepest regret, James Dannenberg https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/judge-james-dannenberg-supreme-court-bar-roberts-letter.html

Lefty Specialist Mar 15 2020 03:49 PM Re: Politics 2020

Biden and Bernie go at it tonight at 8 PM on CNN. I'm guessing this'll have a huge audience because there's nothing else to watch.

kcmets Mar 15 2020 07:28 PM Re: Politics 2020

I dunno, seems like two crazy old coots going at it. Depressing.

Lefty Specialist Mar 16 2020 08:52 AM Re: Politics 2020

Joe came off as calmer and more presidential than waving-his-arms-constantly Bernie. No major missteps for Biden, which is really all he had to do. And vowing to pick a woman VP was interesting. My money's on Kamala.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 16 2020 09:08 AM Re: Politics 2020

So that means it won't' be Andrew Gillum?

kcmets Mar 16 2020 09:16 AM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: My money's on Kamala. Seconded.

Edgy MD Mar 16 2020 09:28 AM Re: Politics 2020

I feel like questions like that are bait. A female vice president would be great, but allowing questioners to paint you into corners like that is foolish.

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 09:53 AM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: I feel like questions like that are bait. A female vice president would be great, but allowing questioners to paint you into corners like that is foolish. I suspect that was Joe's plan anyway so why not announce it and score bigly is how I see it.

Willets Point Mar 16 2020 11:11 AM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: And vowing to pick a woman VP was interesting. https://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/media.central.ie/media/images/h/HillaryClintonWaving_large.jpg>

Edgy MD Mar 16 2020 11:46 AM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I feel like questions like that are bait. A female vice president would be great, but allowing questioners to paint you into corners like that is foolish. I suspect that was Joe's plan anyway so why not announce it and score bigly is how I see it. Perhaps that's true. Even if it is, though, I'm sure vetting isn't complete.

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 11:56 AM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Double Switch wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I feel like questions like that are bait. A female vice president would be great, but allowing questioners to paint you into corners like that is foolish. I suspect that was Joe's plan anyway so why not announce it and score bigly is how I see it. Perhaps that's true. Even if it is, though, I'm sure vetting isn't complete. I suspect there is much negotiating going on we'll never know about because of so many of the drop-out Democratic candidates are excellent and skilled in areas we need to repair/rebuild/remediate the nation. I see many former candidates being perfect fits in Biden's cabinet. I see a better place than VP for Kamala Harris, for one. My thought is that Amy Klobuchar would make an excellent running mate because she has a massive following and is an obviously strong woman. Women want a strong woman standing next to Biden and many more strong women repairing the nation via cabinet posts. I'm not saying it would be entirely a female cabinet but when it comes to rounding up that northern mid-west vote and women's votes, my wish is that Klobuchar be the VP candidate. She speaks to that part of the nation from whence she comes and he needs that vote. Here's another thought about that question: Biden and Sanders knew it was coming so being candid was a good tactic for Joe.

kcmets Mar 16 2020 11:57 AM Re: Politics 2020

I can't picture Hillary being second fiddle to anyone at this point, but especially Joe Biden. Then again, she could just eliminate him and she'd get to be Prez. What Happened ll!

Frayed Knot Mar 16 2020 01:19 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: I feel like questions like that are bait. A female vice president would be great, but allowing questioners to paint you into corners like that is foolish. Joe B volunteered that one, no prompting necessary, as was his vow to make a black/female the next SC nominee. Any corners he got painted into on those was via his own doing.

ashie62 Mar 16 2020 01:23 PM Re: Politics 2020

It appears the Governor of Ohio is taking steps to suspend tomorrows primary.

Edgy MD Mar 16 2020 01:24 PM Re: Politics 2020

I thought Senator Sanders came with that second one (black, female Supreme Courtier).

Chad ochoseis Mar 16 2020 01:28 PM Re: Politics 2020

=ashie62 post_id=33494 time=1584386628 user_id=90] It appears the Governor of Ohio is taking steps to suspend tomorrows primary.

Voting by mail, deadline June 2.

Frayed Knot Mar 16 2020 01:32 PM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: I thought Senator Sanders came with that second one (black, female Supreme Courtier). Possibly, I lost track. That was the only question of the whole thing I watched. What started as a question about protecting women from violence turned into such a pandering list of nonsense that I turned it off.

TransMonk Mar 16 2020 01:35 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: I'm not saying it would be entirely a female cabinet but when it comes to rounding up that northern mid-west vote and women's votes, my wish is that Klobuchar be the VP candidate. She speaks to that part of the nation from whence she comes and he needs that vote. I'm not sold that Klobuchar nails down that vote. Minnesota is not Wisconsin nor Michigan (regardless of how Amy really wanted to lump it all together during her campaign). In fact, I think Biden speaks better himself to that crowd than Klob. The fact that he did so well in the MN primary reassures me that Klob is not necessarily needed. I still think the bottom line is going to be turnout instead of trying to change minds. A WOC might be a better pick in that scenario. This thing is going to twist and turn a million different ways between now and the convention...not to mention November. No sense in Biden cementing in a running mate now.

Frayed Knot Mar 16 2020 01:46 PM Re: Politics 2020

And the number of Presidential elections which were decided by the choice of running mate is ... ? Impossible to say with any certainty, but I suspect the number is real close to zero.

