|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 26 2019 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:01 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing? The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor. I'm just trying to understand which ones you think Bernie's weak in. Ironically, despite the "soviet honeymooning..." stuff Bernie actually did better than Hillary with self identified independents, Hillary's strength was with highly partisan Democrats. I continue to think Bernie's strengths in 2016 were similar to Trump's, i.e., he was running against Hillary Clinton. Put Bernie in a general I don't think his agenda sells as well in the region as it might seem, although Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are prob his hardest lifts, even though he won WI in 2016 and did about average in PA. Michigan prob his easiest, and Ohio might be ok although the state appears to be pretty red now so there is a partisanship difficulty. (And as an aside I think nominating Sanders is basically giving Florida to Trump). The green agenda seems a killer in PA, and there are a fair number of religious or culturally conservative voters in MI and WI that might vote for a Biden but couldn't swallow a Sanders. I suppose my guesses here don't match the 2016 primary results, but if we check the Republican side of the ledger in the primary I think it displays the dangers a less mainstream Democrat would face. He doesn't talk to them about the "green agenda" he talks to them about the millions of jobs they lost in manufacturing from NAFTA, how trump did jack to address it, and how they'll be a crucial part of a new generation as valued (ideally more and not just superficially) as Coal miners and factory workers of generations past. Trump will call him names and struggle to form coherent sentences that explain why he's done all of nothing for people in the midwest. "But I don't wanne be some crucial new generation. I want a coal mine job just like my dad and his dad before him."
|
On August 26 2019 18:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:01 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing? The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor. I'm just trying to understand which ones you think Bernie's weak in. Ironically, despite the "soviet honeymooning..." stuff Bernie actually did better than Hillary with self identified independents, Hillary's strength was with highly partisan Democrats. I continue to think Bernie's strengths in 2016 were similar to Trump's, i.e., he was running against Hillary Clinton. Put Bernie in a general I don't think his agenda sells as well in the region as it might seem, although Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are prob his hardest lifts, even though he won WI in 2016 and did about average in PA. Michigan prob his easiest, and Ohio might be ok although the state appears to be pretty red now so there is a partisanship difficulty. (And as an aside I think nominating Sanders is basically giving Florida to Trump). The green agenda seems a killer in PA, and there are a fair number of religious or culturally conservative voters in MI and WI that might vote for a Biden but couldn't swallow a Sanders. I suppose my guesses here don't match the 2016 primary results, but if we check the Republican side of the ledger in the primary I think it displays the dangers a less mainstream Democrat would face. He doesn't talk to them about the "green agenda" he talks to them about the millions of jobs they lost in manufacturing from NAFTA, how trump did jack to address it, and how they'll be a crucial part of a new generation as valued (ideally more and not just superficially) as Coal miners and factory workers of generations past. Trump will call him names and struggle to form coherent sentences that explain why he's done all of nothing for people in the midwest. "But I don't wanne be some crucial new generation. I want a coal mine job just like my dad and his dad before him."
Mid-West is mostly factory workers put out of work by NAFTA so it'll mostly be the same type of work. Even the coal workers aren't especially attached to coal mining, they don't want to do other jobs because they pay shit and they have less autonomy (and they are just generally more alienating). Retraining isn't especially appealing to them either, but if you strike the right notes they'll do other work willingly enough. The other issue is there's a lot of adrenaline in coal mining that's hard to replicate in a lot of jobs as well as a value coal miners have in their local communities. They are the ones going to the local diners and shops and spending more than they could with the pay from pretty much any other job in the area with their education.
A group of miners that drink every friday at your bar or stop in for lunch every wednesday can be the difference making ends meet for a lot of the small businesses around the miners.
