|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On March 08 2020 00:21 Nakajin wrote:
I mean come on Gabbard is a conservative fox news pundit polling under 1% who got a delegate because 100 persons voted for her in the Samoa, that doesn't even get you elected high school president.
There's really no reason for her to have a place on a debate stage when we have a very competitive race between to vision of the future of the democratic party.
It would have been silly to have her.
Pretty much. It appears to me that the DNC can only do wrong for some people. Gabbard really doesn't have any business being in the next debate. Her chance of winning is zero even if Sanders were out of the race and the argument that she has can hurt Biden's chances is not very convincing at all. The DNC may just as well allow random people who are capable of "savaging" Biden or whatever since neither Gabbard or a random person has a chance of winning the primary at this point.
Primary debates should be restricted to candidates who have realistic chance of winning (I know that is very subjective but I would say like above 0.1% chance) or else they would include candidates that are wasting peoples' time. Now that it is clear her chance of winning is probably far lower than even 0.1%, letting her join the debate would not be much more justifiable than allowing any other minor candidate.
As another point, their decision to allow Bloomberg in the debate is completely reasonable, too. Yes, the rules did not permit him to participate but a person polling near 20% should absolutely be allowed to participate as I think any candidate who has a decent chance of winning (and even though he is out now, I think he did have a decent chance of winning if debates and a couple other factors went better for him) should be allowed to debate or else it is not fair to the candidate or a large segment of the voter base that supports them.
The only strong and fair criticism that can be made is that the DNC should follow the rules that they have made for the sake of maintaining integrity and faith in the process. I think it's safe to say that the DNC's shiftiness has significantly worsened many people's perception of the DNC and by extension, the Democratic party. That said, I still think they made the right call here because allowing Gabbard to participate would distract a lot from what is actually important and it would also be unfair to Biden, as he would essentially have to debate against 2 people.
|
Its decided,The democrats are going to win the election.
Probably with biden,i am curious to see who will be his running mate.
|
Norway28918 Posts
4 days ago you wrote 'So its biden vs trump. An echo of the obama era which democrats hold so dear.
Another 4 years of trump,gg no re.' Now this? What happened?
|
Northern Ireland27477 Posts
On March 08 2020 08:43 Nebuchad wrote:
I knew the US media was fucked up but even I am surprised at how much they're covering for Biden. He had his first appearance in a week, it lasted seven minutes, he managed to either pre-reveal Kamala Harris's endorsement of him or misremember who endorsed him, and then called himself an Obiden Bama democrat. He did that in seven minutes. And there's probably a good reason why we see only seven minutes of him in such an important week. It's incredible.
Obiden Bama Democrat is a catchy line though!
Nah it is genuinely worrying, mental decline is thrown around too much as an attack for harmless slips of the tongue, or just to attack old people in general, but there are cases where it legitimately applies too. I believe there’s quite a lot of informed speculation as per Reagan’s health towards the end of his time in office.
You’d think there’d be more rigorous procedures put in place about mental acuity, especially in such an old field and for such an important office.
VP Joe reminds me a bit of your archetypal fun uncle, he’ll come over, be some fun, say something controversial to the kids that causes an argument with the parents. Had a bit of energy about him if nothing else.
Now he’s really lacking some spark and isn’t making gaffes or having controversial opinions he’s just messing up basic sentences routinely. As per my tortured analogy ‘mommy, is uncle Joe drunk again?’
|
On March 08 2020 20:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
4 days ago you wrote 'So its biden vs trump. An echo of the obama era which democrats hold so dear.
Another 4 years of trump,gg no re.' Now this? What happened?
I was emotional and annoyed with the result of the primary when i wrote that.
Maybe i am wrong,i will stop speculating and stick with discussing actual politics and candidates.
|
Norway28918 Posts
On March 08 2020 22:00 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 20:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
4 days ago you wrote 'So its biden vs trump. An echo of the obama era which democrats hold so dear.
Another 4 years of trump,gg no re.' Now this? What happened? I was emotional and annoyed with the result of the primary when i wrote that. Maybe i am wrong,i will stop speculating and stick with discussing actual politics and candidates.