Willets Point Mar 16 2020 01:54 PM Re: Politics 2020

=kcmets post_id=33486 time=1584381446 user_id=53] I can't picture Hillary being second fiddle to anyone at this point, but especially Joe Biden. Then again, she could just eliminate him and she'd get to be Prez. What Happened ll!

She'll be VP like Dick Cheney was VP.

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 01:57 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: I'm not saying it would be entirely a female cabinet but when it comes to rounding up that northern mid-west vote and women's votes, my wish is that Klobuchar be the VP candidate. She speaks to that part of the nation from whence she comes and he needs that vote. I'm not sold that Klobuchar nails down that vote. Minnesota is not Wisconsin nor Michigan (regardless of how Amy really wanted to lump it all together during her campaign). In fact, I think Biden speaks better himself to that crowd than Klob. The fact that he did so well in the MN primary reassures me that Klob is not necessarily needed. I still think the bottom line is going to be turnout instead of trying to change minds. A WOC might be a better pick in that scenario. This thing is going to twist and turn a million different ways between now and the convention...not to mention November. No sense in Biden cementing in a running mate now. Do you truly want to waste a WOC in the role of VP? I don't. I want all, as you say, WOC selected in dynamic roles throughout the administration. High visibility roles. Because I am old enough to recall the assessment from John Nance Garner regarding the role of VP, which is that it's "not worth a bucket of warm spit." Speaking of WOC, I prefer to see Kamala Harris as Attorney General, not VP.

Willets Point Mar 16 2020 01:59 PM Re: Politics 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: And the number of Presidential elections which were decided by the choice of running mate is ... ? Impossible to say with any certainty, but I suspect the number is real close to zero. The Election of 1800 in a very weird way.

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 02:00 PM Re: Politics 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I feel like questions like that are bait. A female vice president would be great, but allowing questioners to paint you into corners like that is foolish. Joe B volunteered that one, no prompting necessary, as was his vow to make a black/female the next SC nominee. Any corners he got painted into on those was via his own doing. I don't understand why you think these statements are "corners" Biden painted himself into. Don't you believe it's appropriate to nominate a Black woman for the SC? If you don't, that's disappointing.

Frayed Knot Mar 16 2020 02:21 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: I don't understand why you think these statements are "corners" Biden painted himself into. I was answering in response to Edgy's view that it was a leading question which prompted him into pre-declaring the sex of his running mate and/or first SC appointment. My view was that Joe stepped out and declared it all on his own and that the question which brought up the topic didn't steer him in that direction at all. Don't you believe it's appropriate to nominate a Black woman for the SC? If you don't, that's disappointing. I think it's appropriate for him nominate anyone he wants. I'm less jazzed about any candidate stating in advance that they will restrict their most important choices to only those who fit a particular narrow ethnic/racial/gender profile.

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 02:27 PM Re: Politics 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: Double Switch wrote: I don't understand why you think these statements are "corners" Biden painted himself into. I was answering in response to Edgy's view that it was a leading question which prompted him into pre-declaring the sex of his running mate and/or first SC appointment. My view was that Joe stepped out and declared it all on his own and that the question which brought up the topic didn't steer him in that direction at all. Don't you believe it's appropriate to nominate a Black woman for the SC? If you don't, that's disappointing. I think it's appropriate for him nominate anyone he wants. I'm less jazzed about any candidate stating in advance that they will restrict their most important choices to only those who fit a particular narrow ethnic/racial/gender profile. Thanks for clarifying. I missed that about your answering Edgy. However, I would continue to believe that there are sufficiently qualified candidates among Black or other WOC to make a commendable nomination to the SC, certainly far better than the two white guys that are the SC newbies thanks to Trump.

Frayed Knot Mar 16 2020 03:29 PM Re: Politics 2020

But if you have a problem with Trump's nominees it shouldn't be about them being white males but rather over how they go about interpreting their jobs, and fighting identity politics with identity politics does nothing but keep us in this same shitty cycle by promoting the idea that if someone doesn't look like you and isn't the same [insert ethnicity here] like you then they can't possibly represent you.

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 04:15 PM Re: Politics 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: But if you have a problem with Trump's nominees it shouldn't be about them being white males but rather over how they go about interpreting their jobs, and fighting identity politics with identity politics does nothing but keep us in this same shitty cycle by promoting the idea that if someone doesn't look like you and isn't the same [insert ethnicity here] like you then they can't possibly represent you. I'm going to go with not overthinking this. Let's just say I'm still cheesed off about Merrick Garland, very white man. Recall that I am an ardent "D" voter so I must be in that Rainbow boat that demands quality over all else and the white man "quota" has been overfilled.

kcmets Mar 16 2020 05:39 PM Re: Politics 2020

I'm going with 'equality for everyone' and 'best person for the job' and 'unless they are old and white' is total hypocrite bullshit.

TransMonk Mar 16 2020 05:56 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: Speaking of WOC, I prefer to see Kamala Harris as Attorney General, not VP. Definitely!

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 06:04 PM Re: Politics 2020

=kcmets post_id=33519 time=1584401991 user_id=53] I'm going with 'equality for everyone' and 'best person for the job' and 'unless they are old and white' is total hypocrite bullshit.

