Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

fool of sound posted:

:siren:Hey, the general election thread will be going up soonish, but in the meantime, the rules on talking about the general are in abeyance. Electorialism is also going to be inevitable. However, focus your arguments on candidates, not posters. Do not accuse posters of being Trump lovers in disguise for voting Green or whatever. Do not accuse posters of wanting minorities to be slaughtered because of their choice of candidate. Do not accuse posters of being pro-rape or anti-science or whatever else. Criticize candidates and campaigns. Post "Biden is a senile creep who supports X policies that harm the poor", post "The Greens pander to idiot anti-vaxxers, here's the proof", post "I think that in the long run it is better to vote Dem/not vote Dem and this is why", ect. Put arguments on trial, not posters. :siren:

This is kind of a trial run for if a thread can handle debating voting and candidate preferences in a constructive way. How people behave will directly affect how strict the general election thread rules will be. Please try to not be jackasses. Thanks all.

The Iowa caucuses are on February 3rd! That's next loving Monday! This primary we've been obsessively following for months and months is finally getting started! New thread!

Thread-specific rules, some of which are probably redundant now that the main D&D rules have been updated, but I don't feel like going through them right now:
  1. The rule that all probations must be three days or longer is being lifted. It will now be entirely possible to catch a sixer or dayprobe in this thread. On the other hand, this means that probations will be handed out more often than before. In the past, a lot of low-level rulebreaking tended to go overlooked here just because it really wasn't worth giving a whole three days for. With sixers back in the toolbox, the threshold for taking mod action is going to get noticeably lower. This will hopefully catch a lot of the low-intensity trolling and habitual shitposting that people got away with before.

  2. We're also officially implementing a popular D&D rule suggestion here: ramping up probation lengths for repeat offenders. Someone who keeps doing the same poo poo over and over no matter how many times they get probed for it will find that they'll be getting longer and longer probes for the same behavior, and if they still keep doing it then their punishment could eventually ramp up to a thread ban or actual bans.

  3. If someone disagrees with you on something, do not immediately jump to calling them a paid shill, a troll, or too stupid to live. As 2020 inches closer, we're getting more and more visitors who just don't pay that much attention to politics and aren't necessarily up-to-date on every single thing that's happened in the last several months of early primary jockeying. I'm going to try to update the OP to get things more up-to-date on the current state of the primary and what candidates have been up to, but just the same, we're going to get a lot of people who don't really know what's going on besides what they saw in a few media articles. Cut them a little slack, it's hard for people who aren't politics junkies to keep up with the race, especially with how many lies and flip-flops most of the field have been up to lately.

  4. If you think someone is definitely a troll or otherwise posting in bad faith, then there's not really any point in engaging with them further, so please don't - getting into a big fight with them just makes it more difficult to sort out. I'd encourage you to notify D&D staff using reports or PMs, but even if you don't have plat, this thread has a IK that reads it regularly, so most things will get caught when a member of the D&D mod team has time to take a look.

  5. D&D is not C-SPAM. They're very different forums with different purposes, rules, and posting styles. While C-SPAM posters are welcome in D&D, please keep in mind that there are many things that are allowed in C-SPAM but are not allowed here in D&D. We have no problem with people posting in both D&D and C-SPAM, but please keep the significant rules differences in mind and adapt your posting style to where you're posting. C-SPAM is fun as hell, but D&D is not a FYAD-lite and it's never going to be one. We're not going to rigorously police your capitalization and punctuation usage or anything like that, but endlessly shitposting white noise garbage is going to be clamped down on.

  6. Keep the wildly hyperbolic insults in check just a little, please? If someone's greatest sin is thinking that political polls are reliable or believing that mainstream national newspapers only publish true things in their opinion section, then they're just stupid or uninformed, not a fascist or a sociopath.

  7. No talk in this thread about who you'll vote for in the general election if a given candidate wins or loses. Yes, I know that each and every one of the thread regulars have primary candidates that they really hate. But nothing seems to cause more meltdowns here than talking about what happens after the primary, which is kind of out of scope for this thread anyway. You can have all the nightmares you want about what happens if it ends up being your least favorite candidate vs Trump, but don't talk about them here or you're going to cat jail. Talk about it in some other thread, like this one.

---

The 2020 Democratic Primaries are an utter clowncar poo poo show. A number of candidates are running, and most of them are jokes. Most have dropped out:

SKULL.GIF posted:

We've come such a long way...