|
On August 26 2019 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 18:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2019 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:01 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing? The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor. I'm just trying to understand which ones you think Bernie's weak in. Ironically, despite the "soviet honeymooning..." stuff Bernie actually did better than Hillary with self identified independents, Hillary's strength was with highly partisan Democrats. I continue to think Bernie's strengths in 2016 were similar to Trump's, i.e., he was running against Hillary Clinton. Put Bernie in a general I don't think his agenda sells as well in the region as it might seem, although Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are prob his hardest lifts, even though he won WI in 2016 and did about average in PA. Michigan prob his easiest, and Ohio might be ok although the state appears to be pretty red now so there is a partisanship difficulty. (And as an aside I think nominating Sanders is basically giving Florida to Trump). The green agenda seems a killer in PA, and there are a fair number of religious or culturally conservative voters in MI and WI that might vote for a Biden but couldn't swallow a Sanders. I suppose my guesses here don't match the 2016 primary results, but if we check the Republican side of the ledger in the primary I think it displays the dangers a less mainstream Democrat would face. He doesn't talk to them about the "green agenda" he talks to them about the millions of jobs they lost in manufacturing from NAFTA, how trump did jack to address it, and how they'll be a crucial part of a new generation as valued (ideally more and not just superficially) as Coal miners and factory workers of generations past. Trump will call him names and struggle to form coherent sentences that explain why he's done all of nothing for people in the midwest. "But I don't wanne be some crucial new generation. I want a coal mine job just like my dad and his dad before him." Mid-West is mostly factory workers put out of work by NAFTA so it'll mostly be the same type of work. Even the coal workers aren't especially attached to coal mining, they don't want to do other jobs because they pay shit and they have less autonomy (and they are just generally more alienating). Retraining isn't especially appealing to them either, but if you strike the right notes they'll do other work willingly enough. The other issue is there's a lot of adrenaline in coal mining that's hard to replicate in a lot of jobs as well as a value coal miners have in their local communities. They are the ones going to the local diners and shops and spending more than they could with the pay from pretty much any other job in the area with their education. A group of miners that drink every friday at your bar or stop in for lunch every wednesday can be the difference making ends meet for a lot of the small businesses around the miners.
I didn't think I'd see you of all people here defending t eh "die in your 40s of lung cancer" job because it keeps the (failing) capitalist local economy running...
I guess you're just explaining how it is, rather than defending the status quo? But most people resist imposed change. You need to show them why it's good for them (or their children) to change. I don't see Biden bringing that message. Sanders might, but he can't just go there and promise jobs... that's what the last 3 presidents did.
|
On August 26 2019 18:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 18:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2019 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:01 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing? The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor. I'm just trying to understand which ones you think Bernie's weak in. Ironically, despite the "soviet honeymooning..." stuff Bernie actually did better than Hillary with self identified independents, Hillary's strength was with highly partisan Democrats. I continue to think Bernie's strengths in 2016 were similar to Trump's, i.e., he was running against Hillary Clinton. Put Bernie in a general I don't think his agenda sells as well in the region as it might seem, although Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are prob his hardest lifts, even though he won WI in 2016 and did about average in PA. Michigan prob his easiest, and Ohio might be ok although the state appears to be pretty red now so there is a partisanship difficulty. (And as an aside I think nominating Sanders is basically giving Florida to Trump). The green agenda seems a killer in PA, and there are a fair number of religious or culturally conservative voters in MI and WI that might vote for a Biden but couldn't swallow a Sanders. I suppose my guesses here don't match the 2016 primary results, but if we check the Republican side of the ledger in the primary I think it displays the dangers a less mainstream Democrat would face. He doesn't talk to them about the "green agenda" he talks to them about the millions of jobs they lost in manufacturing from NAFTA, how trump did jack to address it, and how they'll be a crucial part of a new generation as valued (ideally more and not just superficially) as Coal miners and factory workers of generations past. Trump will call him names and struggle to form coherent sentences that explain why he's done all of nothing for people in the midwest. "But I don't wanne be some crucial new generation. I want a coal mine job just like my dad and his dad before him." Mid-West is mostly factory workers put out of work by NAFTA so it'll mostly be the same type of work. Even the coal workers aren't especially attached to coal mining, they don't want to do other jobs because they pay shit and they have less autonomy (and they are just generally more alienating). Retraining isn't especially appealing to them either, but if you strike the right notes they'll do other work willingly enough. The other issue is there's a lot of adrenaline in coal mining that's hard to replicate in a lot of jobs as well as a value coal miners have in their local communities. They are the ones going to the local diners and shops and spending more than they could with the pay from pretty much any other job in the area with their education. A group of miners that drink every friday at your bar or stop in for lunch every wednesday can be the difference making ends meet for a lot of the small businesses around the miners. I didn't think I'd see you of all people here defending t eh "die in your 40s of lung cancer" job because it keeps the (failing) capitalist local economy running... I guess you're just explaining how it is, rather than defending the status quo? But most people resist imposed change. You need to show them why it's good for them (or their children) to change. I don't see Biden bringing that message. Sanders might, but he can't just go there and promise jobs... that's what the last 3 presidents did.