So you must have your skivvies in a bunch over Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Or ... not.

kcmets Mar 16 2020 06:17 PM Re: Politics 2020

I have my skivvies in a bunch over people who preach tolerance for all but in practice can't include everyone for whatever reason. It's quite simple if you take off the blinders.

Frayed Knot Mar 16 2020 06:22 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: Recall that I am an ardent "D" voter so I must be in that Rainbow boat that demands quality over all else and the white man "quota" has been overfilled. But limiting a choice to one specific group is the opposite of demanding quality over all else since it puts the 'all else' first and only searches for quality after pre-eliminating the majority of other potential candidates based solely on them not fitting a specific ethnic/gender/racial role.

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 06:53 PM Re: Politics 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: Double Switch wrote: Recall that I am an ardent "D" voter so I must be in that Rainbow boat that demands quality over all else and the white man "quota" has been overfilled. But limiting a choice to one specific group is the opposite of demanding quality over all else since it puts the 'all else' first and only searches for quality after pre-eliminating the majority of other potential candidates based solely on them not fitting a specific ethnic/gender/racial role. I'm surprised at you. I thought you were a more global thinker than this. Seriously. I cannot take you seriously. You're the one spouting this tack, not me. If you find this humorous, sure, go for it. Nowhere did I use the word "limited." You infer far more than what was there.

Double Switch Mar 16 2020 06:56 PM Re: Politics 2020

=kcmets post_id=33522 time=1584404265 user_id=53] I have my skivvies in a bunch over people who preach tolerance for all but in practice can't include everyone for whatever reason. It's quite simple if you take off the blinders.

You amuse me. But not very much.

kcmets Mar 16 2020 07:15 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: You amuse me. I'll be here all week, remember your bartender and waitstaff!

Frayed Knot Mar 16 2020 08:04 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: I'm surprised at you. I thought you were a more global thinker than this. Seriously. I cannot take you seriously. You're the one spouting this tack, not me. If you find this humorous, sure, go for it. I prefer an important choice be made from ALL potential candidates not just from within a narrow wedge of the pie. So this this somehow makes me "not global"? ... I have no idea what you mean by that. And I'm spouting WHAT tack? And what makes you think I'm pursuing this 'tack' because I find the topic humorous? Nowhere did I use the word "limited." Maybe not, but Biden did. Not that word maybe, but by saying he will only consider his choice from one quite narrow slice* within the whole he is being extremely limited in his thinking. Maybe look at it this way: there has never been a SC justice (or even nominee) of Asian descent even though they now make up a growing portion of our population** and possibly an even larger portion of our law school graduates. And yet candidate Joe is stating in advance that he has absolutely no intention of even considering nominating one of them for the next SC opening. How is that "global thinking"? How is that progressive thinking? How is that even remotely wise or fair thinking? * black Americans represent some 12-14% of the population and females about half of that ... so he is pledging to pre-eliminate some 93-94% of potential candidates based on nothing more than race & gender ** including relatives of mine and including an east Asian-born lawyer among this board's regular members

Edgy MD Mar 16 2020 08:38 PM Re: Politics 2020

Yeah, if I'm committed to Americans — black, white, male, female — I'm not going to eliminate 94% of jurists right off the bat on some category box I need to check. It's a crucial job, not an opportunity to show off how committed I am. If I'm truly committed (and I hope I would be, as president), I build equity from the ground up. If I'm asked if I commit to picking X or Y category as my vice presidential running mate, I respond that I'm certainly committed to not eliminating a qualified person because she's a woman. It's also a big part of the reason we have Justice Clarence Thomas. When Justice Marshall retired, Congressional opposition leaders stated openly that President Bush had better pick an African-American for the job. President Bush, not usually known for his political jiu-jitsu, said "Sure!" and gave them a justice that they couldn't possibly accept ideologically, but were afraid to oppose, even after the embarrassing hearings, because Bush gave them what they asked for and if they rejected Justice Thomas, the president just probably just throw them a white guy who was similar ideologically, and probably more qualified than Justice Thomas was at the time. It turned out to be the ones trying to paint Bush in that got trapped in the corner.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 16 2020 11:01 PM Re: Politics 2020