  • Ojeda
  • Swalwell
  • Gravel
  • Hickenlooper
  • Inslee
  • Moulton
  • Gillibrand
  • de Blasio
  • Ryan
  • O'Rourke
  • Messam
  • Sestak
  • Bullock
  • Harris
  • Castro
  • Williamson
  • Booker
  • Delaney
  • Yang
  • Bennet
  • Patrick
  • Steyer
  • Buttigieg
  • Klobuchar
  • Gabbard
  • Warren
  • Bloomberg
  • Biden
  • Bernie Sanders

quote:

Summary of the candidates



Joe Biden

You've heard about this guy. But if you only started paying attention to politics over the last decade, you've probably heard about the guy who stood next to Obama doing nothing for eight years while the Onion invented a parody character based on him. Unfortunately, that's not the Joe Biden who's running for president. The Joe Biden who's running for president is the Joe Biden who opposed anti-segregation busing, the Joe Biden who made student loans bankruptcy-proof, the Joe Biden who gave Strom Thurmond's eulogy, the Joe Biden who invades womens' personal space without consent at every opportunity, the Joe Biden who ran twice for president only to fail miserably both times, and the Joe Biden who still defends all of that and insists that he's never done anything wrong in his entire life. His primary campaign platform is based on working with Republicans, and he's openly declared that he's convinced that Mitch McConnell will work with him to pass bipartisan progressive legislation.

Despite many stupid moves, ranging from racism to praising Republicans to being unable to remember the names of anyone who entered politics after 2000 (including a certain former President), he's the frontrunner by a wide margin right now, to the dismay of pretty much everyone left of Bush, and most of the candidates are gunning for him right now.


Bernie Sanders

The guy everyone either loves to love or loves to hate, the independent self-proclaimed socialist Senator from Vermont who challenged Clinton in 2016 needs no introduction. He's been the fairly consistent #2 in polls, and unlike Biden, his speech performance hasn't declined despite his age or his recent heart attack. He's also the only one who's still sticking to Medicare For All; most of the other candidates that supported it have noticeably drifting right on healthcare as the elections draw closer. Everyone knows who this guy is, and I'm sure there'll be plenty of talk about him.


Elizabeth Warren

A lawyer, Harvard professor, and Massachusetts senator, she's most famous for her pro-consumer advocacy and being the driving force between the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Her history as a Republican who changed parties in the 90s and her openly identifying as a capitalist have made it difficult to win over the leftists and socialists most likely to support her pro-consumer economic policies. On top of that, her campaign has made a lot of dumb moves, such as putting a list of negative rumors about her on her website, and advising her to take a DNA test to see if she really had Native American ancestry that could be used to justify her identifying as a native for much of her life.

She briefly rose to frontrunner status on the strength of her closer ties to establishment figures and the perception that she was a more electable leftist, but her polls have been in freefall since she essentially abandoned Medicare For All and watered down most of her other left-leaning policies.


Pete Buttigieg

The Harvard-educated mayor of South Bend, Indiana, this guy has been treated as a young Democratic rising star for a couple years now. He's reasonably charismatic and the media absolutely loves him, but he has a preference for talking inspirational fluff rather than politics, and he doesn't have much of a political record to look at. Is gay and married. His support has been surging in recent months as he's largely stolen Beto's role, but his base is overwhelmingly white so far.

A number of serious racism scandals in South Bend have thrown his failure to win over minorities into the spotlight, and the fact that big billionaire donors have largely rallied around him has drawn him a lot of fire from the candidates that have rejected billionaire donations.


Andrew Yang

A serial entrepeneur and venture capitalist, this is his first entry into politics. Even though he's an East Coaster, his policies are about what you'd expect from a Silicon Valley character. He often identifies the problems facing society, only to come up with solutions that are either badly flawed or downright stupid, like combating bad laws by passing a Constitutional amendment forcing all laws to have an automatic expiration date. Unfortunately, the demographic he's been most successful with are extremely online conservatives, who love his meme-heavy campaign and his inclination to talk about the problems most politicians tend to ignore (like AI and automation), and he's responding by being more appealing to them and going on their favorite shows and stuff.

His most famous and most widely advertised issue is the "Freedom Dividend", a UBI proposal that would give everyone $1k a month...except that you have to give up any other government benefits to get it, so the poor will benefit less than everyone else.

He's not polling well, but his willingness to talk about issues that no one else really wants to talk about make him a bit of a wildcard. It's unlikely he'll win, but he might be able to become a Ron Paul-style meme candidate...except that if the debate is any indication, he's not that great a speaker either.