Like I said it's not about "jobs" coal miners were more like local heroes, national at some points. They are disproportionately high-income for their education and compared to other peers. It's also a good ol' boys network where it was more important to know the right people than to be good at your job.
It's not the coal mining they liked (most of them anyway) it's the social capital (as well as just plain capital) that came along with it without having to even really finish high school or be much more than willing and able.
Sanders has a lot more to offer (not enough for me personally) with healthcare (they lost when the jobs left), removing the looming or existing burden of student debt, a climate plan that better prepares us for the coming catastrophe and gives their grand kids a fighting chance at a habitable planet and so on.
Moreover he's been railing with sincerity (as opposed to sucking up to them for cash) against "billionaires" for decades, Trump is the ideal opponent for Bernie in ways he wasn't at all for Clinton (despite her campaign intentionally elevating Trump trying to help him win the nomination).
|
Trump reportedly suggested using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from striking the US
According to Axios, Trump suggested the idea during a hurricane briefing at the White House, saying something along the lines of: "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?"
The report said people who were in the room when Trump made the suggestion were shocked and thought, "What the f---? What do we do with this?" https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-suggested-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR1E6w3Xb4Bpag3sADfm-oRGeTHs6WsJNaDMgk39nA_2eBGJgN8i4uCsc9w
It seems as if Trump's understanding of natural disasters has changed from "Chinese hoaxes" to "nuclear targets". I don't understand what's going on here. Is this a joke? Taken out of context? Or is Trump just making another statement proving that he's oblivious to reality?
User was warned for this post.
|
Pretty sure that’s the plot of Sharknado. Seems like Trump likes his sci-fi.
|
On August 26 2019 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Trump reportedly suggested using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from striking the US
According to Axios, Trump suggested the idea during a hurricane briefing at the White House, saying something along the lines of: "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?"
The report said people who were in the room when Trump made the suggestion were shocked and thought, "What the f---? What do we do with this?" https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-suggested-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR1E6w3Xb4Bpag3sADfm-oRGeTHs6WsJNaDMgk39nA_2eBGJgN8i4uCsc9w It seems as if Trump's understanding of natural disasters has changed from "Chinese hoaxes" to "nuclear targets". I don't understand what's going on here. Is this a joke? Taken out of context? Or is Trump just making another statement proving that he's oblivious to reality?
Trump tried to buy Greenland. I'm pretty confident he's as dumb as bread
|
On August 26 2019 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Trump reportedly suggested using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from striking the US
According to Axios, Trump suggested the idea during a hurricane briefing at the White House, saying something along the lines of: "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?"
The report said people who were in the room when Trump made the suggestion were shocked and thought, "What the f---? What do we do with this?" https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-suggested-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR1E6w3Xb4Bpag3sADfm-oRGeTHs6WsJNaDMgk39nA_2eBGJgN8i4uCsc9w It seems as if Trump's understanding of natural disasters has changed from "Chinese hoaxes" to "nuclear targets". I don't understand what's going on here. Is this a joke? Taken out of context? Or is Trump just making another statement proving that he's oblivious to reality? Remember how Trump asked the military why the US doesn't nuke people more often? They have so many of them after all and they are doing nothing with it.
The answer to these questions is always really simple.
Yes, Trump is this stupid, probably more stupid.
|
On August 26 2019 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Trump reportedly suggested using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from striking the US
According to Axios, Trump suggested the idea during a hurricane briefing at the White House, saying something along the lines of: "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?"
The report said people who were in the room when Trump made the suggestion were shocked and thought, "What the f---? What do we do with this?" https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-suggested-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR1E6w3Xb4Bpag3sADfm-oRGeTHs6WsJNaDMgk39nA_2eBGJgN8i4uCsc9w It seems as if Trump's understanding of natural disasters has changed from "Chinese hoaxes" to "nuclear targets". I don't understand what's going on here. Is this a joke? Taken out of context? Or is Trump just making another statement proving that he's oblivious to reality?
As the article notes, the myth that we might be able to bomb/nuke hurricanes to get rid of them is as old as the Manhattan project. It's just Trump floating one of his trademark "simple" solutions he probably heard from a borderline-conspiratorial source that goes hand in hand with his beliefs that all experts are dumber than he is.
|
On August 26 2019 20:27 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump reportedly suggested using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from striking the US
According to Axios, Trump suggested the idea during a hurricane briefing at the White House, saying something along the lines of: "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?"