Good points all around but I think there's some overreacting here because DS would probably be quite pleased if the next SCOTUS justice was a bona fide WASP so long as she thought like RBG. Edgy MD wrote: .... It's also a big part of the reason we have Justice Clarence Thomas. When Justice Marshall retired, Congressional opposition leaders stated openly that President Bush had better pick an African-American for the job. President Bush, not usually known for his political jiu-jitsu, said "Sure!" and gave them a justice that they couldn't possibly accept ideologically, but were afraid to oppose, even after the embarrassing hearings, because Bush gave them what they asked for and if they rejected Justice Thomas, the president just probably just throw them a white guy who was similar ideologically, and probably more qualified than Justice Thomas was at the time. When it comes to the judiciary, the GOP's always like 25 moves ahead of the Dems, ain't it? Meanwhile, you'd think Mitch McConnell would be quite satisfied he's been using his senate majority to pack the courts with Federalist Society extremists and unqualified wingnuts, wouldn't you. And what else would you call it but court-packing after the GOP blocked not just Merrick Garland, but every single Obama nominee, about 100 in all, once the GOP retook the senate in 2014? You'd think Mitch would be satisfied with the way he's rammed through every Trump pick -- killing the SCOTUS filibuster and the Circuit Court blue slip -- but he's not. His new move is to persuade senior GOP picked Federal judges to retire now so that he can replace them with fresh wingnuts and extremists 30 years younger. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has used his position as majority leader to build a judicial confirmation juggernaut for President Trump over the past three years, has been personally reaching out to judges to sound them out on their plans and assure them that they would have a worthy successor if they gave up their seats soon, according to multiple people with knowledge of his actions...One of his Republican colleagues said others had also initiated outreach in an effort to heighten awareness among judges nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush that making the change now would be advantageous. [***] In a purely academic sense, you have to admire how they've done it. Because Democratic voters have been completely oblivious to the importance of the federal courts in casting their ballots, the Republicans had a clear field of which they could take advantage, and McConnell has done it so thoroughly that he will be an important figure in American politics for decades after he's dead. I hereby apologize, in advance, to my eventual great-grandchildren. Here's my favorite quote: “Senator McConnell knows he can't achieve any of his extreme goals legislatively, so he continues to attempt to pull America to the far right by packing the courts,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said in a statement. He predicted that his counterpart's emphasis on the courts “will significantly hurt Republican senators in November.” Because if this does lead to a Dem takeover come November, I'm wondering what Schumer intends to do with it? What's he gonna do -- cross his fingers and hope that all these new Fed Society wingnuts suddenly get the urge to retire right then and there under a Dem administration so that the Dems can then reclaim the hijacked judiciary? https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a31677614/mitch-mcconnell-old-republican-judges-retire/ What the hell is the plan ferchrissakes?

Ceetar Mar 17 2020 07:25 AM Re: Politics 2020

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=33556 time=1584421266 user_id=68] What the hell is the plan ferchrissakes?

I admittedly avoid a lot of the in depth primary stuff, but plenty leaks through, like here. Warren's the only one I felt hopeful about having a real plan. Bernie's a lot like Jon Snow. I think a lot of good will happen with him as president, but I don't know that he's up to some of the more 'in the trenches' things against specifically the traitorous republicans trying to destroy the country.

Double Switch Mar 17 2020 10:36 AM Re: Politics 2020

Frayed Knot wrote: Double Switch wrote: I'm surprised at you. I thought you were a more global thinker than this. Seriously. I cannot take you seriously. You're the one spouting this tack, not me. If you find this humorous, sure, go for it. I prefer an important choice be made from ALL potential candidates not just from within a narrow wedge of the pie. So this this somehow makes me "not global"? ... I have no idea what you mean by that. And I'm spouting WHAT tack? And what makes you think I'm pursuing this 'tack' because I find the topic humorous? Nowhere did I use the word "limited." Maybe not, but Biden did. Not that word maybe, but by saying he will only consider his choice from one quite narrow slice* within the whole he is being extremely limited in his thinking. Maybe look at it this way: there has never been a SC justice (or even nominee) of Asian descent even though they now make up a growing portion of our population** and possibly an even larger portion of our law school graduates. And yet candidate Joe is stating in advance that he has absolutely no intention of even considering nominating one of them for the next SC opening. How is that "global thinking"? How is that progressive thinking? How is that even remotely wise or fair thinking? * black Americans represent some 12-14% of the population and females about half of that ... so he is pledging to pre-eliminate some 93-94% of potential candidates based on nothing more than race & gender ** including relatives of mine and including an east Asian-born lawyer among this board's regular members Seriously. This is what twirls your tassels. We're in a pandemic and you have ramped up your temp over my wish that the next SC nominee is a female of color. Just OMG. I'm giving you a break since I'm a little busy in real life.

kcmets Mar 17 2020 11:06 AM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: Seriously. This is what twirls your tassels. Yeah he's had his online tassels in a twirl since like 1998! lol Double Switch wrote: I'm giving you a break since I'm a little busy in real life. Busy poking things and retreating when called on it seems to me. It's like the sixth time in as many weeks. I don't care, mind you, just letting you know how obvious your little game (experiment, I think you called it) is.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 17 2020 12:14 PM Re: Politics 2020

=Ceetar post_id=33566 time=1584451544 user_id=102] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=33556 time=1584421266 user_id=68] What the hell is the plan ferchrissakes?

I admittedly avoid a lot of the in depth primary stuff, but plenty leaks through, like here. Warren's the only one I felt hopeful about having a real plan. Bernie's a lot like Jon Snow. I think a lot of good will happen with him as president, but I don't know that he's up to some of the more 'in the trenches' things against specifically the traitorous republicans trying to destroy the country.

Bernie's on record as being against court packing. But this is mind boggling. The GOP's already hijacked the courts. And they're not done. They have more plans. It's like a football team up 35-0 midway through the 4rh quarter and they come out throwing 50 yard bombs on their next possession. This is why the Dems are where they are. Because of the Amy Klobuchars and their happy talk about playing nice with McConnell.