Cory Booker

Former mayor of Newark and current Senator of New Jersey. His hands-on approach as mayor got him plenty of good press for things like personally saving a person from a burning house, but that's largely been eclipsed by some dicey political stances, most famously when he bucked the Obama campaign to defend Romney and Bain Capital from the Obama campaign's cruel attacks against private equity funds. He's liberal on social issues, but conservative on most economic issues, and his close relationship to Wall Street and the healthcare industry is unlikely to win many friends on these forums.

In the primary so far, he's mostly campaigned as a moderate, resisting Medicare for All and talking up the virtues of compromise and bipartisan cooperation. However, he's drawn some attention by attacking Biden for talking too much about the virtues of compromise and bipartisan cooperation with segregationists and white supremacists, and for repeatedly pointing to the disparity between his coverage and Pete's coverage. His debates performance were generally considered to be solid, but not stunning. He no longer qualifies for debates, though, and his days are numbered.


Julián Castro

Former mayor of San Antonio, and HUD secretary under the Obama administration. Beloved by the political establishment, but that hasn't translated to much support among the media or on the ground. His highlight issues are universal pre-kindergarden and lead cleanup; other than that, he talks a very liberal talk on social policies and supports moderate incremental improvements in economic issues.

He's released plenty of detailed policy plans, but he's so far failed to gain any real traction. He's done well in the debates; this longtime rising star may be one to watch.

Also, he has a twin brother in Congress, so if you want hilarious place-changing hijinks like in a bunch of B-grade 90s comedies, this should be your #1 pick.


Tulsi Gabbard

An Iraq War veteran, and a House member in Hawaii since 2013. Unusually for an American politician, she's economically leftist but leans hard right on social issues, which leads to a lot of Ron Paul-style unusual positions, such as anti-interventionism. Her most famous issue these days is probably her open hatred for Muslims, but she spent much of the 00s openly anti-LGBT as well and supported conversion therapy and banning gay marriage. Despite being a sitting member of Congress, she refused to vote for impeaching Trump, and her increasingly erratic campaign appears to have little chance of further progress.

Often appears wearing plant life in some form, possibly indicating that she is secretly a druid.


Amy Klobuchar

A former prosecutor who, having served as a senator in Minnesota for over a decade, has gotten a lot of media buzz as the bipartisan moderate candidate who might win back the red-leaning states in the Midwest by attracting conservative votes. However, despite the pundits' predictions and lots of early media buzz, she's failed to gain much traction and hasn't brought anything interesting to the policy table. So far, her campaign's biggest headline-grabber has been leaks about her horrible treatment of staff, bullying and terrorizing them. Most famous for reportedly eating a salad with a comb, and then forcing a staffer to wash that comb as punishment for forgetting her fork.

Made reporters wait out in a snowstorm for her announcement. And there were a lot of them there, since she was supposed to be the pundits' Great Midwestern Hope.


Marianne Williamson

An author and activist whose only political history is finishing fourth in a House race in California. Despite that, she's got better positions than at least half the candidates on this stage...for the most part. She wouldn't be out of place in the Green Party, mixing strong progressive policies like M4A and the Green New Deal with downright wacky stuff like antivax talk.

Her signature issue is reparations for slavery, having come out with the earliest and biggest proposal.

She's not a serious contender for the presidency, but her mixture of cool and crazy talk has earned her a meme fanbase after the debates. She hasn't been a big player for a while, I honestly forgot she was still in.




Tom Steyer

Michael Bloomberg

Two billionaires, both self-funding their campaigns and spending tens of millions of dollars on furious advertising blitzes. One's been publicly bolstering their media image by buying pro-impeachment ads for months, the other owns their own media empire. Steyer qualifies for the debates, Bloomberg doesn't. They both suck.


Here lie the names of the fallen, those who have dropped out:


Beto O'Rourke

Kamala Harris
probably some people I forgot about because they never mattered enough to mention in the first place

Somebody fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 14, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Bushido Brown posted:

Can you correct Warren's bit? She's not Harvard-educated. (Just was a Harvard Prof.)

She's a Rutgers grad. Is my pointing this out petty? Yes. That said, people who live by braindead credentialism should die by braindead credentialism.

I tweaked it!

Vox Nihili posted:

The crazy thing is that she's actually a pretty intelligent person. She's been getting poisonous advice for months now.

I think Warren just isn't good at being a public figure. I think she fears the media, and therefore makes an active effort to jump headfirst into centrist talking points and media narratives without stopping to consider that they could look bad to the voters.