The report said people who were in the room when Trump made the suggestion were shocked and thought, "What the f---? What do we do with this?" https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-suggested-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR1E6w3Xb4Bpag3sADfm-oRGeTHs6WsJNaDMgk39nA_2eBGJgN8i4uCsc9w It seems as if Trump's understanding of natural disasters has changed from "Chinese hoaxes" to "nuclear targets". I don't understand what's going on here. Is this a joke? Taken out of context? Or is Trump just making another statement proving that he's oblivious to reality? Trump tried to buy Greenland. I'm pretty confident he's as dumb as bread
He also cancelled a meeting because they weren't willing to sell it. Bread looks pretty intelligent in comparison, tbh.
|
On August 26 2019 20:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump reportedly suggested using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from striking the US
According to Axios, Trump suggested the idea during a hurricane briefing at the White House, saying something along the lines of: "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?"
The report said people who were in the room when Trump made the suggestion were shocked and thought, "What the f---? What do we do with this?" https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-suggested-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR1E6w3Xb4Bpag3sADfm-oRGeTHs6WsJNaDMgk39nA_2eBGJgN8i4uCsc9w It seems as if Trump's understanding of natural disasters has changed from "Chinese hoaxes" to "nuclear targets". I don't understand what's going on here. Is this a joke? Taken out of context? Or is Trump just making another statement proving that he's oblivious to reality? Remember how Trump asked the military why the US doesn't nuke people more often? They have so many of them after all and they are doing nothing with it. The answer to these questions is always really simple. Yes, Trump is this stupid, probably more stupid.
I don't want anyone to have nukes, but it's getting kinda weird for the US to say they are worried about irresponsible proliferation after giving the button to Trump
|
United States42694 Posts
On August 26 2019 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 18:03 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2019 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:01 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing? The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor. I'm just trying to understand which ones you think Bernie's weak in. Ironically, despite the "soviet honeymooning..." stuff Bernie actually did better than Hillary with self identified independents, Hillary's strength was with highly partisan Democrats. I continue to think Bernie's strengths in 2016 were similar to Trump's, i.e., he was running against Hillary Clinton. Put Bernie in a general I don't think his agenda sells as well in the region as it might seem, although Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are prob his hardest lifts, even though he won WI in 2016 and did about average in PA. Michigan prob his easiest, and Ohio might be ok although the state appears to be pretty red now so there is a partisanship difficulty. (And as an aside I think nominating Sanders is basically giving Florida to Trump). The green agenda seems a killer in PA, and there are a fair number of religious or culturally conservative voters in MI and WI that might vote for a Biden but couldn't swallow a Sanders. I suppose my guesses here don't match the 2016 primary results, but if we check the Republican side of the ledger in the primary I think it displays the dangers a less mainstream Democrat would face. He doesn't talk to them about the "green agenda" he talks to them about the millions of jobs they lost in manufacturing from NAFTA, how trump did jack to address it, and how they'll be a crucial part of a new generation as valued (ideally more and not just superficially) as Coal miners and factory workers of generations past. Trump will call him names and struggle to form coherent sentences that explain why he's done all of nothing for people in the midwest. "But I don't wanne be some crucial new generation. I want a coal mine job just like my dad and his dad before him." Mid-West is mostly factory workers put out of work by NAFTA so it'll mostly be the same type of work. Even the coal workers aren't especially attached to coal mining, they don't want to do other jobs because they pay shit and they have less autonomy (and they are just generally more alienating). Retraining isn't especially appealing to them either, but if you strike the right notes they'll do other work willingly enough. The other issue is there's a lot of adrenaline in coal mining that's hard to replicate in a lot of jobs as well as a value coal miners have in their local communities. They are the ones going to the local diners and shops and spending more than they could with the pay from pretty much any other job in the area with their education. A group of miners that drink every friday at your bar or stop in for lunch every wednesday can be the difference making ends meet for a lot of the small businesses around the miners.
Not put out of work by NAFTA. American manufacturing is stronger than ever. Put out of work by mechanization and trade instability.
|
On August 26 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 20:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2019 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump reportedly suggested using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from striking the US
According to Axios, Trump suggested the idea during a hurricane briefing at the White House, saying something along the lines of: "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?"