Ceetar Mar 17 2020 12:21 PM Re: Politics 2020

I mean, I hope Bernie reconsiders that stance. Primary/campaign stance is not really the same thing as "I'm the president" stance as everything is triple-calculated towards 'electability'. Especially for someone that is being cast as someone that's going to destroy the government already. Someone might have told him that stance is too radical. Of they might all have their heads in the sand. Honestly I wish Obama had fought back in ANY capacity to the Garland thing.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 17 2020 01:04 PM Re: Politics 2020

I mean, I hope Bernie reconsiders that stance. Primary/campaign stance is not really the same thing as "I'm the president" stance as everything is triple-calculated towards 'electability'. Especially for someone that is being cast as someone that's going to destroy the government already. Someone might have told him that stance is too radical. Of they might all have their heads in the sand. Honestly I wish Obama had fought back in ANY capacity to the Garland thing. That's very true. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, the GOP told John McCain to retract his threat to continue to blockade the Dem SCOTUS nominee pick had HRC won the White House with the GOP holding the Senate. The blockade was seen as a risky move and the GOP was not quite sure how the electorate would react.

Frayed Knot Mar 17 2020 03:06 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: Seriously. This is what twirls your tassels. We're in a pandemic and you have ramped up your temp over my wish that the next SC nominee is a female of color. Just OMG. I'm giving you a break since I'm a little busy in real life. I think you're the one with twirling tassels here. You began this part of the discussion by describing my wish to see the best nominees rather than pre-limiting selections only within certain ethnic categories as: 'surprising', 'disappointing', 'not global' enough (still don't know what that means), and 'not worthy of being taken seriously'. I also said that I was concerned when a candidate(s) panders for votes by pre-declaring his/their narrow criteria. It's quite irrelevant to me how you would go about picking one.

Double Switch Mar 17 2020 05:38 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: Seriously. This is what twirls your tassels. Yeah he's had his online tassels in a twirl since like 1998! lol Double Switch wrote: I'm giving you a break since I'm a little busy in real life. Busy poking things and retreating when called on it seems to me. It's like the sixth time in as many weeks. I don't care, mind you, just letting you know how obvious your little game (experiment, I think you called it) is. So the word "experiment" sorely offends you. Curious. Here is the description of the experiment: "Can a complete stranger join an established group of people, many of whom know each other in person, and become part of the discussion?" So far the results are a distinct "no." I don't have time set aside to lurk here each/all day. I check each day but if there's not much going on, I move to the next thing. I owe you no explanations, as mentioned before. I'm not intrigued by minutiae and won't take time to dissect each post, assure I am addressing the appropriate person when adding a comment, and I'm not bothering to take offense at what's coming my way because - I don't know any of you in real life. It's fun to see how agitated some of you get over nothing much.

kcmets Mar 17 2020 05:58 PM Re: Politics 2020

Glad to further amuse you.

Edgy MD Mar 17 2020 06:10 PM Re: Politics 2020

Double Switch wrote: It's fun to see how agitated some of you get over nothing much. I'll be chewing this one for a bit.

kcmets Mar 17 2020 07:11 PM Re: Politics 2020

http://www.thecranepool.net/phpBB32/download/file.php?avatar=112_1582266378.jpg>http://www.thecranepool.net/phpBB32/download/file.php?avatar=53_1578069439.png> My avatar is way better than your avatar. Is that like one of those 'knock this battery off my shoulder' actors from the 70's?

LWFS Mar 18 2020 12:54 AM Re: Politics 2020

Harry Dean Stanton, ya Phillie-Steen.

Edgy MD Mar 18 2020 05:58 AM Re: Politics 2020

So, a question that occurred to me late last night: With President Trump, Vice President Biden, and Senator Sanders all in a high-risk category, should any one of them fall ill, can they turn over their campaign and cede their delegates to a successor in the event of their disability or demise? My assumption is that these delegates would be free. Many or most might honor the candidate's wishes, but would not be required to do so. And should a Candidate Biden pledge his delegates to Senator Harris, Congressman Kennedy, or Mott the Hoople, supporters of Senator Sanders (should he remain alive and well) would insist that these delegates rightly belong to him.

kcmets Mar 18 2020 08:10 AM Re: Politics 2020

=LWFS post_id=33615 time=1584514493 user_id=84]Harry Dean Stanton, ya Phillie-Steen.

I know who it is, was trying to remember if he did any of the Eveready commercials.

Google tells me it seems to be solely Robert Conrad. I thought there were multiple

actors who participated in that pre-bunny campaign.

Lefty Specialist Mar 18 2020 09:18 AM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: So, a question that occurred to me late last night: With President Trump, Vice President Biden, and Senator Sanders all in a high-risk category, should any one of them fall ill, can they turn over their campaign and cede their delegates to a successor in the event of their disability or demise? My assumption is that these delegates would be free. Many or most might honor the candidate's wishes, but would not be required to do so. And should a Candidate Biden pledge his delegates to Senator Harris, Congressman Kennedy, or Mott the Hoople, supporters of Senator Sanders (should he remain alive and well) would insist that these delegates rightly belong to him. One of the reasons this needs to wrap up now (looking at you, Bernie). Biden needs to move to November-election footing. Get the Obama endorsement. Get the Warren endorsement. Name a VP candidate with the tacit understanding that if he were to be incapacitated, this person would be his choice to lead (this would make it more likely that he names a Senator or Governor as they need to have some stature within the party). Bernie's basically got a week to prepare his supporters. If he refuses to drop out, ignore him as irrelevant. He can't hold big rallies anymore so he can't control the narrative/media time. But the next few weeks are primary-less, so there'll be a gap that Biden can fill if he does it right. He shouldn't do these all at once. He should roll them out one a week. Control the narrative. And push hard for Vote-by-Mail, NOW, so Mango Mussolini can't try to cancel the election in November due to 'health concerns' .