For someone who makes a big deal about having detailed plans, the details of her plans often seem like nothing more than a route to a cheap slogan she thinks the media will like. For example, her public option plan actively rewarding companies that currently provide lovely healthcare pay less, because she wanted to be able to say that not a single company would pay more for the public option than they currently do for private healthcare.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
Bloomberg didn't just buy himself some decent poll numbers - he also slipped the DNC several hundred thousand bucks. I wonder if that has anything to do with why they're willing to change the rules for him after telling a bunch of upstart outsiders to get hosed.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1223337638691856385

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Wicked Them Beats posted:

I just read the politico article and it sounds like the DNC people pushing this are actually looking for a rules reversion in 2024 and think a Bernie nomination would be enough to get the DNC to restore the superdelegates to full power.

So they're hoping for something like: a Bernie nom leading to a Bernie general loss to Trump, at which point they go "see?? Told you the proles would gently caress it up!" and then they get their previous status back for 2024 now that the left is suitably cowed.

It looks to me like it's talking about two separate groups with different positions. There's a small group who want the rule change right now, and then there's a larger group who want the rule change but realize that doing it now would be an incredibly dumb idea so they want to push it off for the next cycle.

I wouldn't read too much into the contents of the story itself. There was plenty of opposition to reducing superdelegates' power in the first place, so it shouldn't be at all surprising that some superdelegates still want to return to the old rules they supported. The real question is why the political media is suddenly choosing now of all times to run stories on it.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

Y'all are reading this like it's just Sanders saying "Vietnam was a really bad war" and maybe that's all people are going to take from it. Like I really loving hope so, anyway. But that's not what he said: he was calling out our actions there and the actions of our soldiers, and woo boy is that another kettle of fish. Saying America was morally wrong? Bad. Comparing America to Nazi Germany? Uh pretty loving bad, actually. Comparing US soldiers to loving Hitler? I mean I don't disagree, to be absolutely clear - look at Gallagher. But it's pretty loving bad.

I think he can count among his base the people who are least likely to give a poo poo, or those who will even agree. But that's not his entire coalition, and this is a close race. It's going to be a long weekend.

I think one of the single most important lessons of 2016 was that many of the political taboos that have been around so long weren't actually things the voters gave a poo poo about. The media gave a poo poo about them, and the political class gave a poo poo about them, but for the most part voters barely cared even when the media and the political class were putting those violations on full blast.

Trump violated decorum with poo poo like calling for the imprisonment of his political opponents. Sanders weathered the "socialism" smears without a problem. Trump openly smeared poo poo on the troops, veterans, and "war heroes" repeatedly. "Raising taxes" appears not to be the politically-deadly phrase it was long thought to be. Russia was incredibly unpopular among the GOP, but when Trump embraced Putin, it didn't drag his popularity down - it dragged Russia's popularity up. All sorts of "politically radioactive" stuff was thrown around in the last couple of cycles, and the only one that actually had any noticeable impact on an election was Roy Moore's pedophilia scandal - and even then, he still came pretty close to winning.

Yes, the media and the talking heads are virtually unanimous in insisting that America can do no wrong. But after seeing the media's track record in 2016, I'm not necessarily worried right away when a candidate crosses the media's bounds of acceptable discourse, since there's no telling whether they're actually in tune with what the voters think.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Bushido Brown posted:

Again, do you work/volunteer for the Buttigieg campaign? Serious question.

Let's not do this.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Bushido Brown posted:

Not do what, exactly?

Accuse people of being paid shills because they hold a particular opinion.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Bushido Brown posted:

Good thing that's not what I am doing, then. Look at their post history. There's a fair amount of cryptic description that went on, and this is the third or fourth time I've asked the same question. The repeated silence in response has been deafening.

ETA: Directly, given this is the nth time I've directly asked this (and given the first time I asked wasn't tied to anything pro-Pete related, the question wasn't raised purely as "wow you're a shill" in response to a take I disagree with.

There's lots of things that are up for debate in Debate & Discussion, but this isn't one of them. Stop trying to insinuate that other posters are paid shills, period. You aren't going to get anywhere trying to negotiate that with me.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Harrow posted:

Completely hypothetical question: would there ever be a reason for a campaign to want to spike a poll that shows them unrealistically ahead? Let's say Pete's internal polling is fairly consistent and a poll shows up that's a clear outlier with him way ahead. His campaign knows he'd vastly underperform that poll which would look bad. Would they want to bury that poll or would the good press in the moment be worth the risk?

This is just out of curiosity, not because I think it's realistic, really.

At this point, absolutely not. The good press in the moment would be incredibly valuable right now, because polling well helps convince voters that the candidate is viable, which will have a positive impact on the actual voting. It's the same reason Iowa and NH are make-or-break moments - performing well helps convince voters that a candidate is capable of performing well, which increases their confidence that the candidate is worth picking.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Ms Adequate posted:

If I were Yang I would tell my supporters "Back Bernie - he's by far the closest to what I want to do" and go angling for either a Cabinet position with Bern, or perhaps something like heading up a Special Commission to investigate and maybe trial run a UBI proposal.