That's fair. In general I think making predictions is a difficult exercise to the point where it's kinda meaningless. The election is going to be close and so many things might happen that will influence the outcome. I was wondering if you were influenced by corona or something - which in one way seems fair, Trump's handling of it has been obviously terrible, but how his handling of it actually has been matters little compared to how they manage to spin his handling of it.
|
Harris endorsing someone who opposed busing xD
|
Along with immediately renegotiating the USMCA Bernie also wants to nationalize electrical generation.
"the majority of energy created and used in the US would be built, owned, and sold by the US government."
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/28/bernie-sanders-climate-plan-excellent-on-electrification-but-concerningly-authoritarian-populist-election2020/
He wants to eliminate the 3 top methods of generating electricity namely, coal , nuclear , and natural gas. OK man.
He isn't going to get any of this done. He'll be mired in the same gridlock that Carter, Clinton, and Obama experienced. The US legislative process is built to create gridlock. The three previous democrat presidents had all kinds of grand plans that were 1000X more realistic than Bernie's goals. Very little made it through.
If Bernie is elected Prez look for 4 years of gridlock.
|
On March 08 2020 22:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 22:00 pmh wrote:On March 08 2020 20:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
4 days ago you wrote 'So its biden vs trump. An echo of the obama era which democrats hold so dear.
Another 4 years of trump,gg no re.' Now this? What happened? I was emotional and annoyed with the result of the primary when i wrote that. Maybe i am wrong,i will stop speculating and stick with discussing actual politics and candidates. That's fair. In general I think making predictions is a difficult exercise to the point where it's kinda meaningless. The election is going to be close and so many things might happen that will influence the outcome. I was wondering if you were influenced by corona or something - which in one way seems fair, Trump's handling of it has been obviously terrible, but how his handling of it actually has been matters little compared to how they manage to spin his handling of it.
Yes i was effected by that,i think i saw a breaking point but maybe i am wrong. (similar to the fbi re-opening clintons email investigation 4 years ago).
If trump is handling it badly i dont know,maybe a democrat president would have done exactly the same and in the netherlands or europe in general we pretty much do the same as well.
At one point it doesnt really matter anymore how trump handles it or how they try to spin it,thats how i see it. (similar to how at one point it didnt really matter anymore if clinton was guilty in the email thing or not. at one point people have enough,the drop that floods the bucket so to say).
When people start to get very worried and start getting on edge nothing will satisfy them besides for a miracle disappearence of the virus which obviously is not going to happen.
At such moments,when people are very unhappy with the status quo (justified or not is irrelevant in this) everything the president does is wrong and people will look for change. And then a friendly joe "the" biden suddenly looks like an attractive option.
Trump kinda is unlucky to get this on his path,its almost impossible to navigate through without taking damage. If it was clinton as president it would be equally bad for her.
The democrats imo should simply sit back and let this process run, not interfere to much by attacking trump as that can be counter productive. Focus on their own friendly and social platform and then specifically healthcare.
In times of need,people appreciate beeing friendly and civilized more. In times of greed you can get away with the boldest claims and statements,like trump has in the past few years.
Well i dont know,just a random rambling lol. But yes, i do think that trump will lose the election.
|
On March 08 2020 23:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Harris endorsing someone who opposed busing xD
Turns out the next line in her "I was that girl" speech was "thank you senator"
|
Harris is gonna teach a new generation that politicians make passionate calls that are 100% bullshit all the damn time. Doubly so, since she also accused Biden of working with segregationists. Many might remember Kamala walking back the busing comment the next week (it was unpopular in the Black community, so opposition to it isn’t a slam dunk)
If Warren also endorses Biden, that would be more impactful in my opinion.
|
On March 09 2020 05:17 Danglars wrote:
Harris is gonna teach a new generation that politicians make passionate calls that are 100% bullshit all the damn time. Doubly so, since she also accused Biden of working with segregationists. Many might remember Kamala walking back the busing comment the next week (it was unpopular in the Black community, so opposition to it isn’t a slam dunk)
If Warren also endorses Biden, that would be more impactful in my opinion.
A Non-endorsement is an endorsement for Biden so she's pretty much already made it. It's just a matter of trying to save a little bit of face with her progressive base.