Ceetar Mar 18 2020 09:32 AM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: And push hard for Vote-by-Mail, NOW, so Mango Mussolini can't try to cancel the election in November due to 'health concerns' . This stuff is the only thing that matters. it doesn't matter who the candidate is. it's irrelevant. We've apparently decided (rigged, biased system I know) that the only thing important is ousting trump so do it. hammer the "he's killing us" stuff and all his failing. Blame him for the lack of chicken in the supermarket. Highlight all his failing on things that are actively hurting people now.

Willets Point Mar 18 2020 09:44 AM Re: Politics 2020

Biden could get Sanders to drop out in an instant if he agreed to consider incredibly popular ideas like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal for his platform. I'm pretty the only reason Sanders is still in right now is because he knows that Biden's "I'm Going to Work With My Best Buddies in the Republican Party" platform is a dead-in-the-water come November. Meeting the Republicans halfway to do what? Put kids into nicer cages? People who like Fascism will vote for the Fascists, not watered-down Fascism. Everyone else is going to stay home in large numbers unless Biden and the Dem establishment learn to adapt and compromise with the people who like the popular ideas Sanders' supports, even if they don't like Sanders himself.

Edgy MD Mar 19 2020 09:52 AM Re: Politics 2020

Congresswoman Gabbard drops her campaign and endorses Vice President Biden. Literally dozens are left brokenhearted.

LWFS Mar 19 2020 10:46 AM Re: Politics 2020

You'd be surprised how many people you know feel strongly about Tulsi. Like, POSITIVE strongly. It's like a much less successful, older-skewing iteration of that weird Bernie-Cult wing of the Sanders support base. Willets Point wrote: Biden could get Sanders to drop out in an instant if he agreed to consider incredibly popular ideas like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal for his platform. I'm pretty the only reason Sanders is still in right now is because he knows that Biden's "I'm Going to Work With My Best Buddies in the Republican Party" platform is a dead-in-the-water come November. Meeting the Republicans halfway to do what? Put kids into nicer cages? People who like Fascism will vote for the Fascists, not watered-down Fascism. Everyone else is going to stay home in large numbers unless Biden and the Dem establishment learn to adapt and compromise with the people who like the popular ideas Sanders' supports, even if they don't like Sanders himself. Pretty telling that they HAVEN'T made moves to incorporate those parts of his platform, then, isn't it?

Edgy MD Mar 19 2020 11:07 AM Re: Politics 2020

Oh, I believe folks feel strongly, but I figured they were more realistic about her moment having passed. Really, you almost never want to be the first to declare. But some folks are so far behind in name recognition and fundraising that they figure their best chance is to be the only one in the field for a few weeks.

Lefty Specialist Mar 19 2020 12:35 PM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: Biden could get Sanders to drop out in an instant if he agreed to consider incredibly popular ideas like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal for his platform. I'm pretty the only reason Sanders is still in right now is because he knows that Biden's "I'm Going to Work With My Best Buddies in the Republican Party" platform is a dead-in-the-water come November. Meeting the Republicans halfway to do what? Put kids into nicer cages? People who like Fascism will vote for the Fascists, not watered-down Fascism. Everyone else is going to stay home in large numbers unless Biden and the Dem establishment learn to adapt and compromise with the people who like the popular ideas Sanders' supports, even if they don't like Sanders himself. The problem is that M4A is popular until you get into the details, and then it's not. Losing your current insurance? Unpopular. $32 Trillion? Unpopular. Raising taxes on the middle class? Unpopular. Now, before you gallop off, I KNOW that $32 Trillion is less than we're spending now. But that's Elizabeth Warren's number. Bernie won't even assign a number to it. So once the Republican noise machine got hold of that we'd all be dying in the streets like Venezuela. Eliminating student debt? Great idea, until you get into the details. The guy who busted his ass straight out of high school won't be crazy about that plan. Green New Deal? It's a bunch of concepts, not a real plan. Making it all work is hard. Bernie just thought he could wave a magic wand and 'poof'- revolution. Real life is not that way. Biden should give a nod to these things. But being there at the birth of Obamacare, he's going to look to repair and strengthen it. He can have the aspiration of covering everyone, but he'll work to get what's possible. Student debt, he'll tinker around the edges. There are things that can be done that Betsy Devos has sabotaged. Green New Deal, just getting rid of Trump (and hopefully Republicans in the Senate) will go a long way towards sanity. Bernie can yell about fracking, but it'll be ended by Putin and MBS cutting prices and a sharp downturn in demand, not by legislative action. Biden knows this. Politics is the art of the possible, as they say. If Biden gets a Democratic Senate, things can get done, even some things that'll please Bernie. If Bernie keeps attacking Biden and fighting him for another couple of months, we all lose. It's Bernie than needs to accommodate, not Joe. And I say this as a Warren fan who likes Bernie's ideas but hates him as a messenger.