Not that I think UBI is a silver bullet or anything but there's certainly worse policies out there, and some serious modern research into it could gain momentum, as well as just generally move the Overton window a bit (Which to Yang's credit is happening a little as it is). Bernie's by far then other candidate most amenable to thinking about that kind of policy, I'm sure.

I don't think Yang really has all that much in common with Sanders. He's much closer to Warren, in that he's a pro-capitalism centrist who happens to lean left of the establishment on one or two pet issues, and is trying to take advantage of that to hijack the Bernie wave for himself.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Mandrel posted:

here in Alabama that’s most people I know in my personal life including family

they have all sorts of strongly held articulate political viewpoints with real personal connection to their lives that they’ll talk your ear off about but when it comes to actually voting on them? nah. they laugh it off. a lot of people have an almost self conscious aversion to being perceived as “caring” about anything, much less actually participating. anybody that’s grown up poor or in communities like this particularly I think in cultural places like the south knows how pervasive that gently caress it, whatever man attitude is.

idk what you do with that, in my life I’ve tried every combination of structural argument and every tonal strategy from gentle nudging to friendly ribbing to buddy buddying to trying to ignite outrage to outright bullying them and no matter what or who the moment they realize they’re going to be expected to do something or take a stance they just turtle. i don’t think there’s much you can do with people like that except do your best and hope they’re really bored on voting day or something.

I think extremely online leftists aren't the only people who've lost faith in electoralism after decades of bipartisan billionaire domination. The particular way in which it manifests differs from group to group and from place to place, but I think there's a surprising number of people out there who feel that their vote won't matter no matter what they do, and have buried that under a layer of rationalization to distance themselves from that uncomfortable feeling.

And of course, there's plenty of entities out there willing to encourage that thinking in order to suppress or manipulate voters. For example, the New Democrats worked hard to convince Dem lefties that the conservatives will win no matter what, so it's better for the Dems to adopt conservatism themselves so that they can exercise some influence over minor policy details.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
Please send your energy to Bernie in the form of campaign donations and volunteering offers, not emptyquoted gifs (at least not in this thread, anyway).:bern101:

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
On the off-chance that there's any Iowa goons heading for the caucuses later, please make sure to double-check your caucus location before you go! Like, right before you go, because the Iowa Dems have already changed two caucus locations today, and I suspect there'll be plenty more changes before tonight comes around! Some caucus locations have been moved, and you'll want to make sure you're up to date.

https://twitter.com/iowademocrats/status/1224385208411136002
https://twitter.com/iowademocrats/status/1224407154104336384

Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Feb 3, 2020

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Herewaard posted:

disinfo@iowademocrats.org is the worst official email address ever conceived

Only the best from the DNC's elite troll fighters.

https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek/status/1224382500082012160

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Some real presidential material here. I particularly like the part where he stops to talk to the reporters and the person guiding him starts pulling on his arm to get him to keep moving.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

This is utterly beautiful.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

mutata posted:

I would like that. It would be nice. I'm gonna have to put this thread down for a while though. I can't really handle the ups and downs with only 2% reporting or whatever.

empty whippet box posted:

I'm at work and cannot read all posts can someone please give me a general update quick so I can look at it when I have a moment? thank you.

nothing of consequence is going to happen for a while yet probably, if you're feeling pressured then just go to sleep and see how it turned out in the morning

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

This guy finally finished his story.

https://mobile.twitter.com/shawnsebastian/status/1224542984655572993
https://mobile.twitter.com/shawnsebastian/status/1224549120779653120

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Nonsense posted:

Iowa as First In The Nation is very threatened after tonight. They will probably have to give up the caucus to stay first.

They can't be first if they drop the caucus because NH insists on having the first regular primary.

PepsiOverCoke posted:

I have the app on my phone literally right now. You have to send in photo confirmation of what you put on the app.


Why is everyone jumping to crazy conspiracies on vote changing?

For some reason, people weren't coming into this with a huge amount of trust in Dem party leadership or the integrity of the election infrastructure, and a fuckup of this magnitude has exceeded all expectations in that regard.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

mr whistler posted:

I actually like Bernie but goddamn why does everything that is even possibly slightly negatively bad for him a massive illuminati conspiracy on here.