You don't get to sell yourself as "being a progressive" + "being a fighter" if you avoid endorsing the only remaining progressive. One of the two is a lie (if not both).
|
Or maybe the world is complex place, in which decisions aren't made based on some arbitrary distinction like progressive vs moderate.
|
On March 09 2020 06:17 Sr18 wrote:
Or maybe the world is complex place, in which decisions aren't made based on some arbitrary distinction like progressive vs moderate.
"I'm trying to figure out what's best for my political future and act in accordance to that" is not that complex.
|
On March 09 2020 03:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Along with immediately renegotiating the USMCA Bernie also wants to nationalize electrical generation. "the majority of energy created and used in the US would be built, owned, and sold by the US government." https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/28/bernie-sanders-climate-plan-excellent-on-electrification-but-concerningly-authoritarian-populist-election2020/He wants to eliminate the 3 top methods of generating electricity namely, coal , nuclear , and natural gas. OK man. He isn't going to get any of this done. He'll be mired in the same gridlock that Carter, Clinton, and Obama experienced. The US legislative process is built to create gridlock. The three previous democrat presidents had all kinds of grand plans that were 1000X more realistic than Bernie's goals. Very little made it through. If Bernie is elected Prez look for 4 years of gridlock. Gridlock is, imo, inevitable anyway regardless of which Democrat would win. The cats out of the bag on that one.
And Bernie talking about a lot of stuff that is way out of reach was, if I remember right, a mentioned a lot by those favouring Clinton over Bernie last time.
|
Yeah. If the democrats don't also win at least a majority in the senate, preferably 60+ seats (which i guess is pretty unlikely), any democrat president will face absolute maximum possible obstruction to anything they try to do, no matter what it is. They could copy republican legislation 1 to 1, and the fact that a democrat does it would be enough to make it absolutely unacceptable for the republicans.
|
Canada5565 Posts
Next debate changed to seated town-hall behind desks.
"The format for the next debate in Arizona — their first since Biden’s blowout Super Tuesday victories — would have the candidates seated for the first time this election cycle and take multiple questions from the audience. Biden’s campaign and the DNC said the format for the debate was decided by the party and CNN." Politico
|
On March 09 2020 05:40 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2020 05:17 Danglars wrote:
Harris is gonna teach a new generation that politicians make passionate calls that are 100% bullshit all the damn time. Doubly so, since she also accused Biden of working with segregationists. Many might remember Kamala walking back the busing comment the next week (it was unpopular in the Black community, so opposition to it isn’t a slam dunk)
If Warren also endorses Biden, that would be more impactful in my opinion. A Non-endorsement is an endorsement for Biden so she's pretty much already made it. It's just a matter of trying to save a little bit of face with her progressive base. You don't get to sell yourself as "being a progressive" + "being a fighter" if you avoid endorsing the only remaining progressive. One of the two is a lie (if not both).
I agree with you inasmuch as delaying an endorsement of Sanders is a tacit endorsement of Biden. Her debate performances suggested that she would instantly endorse Sanders, and that has not been forthcoming.
|
Canada8991 Posts
On March 09 2020 07:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2020 05:40 Logo wrote:On March 09 2020 05:17 Danglars wrote:
Harris is gonna teach a new generation that politicians make passionate calls that are 100% bullshit all the damn time. Doubly so, since she also accused Biden of working with segregationists. Many might remember Kamala walking back the busing comment the next week (it was unpopular in the Black community, so opposition to it isn’t a slam dunk)
If Warren also endorses Biden, that would be more impactful in my opinion. A Non-endorsement is an endorsement for Biden so she's pretty much already made it. It's just a matter of trying to save a little bit of face with her progressive base. You don't get to sell yourself as "being a progressive" + "being a fighter" if you avoid endorsing the only remaining progressive. One of the two is a lie (if not both). I agree with you inasmuch as delaying an endorsement of Sanders is a tacit endorsement of Biden. Her debate performances suggested that she would instantly endorse Sanders, and that has not been forthcoming.
Ya, I guess she's keeping her option open until Tuesday, if Sanders crushes Michigan she might endorse, if he dosen't the race is pretty much over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