TransMonk Mar 19 2020 12:53 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: The problem is that M4A is popular until you get into the details, and then it's not. Losing your current insurance? Unpopular. $32 Trillion? Unpopular. Raising taxes on the middle class? Unpopular. I have a feeling most Americans conflate "current insurance" with "current doctor". Some of this trepidation may go back to the Obama "if you like your doctor..." debacle, but honestly, who likes their insurance company? Some plans may be better than others, but c'mon. The differences between plans boil down to deductible, co-pay, and premium costs which would go away under M4A. I would love to hear even a fraction of people explain why they couldn't handle losing their current private insurance. I guess unions with negotiated health care would have a gripe, but even in that situation, it's not the insurance they love, it's the deal they have. Not that I'm a yuge proponent for M4A, but I feel like neither Sanders nor Warren have done an adequate job explaining the bottom line cost benefits of M4A...even with higher middle class taxes.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 19 2020 01:55 PM Re: Politics 2020

Right. Even if my taxes go up, my payroll deduction for my health insurance would be eliminated. So that would at least mitigate, and perhaps even eliminate, the differential.

Ceetar Mar 19 2020 02:34 PM Re: Politics 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Right. Even if my taxes go up, my payroll deduction for my health insurance would be eliminated. So that would at least mitigate, and perhaps even eliminate, the differential. and all of a sudden your salary doesn't look as 'nice' without them waggling a crappy healthcare plan attached to it. And you're no longer scared of leaving said job and losing healthcare.

Lefty Specialist Mar 20 2020 06:12 AM Re: Politics 2020

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Medicare for All (a bad name for it, by the way, but I digress). Warren and Bernie did a bad sales job on it and have thereby taken it off the table for at least 4 years. Bernie just flapped his arms and said we have to do it. Warren put together a 'Plan' that was unworkable, and she didn't give the context of all the benefits in an easily digestible form. They've yanked the conversation to the left, though, and a Public Option should be doable with a Democratic Senate, House and President. (knocks on wood). But that's the best you'll get for the foreseeable future. Now the coronavirus discussion has also yanked things to the left, as all testing will be free, normally anathema to Republicans. And if the death toll is as high as they're worried about, that might push things as well. The government is going to have to be the provider of last resort here.

Ceetar Mar 20 2020 06:38 AM Re: Politics 2020

the deaths will largely skew republican, they might have to re-gerrymander in a hurry. Luckily we're not really likely to actually fix anything in this country with Biden, so it'd just be a minor 2 year setback.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 20 2020 10:14 AM Re: Politics 2020

I often get this kind of crap in my Facebook feed. Does anyone really think it's urgent that Nancy Pelosi gets a certain number of birthday greetings before midnight? 𝐖𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐏𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐈 𝐀 𝐇𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐘 𝐁𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐃𝐀𝐘 | 𝟏𝟏:𝟓𝟗 𝐏.𝐌. 𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄: Time is running out before our 11:59 p.m. deadline, but you still haven't signed Nancy Pelosi's official birthday card! We need just 138 more handpicked Democrats to sign and honor the woman defending our democracy against Trump's corruption. This is your LAST CALL to wish our speaker a happy birthday, so please act fast: Sign our official card to wish Nancy Pelosi a happy birthday! (And I don't know how that font thing happened! That's pretty cool, anyway.)

Willets Point Mar 20 2020 10:24 AM Re: Politics 2020

"Congratulations Speaker Pelosi as you age into a higher risk demographic for COVID-19!" doesn't sound all too encouraging.

kcmets Mar 22 2020 06:29 PM Re: Politics 2020

Pelosi, rinse repeat...

Chad ochoseis Mar 23 2020 07:42 AM Re: Politics 2020

There is zero chance that Congress approves this. But it's scary that the DO"J" would even ask. [BLOCKQUOTE]"Not only would it be a violation of [habeas corpus], but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,'” said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. [/BLOCKQUOTE] [url]https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/21/doj-coronavirus-emergency-powers-140023

Edgy MD Mar 23 2020 08:26 AM Re: Politics 2020

I think the chance is non-zero. I mean, it may be zero this morning, but if cases spike suddenly on Thursday and the White Supremacist uprising starts on Friday ...

Ceetar Mar 23 2020 09:14 AM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: I think the chance is non-zero. I mean, it may be zero this morning, but if cases spike suddenly on Thursday and the White Supremacist uprising starts on Friday ... wait, Friday is 1/20/16?

nymr83 Mar 23 2020 11:34 AM Re: Politics 2020

Chad ochoseis wrote: There is zero chance that Congress approves this. But it's scary that the DO"J" would even ask. [BLOCKQUOTE]"Not only would it be a violation of [habeas corpus], but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,'” said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. [/BLOCKQUOTE] [url]https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/21/doj-coronavirus-emergency-powers-140023 Who needs congressional approval? Learn your history. Abraham Lincoln basically did this solo, including to the traitorous opposition press. If Amazon ever starts shipping again I highly Recommend "Lincoln's Wrath" by Manber Dahlstrom.

Lefty Specialist Mar 23 2020 03:35 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lincoln did that in the midst of a Civil War where the capital was under constant threat. Bill Barr is just looking for ways to detain MSNBC reporters.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 23 2020 03:48 PM Re: Politics 2020

Maybe we can send Bill Barr out in the streets with a glass jar and tell him to trap and catch coronaviruses so he can put them in jail.