Conspiracy theories spring up when an entity has utterly destroyed people's trust in it, usually for good reason. Once people have seen enough ratfucky coverups whose evidence was suppressed, they start to find "well we don't have any actual evidence for this theory" to be a lot less meaningful.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter if the paper trail clears up the Iowa results in the end, because in the grand scheme of things, Iowa is responsible for a tiny amount of delegates. The significance of Iowa is the media impact of the first race in the nation clearly demonstrating which candidates can draw meaningful amounts of support and which ones can't, causing people to abandon the losers and flock to the winners. That's why Pete went ahead and declared victory - even if it's later shown to be wrong, he'll still have spent the post-Iowa media cycle perceived as a winner, and that's a much more valuable prize than the actual Iowa delegates themselves are.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
Also, I'm gonna say two things :siren:from the mod perspective::siren:

  1. It's fine to TV/IV stuff when there's actual big events going on, but it seems pretty clear that actual events have stalled out right now, so I think it's about time to put a stop to the TV/IVing and return to normal D&D posting, at least until the actual numbers come out.
  2. It is absolutely fine for people who are not regular participants in this thread to start participating in this thread right now, even if it means they're coming in with different opinions from the people who've been posting here nonstop for the last eight months. Don't chase people out simply because they're newcomers to the thread.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

PepsiOverCoke posted:

What does it mean to TV/IV in a thread?

It's the kind of low-content posting you see when people are liveposting and live-reacting about currently ongoing events; mostly people just posting their raw thoughts rather than trying to have a discussion.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Democrazy posted:

Insofar as the idea that the Iowa caucuses have been rigged, this is not an idea which has actually been supported by Sanders himself.

If Sanders has evidence and has dispatched lawyers to air complaints with the Dem party, then there's no reason for him to air the claims now. It's valuable negotiating leverage, and he can still publicly complain later if the Dems fail to offer a sufficient solution.

Pakled posted:

They did have a backup plan involving calling the results in over phone but that failed too and I haven't heard what exactly the issue was on that one.

I'm guessing that they underinvested in the infrastructure and staffing for that option, since they expected that most results would go through the app and only a few precincts would need to use the backup option.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

What the gently caress does "the majority of results" mean? How are they still not going to have complete results by 4pm, and why the gently caress are they going to bother with incomplete results? We already have incomplete results from the candidates themselves!

:psyboom:

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

I'm sure releasing partial results to a desperate media before adjourning for the night, leaving reporters with only that info for the entire day, will do plenty to restore campaigns' trust in the system.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
It's just a rumor, but if it's good enough for CNN it's good enough for me!

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1224748446743175168
https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1224751110889639936

(It's probably false tho)

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

DarkHorse posted:

Or maybe those districts were just quicker and easier to count.

It happens all the time with general elections where podunk rural counties get counted fast and there's a huge initial R lead before the urban ones catch up, I don't see why something similar wouldn't be at play.

Sure, but they're not trickling out results one-by-one as they finish counting each precinct. They dumped this all at once, and are refusing to provide a timeline for when the rest will come out, as well as refusing to provide an explanation for the delays and the partial release. For some reason, they made a conscious choice to stop and release at this point, and there's no telling how long these will be the only numbers we have. And for some reason there's not a whole lot of trust or benefit of the doubt going around!

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
:siren:MOD DECREE:siren:

Let's not talk about who you'll vote for in the general if your favored candidate doesn't win. That just leads to the discussion turning into a clusterfuck, which is why it has been banned by the thread rules for a very long time. I don't particularly care to go digging back through the posts and find who contributed most to starting that talk, but I'm ending that subject here.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
I don't think it really matters who anyone in this thread caucused for, unless you're planning to hurl a bunch of insults if the answer was "not Bernie". They can say it if they want to, but if you just can't read their posts without knowing their candidate preference, then you should probably just put them on ignore rather than endlessly hounding them to demand an answer over and over again.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Kraftwerk posted:

I’ve been demoralized by Iowa. I thought we had it in the bag.
Not sure what to do now. It feels like NH is gonna go to Pete too. Need something positive to hang onto.

NH favors Sanders way more than Pete does, and has way less room for party fuckery and centrist collusion. Bernie has a very comfortable lead in NH, Pete has like zero chance in SC, and if I recall right, Bernie was polling pretty well in NV as well. Iowa was Pete's best shot, as well as the early state most likely to be hostile to Bernie.

Biden eating poo poo in Iowa is extremely good news for Bernie, because Biden failing to show he's electable among white people will shake up his black support and very much put the south back in play. And I don't think anyone is better positioned to benefit from that than Sanders is.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

You'd think that after seeing how the situation thus far was being taken, they would have made their fake results at least a little more plausible.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
Debate time! Go here, I'll reopen this thread a bit after the debate

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3913846

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
debate's over

:rip: Pete

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Slo-Tek posted:

So, mandatory service is pretty much a tax, right? So the idea is 'lets tax children and poors, but more...like _way more_"?

