|
shame on an IGA posted:night of the blunt knives The replies are... something. 
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
quote:It's very likely possible that everyone is thinking about this too hard. Donnie's numbers suck, the people that hate him REALLY hate him, he has done nothing to gain any additional support outside of his base, people hate his policies, and very few people will have their minds changed. Both candidates in the general will have a massive money cannon, it will be a massive turnout election, and most of the poo poo is baked-in based on Trump's need for everything to be an up-or-down vote on himself. All of this was true in 2016 too so the way to get people to turn out is to give them a candidate they're actually excited about and who they actively want to make the president of the united states. And that is ONLY Bernie. The chance to make sure dems win in 2020 is not in november, it is now. shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jan 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:All of this was true in 2016 too so the way to get people to turn out is to give them a candidate they're actually excited about and who they actively want to make the president of the united states. That logic works a lot of ways though. There's a plausible argument that Hillary lost because Black voters didn't turn out. Who do they want? Biden. There's a plausible argument that Hillary lost because she was a woman, but not far left enough. In that case, here's Warren! There's a plausible argument that Hillary lost because she was a neoliberal democrat shill that youngs didn't want. Who do they want? Sanders! And none of this mentions how there are voters with Sanders as a #1 and Bloomberg as a #2. Lots and lots of weirdos that don't even follow the lanes. The bottom line is that 2016 was close and the 2020 primary has a slate of Democrats that drat near every Democrat likes!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:The replies are... something. There's been Berners running around saying 'show me a socialist that's groped women, I'll wait,' like socialists are going to somehow be some safe bastion of virtue that's above reproach. I won't bother to say why this is loving stupid, or why it might immediately end in women calling bullshit with extreme prejudice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:5) Any debate, if it happens, won't matter. Opinions are solidly made about Trump already, all a Democrat really needs to do is string together coherent sentences on a debate stage about how much he sucks. It's a 12-hour news cycle, people will forget about any debate a week after. Yeah, this. A lot of people forget that Hillary loving dumpstered Trump in all three debates last cycle, it just didn't matter since there was nearly a month between the last debate and the election. Trump is even less coherent this go-around, and is basically guaranteed to walk around the stage saying the most insane/racist things imaginable giving the Dem candidate easy layups, if he even shows up at all. shame on an IGA posted:night of the blunt knives bad move by warren imo. You can see the plausible deniability where she says she doesn't think Bernie's not a misogynist ("Opinions on punditry"), but Bernie is the wrong person to pick a fight with (Even one as small as this) and moving away from their non-aggression pact just hurts them both. If were Warren, when it comes up as a question during the debate (which it definitely will, now), I'd either shut it down immediately or redirect it into a more general attack on electability arguments in general. I mean, she probably won't, and this is going to turn into a worthless slapfight that hurts them both, but it's nice to dream.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:That logic works a lot of ways though. Mister, we could use a man like Lincoln Chafee again! E: That actually even scans for the song, too? E2:  he's registered as a Libertarian candidate for 2020. Nothing matters: hail SS-18 Satan.
Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jan 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Lol come on dude literally the paragraph above you said the same thing I was agreeing with him 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:bad move by warren imo. You can see the plausible deniability where she says she doesn't think Bernie's not a misogynist ("Opinions on punditry"), but Bernie is the wrong person to pick a fight with (Even one as small as this) and moving away from their non-aggression pact just hurts them both. If were Warren, when it comes up as a question during the debate (which it definitely will, now), I'd either shut it down immediately or redirect it into a more general attack on electability arguments in general. Was she supposed to just ignore it entirely? She's been getting dogged for redirecting on other things, she could be called out as 'weak' for not addressing it (not wanting to pick a fight with his fanbase), and honestly, I think she responded to it about as well as she could. The media got their dirty paws on it, and they weren't letting go one way or another. EDIT: If I were her, I'd vent the staffers that leaked the information. It seemed to me that she was trying to just move on from it, and not mention it, but staffers did, and it became a story. Either way, if you read the text, the response was an attempt at shutting it down, and there's not really any good way to address it with a non-answer. Old Boot fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jan 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:Was she supposed to just ignore it entirely? She's been getting dogged for redirecting on other things, she could be called out as 'weak' for not addressing it (not wanting to pick a fight with his fanbase), and honestly, I think she responded to it about as well as she could. The media got their dirty paws on it, and they weren't letting go one way or another. Pretty hard for her to ignore a leak when she and Bernie were literally the only two people in the room. Also she's opening herself to questions about why she sat on it for over a year and didn't fight as hard as she could have while other women were dropping out of the race. Taking "My very good friend Bernie is a misogynist please stop asking me questions about it" as the line on a hatchet job demonstrates exactly why Trump would eat her alive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:but showcasing it as just some epic bungle is disingenuous. Anyone who was paying attention since *checks notes*...forever... would have seen that entire mess as a giant rake and would have probably walked around instead of putting on a blind fold and doing the electric slide in the rakes general direction. Trump was never gonna fork over fifty cents for that blood test even if it was "YEP WARREN IS 90% [insert tribe here]", It wasn't gonna score her points with literally anyone who wouldn't have already voted for her, and it wasn't gonna make Trump look worse to anyone who was already pulling the handle for R candidates. It's not dude driving a tank bad, but that combined with her talking about how automation isn't to blame for the loss of jerbs, but bad trade deals* puts her firmly in that second place for realistic candidates and third place for fantasy land candidates. *As I sit here collecting a pay check writing code for a company that literally makes a bunch of telecom techs redundant, in a building which contains various other companies that also write code that specifically makes a percentage of people redundant in various fields.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:Was she supposed to just ignore it entirely? She's been getting dogged for redirecting on other things, she could be called out as 'weak' for not addressing it (not wanting to pick a fight with his fanbase), and honestly, I think she responded to it about as well as she could. The media got their dirty paws on it, and they weren't letting go one way or another. I mean, there's about a 90% chance her campaign decided to leak the story as a (mild imo) attack against Sanders to try and drive Democratic women towards Warren in Iowa, with Warren's knowledge. It is also possible this was leaked in retaliation to those Sanders call scripts from... last week? saying Warren wouldn't bring anyone new into the party. Either way, a fight with Sanders isn't what Warren needs right now, and the timing of this attack is basically guaranteed to make it an issue in the next debate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Personally I think that Comey's poo poo had a lot to do with the outcome in 2016. Was it enough to actually change the outcome? Hard to tell.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
Defenestrategy posted:Anyone who was paying attention since *checks notes*...forever... would have seen that entire mess as a giant rake and would have probably walked around instead of putting on a blind fold and doing the electric slide in the rakes general direction. Where did I say it was a good and smart move? The word "just" was in that sentence for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:All of this was true in 2016 too so the way to get people to turn out is to give them a candidate they're actually excited about and who they actively want to make the president of the united states. Is it only Bernie? For many people, sure. But there's no guarantee there's a candidate everybody is going to end up excited for. If I understand the US electoral system correctly, then the question is: who excites most in the swing states?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
That Works posted:Personally I think that Comey's poo poo had a lot to do with the outcome in 2016. Was it enough to actually change the outcome? Hard to tell. Nate's statistical analysis says that it was. Acebuckeye13 posted:bad move by warren imo. You can see the plausible deniability where she says she doesn't think Bernie's not a misogynist ("Opinions on punditry"), but Bernie is the wrong person to pick a fight with (Even one as small as this) and moving away from their non-aggression pact just hurts them both. If were Warren, when it comes up as a question during the debate (which it definitely will, now), I'd either shut it down immediately or redirect it into a more general attack on electability arguments in general. I don't think it's misogynist to think that a woman can't get elected President in today's America, just like it wasn't racist to think that a black man couldn't get elected President in America in the past. American voters kind of suck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
Based on my experience of knocking 700+ doors in SC since thanksgiving the only candidates normal people have even heard of are Bernie and Tom Steyer
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
That Works posted:Personally I think that Comey's poo poo had a lot to do with the outcome in 2016. Was it enough to actually change the outcome? Hard to tell. My guess is yes. There were a ton of undecided and low-information voters who didn't like Clinton or Trump, so the election effectively hinged on whoever was able to get the last shot in. Had the timing of the Emails and the Access Hollywood tape been reversed, for instance, it would have absolutely been Clinton. Also I'm gonna take a bold stance here and say that while the blood test was a screwup, it was early enough in the campaign that nobody except us terminally online folks really remembers or cares. There's a good chance that Warren's history of claiming tribal ancestry will come up during the campaign, but if it wasn't that it'd be some other dumb thing, because that's how campaigns work—they'd doubtlessly pull up some bullshit on Bernie, Biden, or any other candidate and try and play it as some fault as great as every one of Trump's scandals, since the media is terrible at proportionality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Based on my experience of knocking 700+ doors in SC since thanksgiving the only candidates normal people have even heard of are Bernie and Tom Steyer This does not surprise me in the slightest (Also, great work! you're doin' good, keep it up) Stultus Maximus posted:I don't think it's misogynist to think that a woman can't get elected President in today's America, just like it wasn't racist to think that a black man couldn't get elected President in America in the past. American voters kind of suck. That's what I meant by "plausibly deniable" - the American populace absolutely does not deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case, and even if Bernie said it on those exact words he's not a misogynist, just a cynic. HOWEVER, "X doesn't think a woman can win" will be read by voters as an accusation of misogyny, regardless of context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Based on my experience of knocking 700+ doors in SC since thanksgiving the only candidates normal people have even heard of are Bernie and Tom Steyer Steyer has spent a lot of time in SC, apparently. And Nevada. I'm not surprised that he's notable in either place, but he's spending way more money than anyone else in those states to stay relevant. Like 90%+ of all political advertising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Now let me say this as someone in the midwest: who the gently caress is Tom Steyer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