LWFS Mar 23 2020 07:27 PM Re: Politics 2020

Lefty Specialist wrote: Willets Point wrote: Biden could get Sanders to drop out in an instant if he agreed to consider incredibly popular ideas like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal for his platform. I'm pretty the only reason Sanders is still in right now is because he knows that Biden's "I'm Going to Work With My Best Buddies in the Republican Party" platform is a dead-in-the-water come November. Meeting the Republicans halfway to do what? Put kids into nicer cages? People who like Fascism will vote for the Fascists, not watered-down Fascism. Everyone else is going to stay home in large numbers unless Biden and the Dem establishment learn to adapt and compromise with the people who like the popular ideas Sanders' supports, even if they don't like Sanders himself. The problem is that M4A is popular until you get into the details, and then it's not. Losing your current insurance? Unpopular. $32 Trillion? Unpopular. Raising taxes on the middle class? Unpopular. I'm thinking that the last two weeks have been a pretty fucking spectacular advertisement against the whole health-care-should-be-tied-to-employment thing.

Edgy MD Mar 24 2020 02:55 PM Re: Politics 2020

Just to be clear, I'm going through this shitshow without coverage. I'm all for universal coverage and if that means universal coverage under a single federal plan, OK. But I'm OK with a guy not running on it. My thinking is that the only way the Affordable Care Act happened is that President Obama didn't run on it. Health care reform was in the Democratic platform as it always is, but he sure didn't campaign on it. When he got before Congress to explain how he was addressing the economic drop he was inheriting, he listed runaway health care expenses as one of three legs to the stool we needed to prop up in order to get the economy on solid footing. While that association didn't feel particularly honest to me, I fully approved of him not pinning himself down on the campaign trail.

Ceetar Mar 24 2020 03:09 PM Re: Politics 2020

America, where you have to stealthily sneak in policy before Republicans introduce smear campaigns.

LWFS Mar 24 2020 04:28 PM Re: Politics 2020

Do we have to not talk about the fact that we've got no public health system, too? Holy hell, this is the richest third-world country in human history.

Edgy MD Mar 24 2020 10:44 PM Re: Politics 2020

Well, certainly, no one should shrink from describing what they see as the problem, especially when asked. But if they pin you down for what you're going to do, try to preach evolution over revolution. When you get the job, you will find out pretty quickly how far your support will let you go as a reformer. My executive agenda, for when I become mayor, governor, or president, will be rife with prison reform. Crazy rife. I don't think I'd get too far with that on my lawn sign, though.

Fman99 Mar 25 2020 09:19 AM Re: Politics 2020

Edgy MD wrote: Well, certainly, no one should shrink from describing what they see as the problem, especially when asked. But if they pin you down for what you're going to do, try to preach evolution over revolution. When you get the job, you will find out pretty quickly how far your support will let you go as a reformer. My executive agenda, for when I become mayor, governor, or president, will be rife with prison reform. Crazy rife. I don't think I'd get too far with that on my lawn sign, though. "Edgy MD for Governor: Cut Those Fuckers Loose"

Ceetar Mar 25 2020 09:27 AM Re: Politics 2020

I'd have to magically become elected already because I'd have a hard time not being all "we're gonna let every one in, we're gonna cut the military to 1%, all education is free through Bachelors, and Health Care and Broadband Internet are basic rights for all residents"

Lefty Specialist Mar 25 2020 09:28 AM Re: Politics 2020

Bernie sends signals he's going to stay in the race. [CROSSOUT]Putin[/CROSSOUT]Trump will be pleased.

Willets Point Mar 25 2020 09:52 AM Re: Politics 2020

My god, you can always be counted on to parrot the opinion of the prosperous white, college-educated, professional class bubble you live in. Meanwhile, Sanders is out there showing real leadership on Coronavirus response while Biden is, well, who knows where? Probably working with the Republicans on a pragmatic bi-partisan plan to funnel billions of dollars into into an unregulated corporate slush fund while ordinary Americans die for the Dow's benefit.

Fman99 Mar 25 2020 10:54 AM Re: Politics 2020

Willets Point wrote: My god, you can always be counted on to parrot the opinion of the prosperous white, college-educated, professional class bubble you live in. Meanwhile, Sanders is out there showing real leadership on Coronavirus response while Biden is, well, who knows where? Probably working with the Republicans on a pragmatic bi-partisan plan to funnel billions of dollars into into an unregulated corporate slush fund while ordinary Americans die for the Dow's benefit. He could alternately be groping college age women. Like, you know, I used to do when I was a college age man (with consent, natch).

batmagadanleadoff Mar 25 2020 11:39 AM Re: Politics 2020

It's crazy-town out there in the US of A. Here's an indisputable fact: President Donald Trump is as popular today as he has been since his first day in office. In a new Gallup poll, 49% approve of the job Trump is doing as president while 45% disapprove, matching the highest his approval rating has ever been in Gallup surveys. A Monmouth University poll released on Monday showed Trump at 46% approval, again the best he has done in that poll in more than three years. What accounts for Trump's rise? Simple: His response to the coronavirus crisis. In the Gallup poll, 60% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing in handling the crisis.... https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/25/politics/donald-trump-gallup-approval-polling/index.html