The report said people who were in the room when Trump made the suggestion were shocked and thought, "What the f---? What do we do with this?" https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-suggested-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-2019-8?fbclid=IwAR1E6w3Xb4Bpag3sADfm-oRGeTHs6WsJNaDMgk39nA_2eBGJgN8i4uCsc9w It seems as if Trump's understanding of natural disasters has changed from "Chinese hoaxes" to "nuclear targets". I don't understand what's going on here. Is this a joke? Taken out of context? Or is Trump just making another statement proving that he's oblivious to reality? Remember how Trump asked the military why the US doesn't nuke people more often? They have so many of them after all and they are doing nothing with it. The answer to these questions is always really simple. Yes, Trump is this stupid, probably more stupid. I don't want anyone to have nukes, but it's getting kinda weird for the US to say they are worried about irresponsible proliferation after giving the button to Trump Putting aside the whole 'would the military follow orders if Trump ordered the use of nukes'.
Trump will be gone in 1-5 years, a new nuclear power won't be.
|
United States42694 Posts
Trump’s tweet
The question I was asked most today by fellow World Leaders, who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, happens to be, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?”
was making the rounds on /r/sadcringe, /r/thathappened, and other similar subreddits last night.
It’s truly bizarre that we’ve just come to accept the reality of this old man who makes up this kind of nonsense to sound cool on the internet being president. Would anyone here put up with a peer saying this kind of stuff? He’s so fucking oblivious and cringeworthy. It’s equal parts alarming and sad.
|
As long as a good portion of his followers believe him, he won't stop. Why would he? Shit like this made him pres.
|
If 60% of the country hates you and will never believe you, and 40% of the country believes everything you say, it behooves you to lie your ass off and hope more than 1/3 of the 60% don’t show up come Election Day.
|
The actual funny thing is that 30% even believe him. 40% seems a bit high... there are the 10% of vile human beings that voted for him despite knowing/feeling that he is a total moron.
|
On August 27 2019 00:05 KwarK wrote:Trump’s tweet Show nested quote +The question I was asked most today by fellow World Leaders, who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, happens to be, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?” was making the rounds on /r/sadcringe, /r/thathappened, and other similar subreddits last night. It’s truly bizarre that we’ve just come to accept the reality of this old man who makes up this kind of nonsense to sound cool on the internet being president. Would anyone here put up with a peer saying this kind of stuff? He’s so fucking oblivious and cringeworthy. It’s equal parts alarming and sad.
Add it to the pile of things to look back at people saying "this is how he plays the media, always 1 step ahead, you're not even understanding what he means".
This is all going to end up similar to gay marriage. Remember all the people you know who used to be against gay marriage but have basically tried to fade into darkness hoping no one remembers? If Trump loses in 2020, people are going to be extremely clear about how they "didn't support Trump, just that Obama had created a lot of damage that needed to be undone". But remember to shame these people. People need to be accountable for their previous beliefs because they are generally not actually any different as people once their beliefs are less acceptable. They are just cowards.
|
I mean it can be both stupid and effective. I think most Trump supporters don't believe him when he says things like that, but find it funny and not problematic because it's "their" guy saying it.
|
Biden continues to look extremely screwed. The fact that political seasons continue to begin sooner and sooner has been very bad for Biden. This is another example of why I think there is a huge difference between being "in the lead" and "favored to win". Biden is basically only campaigning against Trump. His entire campaign is stellar if you assume there is nothing better available. Everything compared to Trump is extremely favorable except for his perspective on the wealthy.
But that's simply not the case. Warren, Harris and Sanders are significantly more appealing when you start to compare plans/stances on various things. The more time that goes by, the more debates that take place, Biden will never go up, only down. Every day that goes by is bad for Biden.
Look at where Biden was 5 months ago and compare it to today. The NH primary isn't until February. Just think about how many more times he's gonna get dragged over coals or compared to his more liberal rivals.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/458833-new-poll-shows-biden-falling-badly-three-way-tie-for-democratic-lead
Joe Biden’s support in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is slipping, according to a new survey from Monmouth University Poll that shows the former vice president dropping below 20 percent.
The survey showed Biden with support from 19 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters nationally, a double-digit decline from Monmouth's most recent poll in June when he led the pack with 32 percent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