What kind of work do you expect to tax out of children and poors? Whos wages are we looking to depress with slave labor? Teachers? Landscapers? Coal Miners? What job do you want done by a 17 year old who doesn't want to be there?

It's not even thought through to the point of considering the economic aspects. The thing is that most of the people who go on about "national service" are people who were privileged enough to climb the meritocracy and get into top schools, but not privileged enough to just skip the admissions process altogether with a million-dollar donation. Mix that with even the slightest bit of ambition, and it usually leads to a particular mindset in which they lose the ability to tell the difference between "what will look good on your Ivy League application or political resume" and "what develops and improves you as a person". They spent so much of their lives learning how to turn that couple hundred hours of extracurricular community service into a Harvard admission essay, they seem to manage to actually forget it how much of it was fake bullshit they dropped the second it was no longer needed for their ambitions.

On top of that, while their "service" may ultimately amount to spending a few months slumming it with the poors in order to impress the meritocracy with their personal development, it's still often the only time in their entire lives that they've interacted with people outside their upper-class bubble without the aid of a secretary or assistant to manage the encounters for them. As a result, it often does become a bit of a formative experience for them, because it's the first time they've ever met anyone who doesn't think like them. It often doesn't have enough of an impact to really change their thinking in a meaningful way, but they come out of it with a "wow, the world really is deep and diverse" impression that perfectly slots into the liberal elite fake-wokeness they're destined to inherit.

That's why Buttigieg isn't the only candidate pushing a national service idea, either. Yang is big on it as well, to the point of saying that new high school graduates would only become eligible for his UBI after finishing a national service session. I think the Hickenlooper campaign was big on national service, too. I wouldn't be surprised if there were others I'm forgetting, too. That particular flavor of elite liberal centrism is practically obsessed with the virtues of "service".

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:

I actually like national service as an inoculation against the bigotry that comes from being sheltered. I was a weirdo racist at 18 because I grew up in Bumfuck, Hickistan. It wasn't real and didn't survive through week 1 of basic training, but I was still developing. Another couple of years and that toxic poo poo would have metastasized like it did in friends I left behind.

I'd like everyone to get that opportunity to not be a shithead, and would prefer that people not have to join the military for it. The problem with it being voluntary is that it would miss a lot of the people who need it the most.

I think the disconnect here is that the bigotry isn't merely a result of being "sheltered" - it's the result of a complex class and race hierarchy built to divide the workers of America by intentionally segregating groups from each other throughout our entire lives.

Taking people out of their segregated neighborhoods and segregated schools for a few weeks of poorly-paid labor before they're sent off to their segregated colleges and then to their segregated workplaces is a relatively weak excuse for a solution. It doesn't actually seem to be effective, either, given that Pete did plenty of "national service" but clearly hasn't been cured of bigotry himself. What the national service narrative actually does is simply blame bigotry on individual people while completely ignoring the massive structural factors that are built in - which perfectly suits the purposes of elite liberals like Pete, who imagine themselves to be woke even as they blame police shootings of black teens on "gangsters".

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Doctor posted:

I honestly just can not comprehend how anyone could look at the walking talking political platitude spewing Pete Buttigieg, a man who looks like he was grown in a vat to inhabit that corporate suit, and think yeah this seems good and cool and exciting. Seriously is it just because he’s gay?

There's plenty of vat people out there who appreciate the representation...and want him to set a precedent so that they or their children can follow that exact same path to political prominence themselves. There's establishment figures who've already had multiple internships with legislators before even graduating high school. They're not even old enough to drink yet, and it's already clear that they're not only aiming for political prominence, but spending all their free time on structuring their life around pursuing that power.

When people like that look at openly ambitious politicians who are willing to do anything for the sake of personal advancement, they don't see rats or snakes, they see role models.

That aside, there's also a whole bunch of low-info voters who've been deceived by the media coverage, since the media loves Pete and Warren. The hardcore Pete fanboys may be almost as unwinnable as the KHive, but they're a minority compared to the soft supporters who don't really know anything about him but heard on CNN that he's the next Obama.

SimonCat posted:

You really don't know what you're talking about. Having a cigar in the middle of Bagram Air Base at night isn't going to draw sniper fire. On the other hand, convoys are shot at and blown up on a regular basis in Afghanistan.

I think Buttegieg overs states his military record, but he was in an dangerous area and performed duties that carried with them a certain amount of risk.