A Bad Poster posted:Now let me say this as someone in the midwest: who the gently caress is Tom Steyer? a billionaire who decided to go all-out on ad buys in Nevada and South Carolina and pretends to be the "good billionaire" on the debate stage he bought his way onto. You now know as much about Tom Steyer as I do!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
A Bad Poster posted:Now let me say this as someone in the midwest: who the gently caress is Tom Steyer? wikipedia posted:Thomas Fahr Steyer (born June 27, 1957) is an American hedge fund manager 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 03:45
|
|
|
Steyer is also the money behind that 'need to impeach' ad campaign (starring him) that's been going for a few years now. Still a policy failure. He doesn't come off as a despicable person, from what I've seen of him, but no billionaire belongs anywhere near anything resembling a government position, regardless of their intent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Based on my experience of knocking 700+ doors in SC since thanksgiving the only candidates normal people have even heard of are Bernie and Tom Steyer You must not be canvassing near the 26. Tulsi Gabbard has a billboard every 100 feet from Greenville to Charleston.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
CRUSTY MINGE posted:Steyer is also the money behind that 'need to impeach' ad campaign (starring him) that's been going for a few years now. There's also the fact that his and Bloomberg's hopeless vanity campaigns are spending millions of dollars that could be better spent on voter registration efforts or downballot campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Cyks posted:You must not be canvassing near the 26. Tulsi Gabbard has a billboard every 100 feet from Greenville to Charleston. chesterfield & marlboro, what's an interstate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
they have nothing else to attack Sanders on that doesnt involve moving even further right
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/tulsigab...agenumber%3d578
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/hoarsewisperer/status/1216926525217558528
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I get attacking Warren on the blood test poo poo because that was handled spectacularly poorly and deserves to be attacked, but the way some have attacked her for it by attaching it to outdated stereotypes (like this post) feel pretty gross imo. It's literally Trump's Pocahontas poo poo but from people who should know better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
Distinct lack of the words "princess" or "chief" in that picture there that were nonetheless in your post, wonder why that might be 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Back from a time when Okies just trusted their Grandma's claim that they're Cherokee, at least
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
So, here's an honest question. Trump doesn't seem to be in the best of health; what if he died this year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:So, here's an honest question. Trump doesn't seem to be in the best of health; what if he died this year? Pence waltzes into a reelection after taking over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:So, here's an honest question. Trump doesn't seem to be in the best of health; what if he died this year? We'd all get to throw a big party? Pence would be president for the remainder of his term and the Republican party might have other people run for the nomination, but I would assume Pence would probably be a shoe in for the nomination since he'd technically be the incumbent. Chichevache posted:Pence waltzes into a reelection after taking over. Does anyone actually like Pence outside of the slavering lunatic evangelical community? A lot of Trump's support base comes from his moron charisma which Pence has none of. Although I guess that might be counteracted by the segment of conservatives turned off by his moron charisma, but unless Biden or Buttgag get the nom I don't think any of those people were going to vote Democratic anyway. my kinda ape fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Jan 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:So, here's an honest question. Trump doesn't seem to be in the best of health; what if he died this year? The GOP's biblical apocalypse cult, helmed by a (re-)elected Pence, invades every part of the middle east that isn't Israel in an attempt to immanentize the eschaton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 06:24
|
|
|
The absolute dumbest conspiracy theories. QAnon would go totally apeshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
I really don’t want anything to happen to Trump in office. They do not need a goddamn martyr like that. The exact argument on FB will be: “Why do we have MLK day but not Donald J Trump day?”. Just let him subsume into the background noise of US politics and let the prosecution begin once his term and protections of office are up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
my kinda ape posted:Does anyone actually like Pence outside of the slavering lunatic evangelical community? A lot of Trump's support base comes from his moron charisma which Pence has none of. Although I guess that might be counteracted by the segment of conservatives turned off by his moron charisma, but unless Biden or Buttgag get the nom I don't think any of those people were going to vote Democratic anyway. He has an R next to his name. They dont care. And all the people motivated to vote D wont care because the bad man is gone and that's all most of them care about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
Kazinsal posted:The GOP's biblical apocalypse cult, helmed by a (re-)elected Pence, invades every part of the middle east that isn't Israel in an attempt to immanentize the eschaton. We're pretty chill with Jordan and he wouldn't gently caress up the income stream from selling Saudis more bombs to drop on Yemen. Hell, he'd probably discount or donate them to the KSA if they were dropped on Iran, Lebanon, Syria.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 06:35
|
|