During the time Pete spent in Afghanistan, the number of US fatalities per month was in the single digits for the entire year, except for one month in which the number of fatalities spiked up to a whopping 13. There were about 30-40 US fatalities during Pete's seven months in Afghanistan (I don't feel like looking up the exact dates he arrived and left), and there were about 32,000 US troops in Afghanistan around the midpoint of his stay there. That's a fatality rate of about 1 per 10,000, or 10 per 100,000.

By comparison, ordinary car crashes in the US kill over 35,000 and injure over 2 million. Put that against the entire US population to get per capita numbers, and car crashes end up with a fatality rate of 11 per 100,000.

Now, you could just compare those numbers blindly to come out with the impression that the streets of Afghanistan weren't any more dangerous than the highways of America. But that doesn't tell the full story, because this isn't a 1:1 comparison. After all, the Afghanistan number wasn't just road fatalities, it was all fatalities. So American road vehicles alone cause more fatalities per capita thanall causes of troop death in Afghanistan in 2014 put together.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Afghanistan was always that safe, of course. But Buttigieg didn't just choose the safest possible job to deploy into, he also chose the cushiest time. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan was well under way, with troop counts dropping sharply. Most routine military activities had already been handed over to the local military, and Obama was openly hinting at a final US withdrawal (aside from the permanent colonial presence) by the end of 2014. In fact, Obama officially declared an end to the US combat mission there in Dec 2014, just three months after Buttigieg left. Of course, that "end" of the US war in Afghanistan didn't last long. But when Pete first boarded that plane to Kabul, he had good reason to think that the final US withdrawal was imminent, and that US soldiers would not be nearly as active there as they had been in previous years.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010
The post-Iowa Buttigieg appearances appear to be Extremely Normal.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/1226897760043053063
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/1226898530142425089
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/1226899169132019712
https://mobile.twitter.com/DJJudd/status/1226910706223767555
https://mobile.twitter.com/ninaturner/status/1226816358580674560

That's the smell of fear, I think. Pete's scared, and Bernie is the one he's scared of.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Preggo My Eggo! posted:

This discussion about establishment grifters makes me curious -- is the government (plus democratic establishment) more bloated with bureaucracy now than it will be after Sanders takes office? Meaning that the socialist candidate will ironically have the impact of reducing the size of government?

The actual career bureaucracy probably isn't too bloated, because everything except the DoD has been subject to heavy budget cuts and severe staffing constraints for quite a number of years now. As for the political appointees, there's no shortage of do-nothing embassy positions to send them to. The Dem establishment is pretty much pure grift, though.

team overhead smash posted:

So what's the basis for this Bernie dark money stuff? I assume there's some basis for it even if it's actually cool and being distorted, but googling just gets me a bunch of stuff attacking Bernie over it.

Some of the unions backing him have PACs. Also, Bernie's narrative is too popular to fight back against, so the only option Pete really has is to cast Sanders as inauthentic and hypocritical, regardless of whether it's true.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

goethe.cx posted:

idk pete genuinely seems like a really smart and talented guy. he just uses those abilities for evil

Yeah, but Pete's campaign claims he's "proficient in" eight languages, which is very over the top, especially considering that he's never had any real opportunity to use those languages in day-to-day life or a professional capacity.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1226881463754350597

How fluent is he actually? We don't know. He claims he learned Norwegian solely so that he could read Norwegian novels, but he's probably not really fluent in the spoken stuff. And more often than not, neither are the people he's talking to. After all, his multilingual abilities are largely just a method of social and class signaling, rather than a direct appeal to Americans.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Rozb7aleeb/status/1224827208209969153

How useful is it as a marker of personal or presidential ability? It's interesting that despite being a supposed Norwegian speaker who's positioning himself as the great rural Midwest-knower, he's never once mentioned the fact that most Americans who speak Norwegian live in the Midwest (which is where most Norwegian immigrants tended to end up). There's still tens of thousands of people who still use Norwegian as their primary language in Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Minnesota, so you'd think presidential candidate Pete would talk about them instead of his nerdy "learned Norwegian so he could read Norwegian books" tale. I'm guessing he has no idea whatsoever.

But his ignorance doesn't just extend to the relatively obscure Norwegian-American community. Even though Pete himself claims to know Spanish, he apparently couldn't be bothered to lend his linguistic skills to producing campaign materials for the second most widely spoken language in the US.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nidhiprakash/status/1223034609832808448

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

When you think about it, it's kind of surprising that DnD doesn't have a book recommendation megathread, or a book club.

This comment is a little too useful to just get buried under a hundred pages of posts.

There's no reason D&D can't have one if someone's willing to run it.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply