EPTThat’s a no from me, dawg.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1868
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
That’s a no from me, dawg. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On October 25 2019 04:21 farvacola wrote: Mayor Pete suggested that his ideal SCOTUS candidates would be like Justices Kennedy and Souter. That’s a no from me, dawg. yeah, holy crap. I don't understand him. He is like /r/enlightenedcentrism in human form | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On October 25 2019 04:44 farvacola wrote: It shows me that he doesn’t understand the stakes of what he is proposing, similar to Yang in some ways. Also similar to Dubya. Yikes, didn't realize you were opposed to math. Is 2+2=5 to you? + Show Spoiler + just kidding ^_^ | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44337 Posts
On October 25 2019 04:49 Mohdoo wrote: Yikes, didn't realize you were opposed to math. Is 2+2=5 to you? + Show Spoiler + just kidding ^_^ Speaking of Yang's math, he's been repeating a statement about his unique support among Trump voters during many of his interviews, and it's total nonsense. It was so wrong that Politifact gave it a pants-on-fire liar rating, as Yang goes full-on politician with trying to look at only one data point, ignoring many others, and making a claim that's seriously and statistically flawed. The article below obliterates Yang's frequent claim that he's the only candidate (or only one of two candidates) who has a rare and significant amount of support from Trump voters. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/24/andrew-yang/andrew-yangs-claim-support-among-trump-voters-rate/?fbclid=IwAR1vpjo68rTO6PWwwxIKWX2xWkTKq5B3P4gCiQgumBlmHG_7KYoNZeirB0M | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
im thinking this lets the other candidates pinpoint and highlight the biggest problems in the candidate and challenge them directly on it. the other candidates have to submit the questions ahead of time, but the candidate being interviewed does not know what the questions are. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
On October 25 2019 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote: i think i just came up with a great debate format. each candidate gets an hour on TV and has to answer 2 (or some other arbitrary number) questions from each of the other candidates... thoughts? im thinking this lets the other candidates pinpoint and highlight the biggest problems in the candidate and challenge them directly on it. the other candidates have to submit the questions ahead of time, but the candidate being interviewed does not know what the questions are. Would be good but there's no ratings involved if candidates aren't at each other's throats, so it wouldn't happen. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1058 Posts
If necessary, make the lowest ranked battle a 3 way debate for odd number of candidates that qualify. Probably start at the bottom and end with the top candidates. I don't want to see 10 people answer the same question one at a time with minimal back and forth that the moderators have to force. I want to see who can go back and forth well as they'll need to do in the main debates against Trump. Who can challenge their opponent's ideas? Who can defend their own? Each candidate will have their spotlight time and chance to jump over (or smash down) their closest opponent. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44337 Posts
On October 25 2019 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote: i think i just came up with a great debate format. each candidate gets an hour on TV and has to answer 2 (or some other arbitrary number) questions from each of the other candidates... thoughts? im thinking this lets the other candidates pinpoint and highlight the biggest problems in the candidate and challenge them directly on it. the other candidates have to submit the questions ahead of time, but the candidate being interviewed does not know what the questions are. I like that idea, although I wouldn't really call it a debate format as much as a Q&A between candidates. It doesn't sound like the candidate who posed the question would have much opportunity for a follow-up or an actual dialogue. As always, the level of moderation and allowance for candidates to completely ignore and dodge questions will be important. Moderators need to hold the candidates accountable for their rhetoric, and call them out when they're being evasive. Having "hostile" (which is really just "responsible") moderators would make me so happy: | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44337 Posts
On October 25 2019 07:14 RenSC2 wrote: I think the debates should be 1v1 format. Have a series of 1v1 debates based on polling numbers. Each pair gets X minutes (20? 30?). So Biden and Warren would go at it. Sanders and Buttigieg would go at it. Harris and Yang would go at it. O'Rourke and Klobuchar would go at it. Booker and Gabbard would go at it. Maybe even have Steyer vs Castro. (I pulled the numbers from realclearpolitics, but other metrics could be used for ranking). Over time, as candidates drop out, you can give each pair more time battle it out. If necessary, make the lowest ranked battle a 3 way debate for odd number of candidates that qualify. Probably start at the bottom and end with the top candidates. I don't want to see 10 people answer the same question one at a time with minimal back and forth that the moderators have to force. I want to see who can go back and forth well as they'll need to do in the main debates against Trump. Who can challenge their opponent's ideas? Who can defend their own? Each candidate will have their spotlight time and chance to jump over (or smash down) their closest opponent. It's interesting to me that you paired up #1 with #2, #3 with #4 (or #5? dunno where Harris is atm), etc. Intuitively, I would have thought a competitive bracket would be first place vs. last place in the rankings, and so on, so that the final rounds would feature the candidates who are popular enough to be realistically sticking around later on in the game anyway. Like, the round of 8 would likely be the top 8 candidates, which wouldn't happen if they already debated each other in the first few rounds. Also, I'm not sure if even deciding who debates who based on current support is the ideal metric we should be looking at in the first place. I'm not sure what the ideal metric should be, but I'm all for having more intimate debates than sticking 10+ candidates on stage at the same time. Fewer candidates and fewer debate topics in a single sitting usually means more opportunities for substance and for candidates to really separate themselves from the herd. I like that. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1058 Posts
On October 25 2019 07:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It's interesting to me that you paired up #1 with #2, #3 with #4 (or #5? dunno where Harris is atm), etc. Intuitively, I would have thought a competitive bracket would be first place vs. last place in the rankings, and so on, so that the final rounds would feature the candidates who are popular enough to be realistically sticking around later on in the game anyway. Like, the round of 8 would likely be the top 8 candidates, which wouldn't happen if they already debated each other in the first few rounds. Yeah, I went 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc. based on the current list on realclearpolitics.com I don't feel that #1 vs #16 is a useful debate. Even if #16 completely out-debates #1, how much will that really shift anything? #16 can gain a little, but still go nowhere while #1 will still be on top unless people want to shift their support from #1 to #2 or #3. My feeling is that since this is not a knockout bracket, it's best to pit the closest contenders against each other. Just like if you have a Boxing/UFC fight, you're not pitting the #1 fighter against #16, you're pitting him against #2 for the title. Rematches are okay. And then you have the under-card where lesser fighters try to make their mark by beating equally matched opponents. As an example, I think Harris vs Buttigieg could be high impact in knocking one of them out while elevating the other to a higher tier. However, Harris vs Biden? It sort of already happened, Harris got her little bump, Biden took his hit, then they both went right back to where they were a month later. Also, I'm not sure if even deciding who debates who based on current support is the ideal metric we should be looking at in the first place. I'm not sure what the ideal metric should be, but I'm all for having more intimate debates than sticking 10+ candidates on stage at the same time. Fewer candidates and fewer debate topics in a single sitting usually means more opportunities for substance and for candidates to really separate themselves from the herd. I like that. Another metric may be better for pairing people up and I'd be open to suggestions. The main point is to get candidates into a 1v1 format because I think it's a much more productive format and it seems like we agree there. | ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
It'd be hard to go through that many, but yeah 1v1 is really the best format- opening, rebuttal (hopefully multiple), cross-examination (multiple), and conclusion. Then you could rigidly enforce the interruptions (cut mic, etc). Cross-examination is where you would really get to see who can just give speeches and one-liners and who can pick apart each others platforms. You would actually see who can think analytically. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44337 Posts
On October 25 2019 09:38 Falling wrote: I don't think having a hostile moderator ala the Newsroom is any better as it should not be a debate with the moderater, but against each other. If the candidate dodges the question, it's up to the other candidate to call him/her on it- but they need the space within the format. It'd be hard to go through that many, but yeah 1v1 is really the best format- opening, rebuttal (hopefully multiple), cross-examination (multiple), and conclusion. Then you could rigidly enforce the interruptions (cut mic, etc). Cross-examination is where you would really get to see who can just give speeches and one-liners and who can pick apart each others platforms. You would actually see who can think analytically. That reminds me of the Obama-Romney sit-down debate moment where Obama wrecked Romney with the "horses and bayonets" line... And the time where Obama had the instant comeback of "yeah because I won both of em" when some random audience member clapped after hearing Obama say he had no more elections left to run... + Show Spoiler + I guess I just really miss Obama's sharp, quick wit. + Show Spoiler + Hell, I'd even take GWB's wit over Trump's. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 25 2019 04:35 Mohdoo wrote: yeah, holy crap. I don't understand him. He is like /r/enlightenedcentrism in human form It's crazy how much his campaign and rhetoric has changed. When he first started he was saying all the right things, had messaging that made sense, and had genuine support from both establishment Democrats and some progressives. Now he's painful to watch, his policy has turned into completely generic watered-down centrist Democrat stuff that commits to nothing, and he's as cringy as Andrew Yang to listen to now. In other news, this stuff about Barr launching an official criminal investigation of the investigation of Russian interference of the 2016 election is genuinely concerning. Barr had appointed some prosecutor guy to do work on the issue, but nobody was agreeing to speak with him voluntarily, so now Barr made it official so the guy can subpoena people. The concern is that he's doing this to discourage others from investigating interference in the upcoming election, scare people away from speaking up about anything potentially bad, and of course, to be used as a way of slinging mud at opportune times during the next year or so. It wouldn't be scary if he hadn't done literally everything possible to make himself completely untrustworthy. Not only that, he has been doing what genuinely appears to amount to chasing conspiracy theories for the last few months, and seems to be taking them seriously. edit: On October 25 2019 12:10 Doodsmack wrote: Very big news here that the DOJ's probe of the Russian collusion investigation has become a criminal inquiry, at least in part, meaning that some minimal evidence of crime was found. Of course, committed partisans like this CNN pundit will disregard the probe out of hand. I suspect that the facts are going to come out one way or another, and if in fact there was malfeasance in the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, the facts will bear it out in a way that partisan arguments can't obfuscate. It's Barr. Trust nothing. The facts won't bear out in a way that partisan arguments can't obfuscate because given Barr's history of leaving out key facts and context, he is likely to actually leave out any facts or information that doesn't support whatever he wants. He has a repeated history of doing this type of stuff, which is why people are freaking out. "Some minimal evidence" could be literally nothing with this guy. He once put out a summary memo of a legal opinion justifying the kidnapping of a foreign person without consent of the country they are in and claimed in the summary he had legal justification for his claims, but then when the actual text of the legal opinion came out it later on turned out his entire justification was that Barr thought it was fine that the president break international law to do kidnap people in other countries without consent of those countries, which went against pretty much every other opinion on the topic and caused the government to immediately distance itself from the legal opinion. He had no actual legal justification, and he had just happened to have left the most important part that blew his whole argument apart out of his memo. He did a similar thing when he left out key context in his memo on the Mueller report that made it sound like the report was much less damning than it actually was. There's good reason nobody trusts him. Here's a pretty good article outlining what he did relating to his OLC opinion in the 1980s | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 25 2019 12:19 Ben... wrote: It's crazy how much his campaign and rhetoric has changed. When he first started he was saying all the right things, had messaging that made sense, and had genuine support from both establishment Democrats and some progressives. Now he's painful to watch, his policy has turned into completely generic watered-down centrist Democrat stuff that commits to nothing, and he's as cringy as Andrew Yang to listen to now. In other news, this stuff about Barr launching an official criminal investigation of the investigation of Russian interference of the 2016 election is genuinely concerning. Barr had appointed some prosecutor guy to do work on the issue, but nobody was agreeing to speak with him voluntarily, so now Barr made it official so the guy can subpoena people. The concern is that he's doing this to discourage others from investigating interference in the upcoming election, scare people away from speaking up about anything potentially bad, and of course, to be used as a way of slinging mud at opportune times during the next year or so. It wouldn't be scary if he hadn't done literally everything possible to make himself completely untrustworthy. Not only that, he has been doing what genuinely appears to amount to chasing conspiracy theories for the last few months, and seems to be taking them seriously. edit: It's Barr. Trust nothing. The facts won't bear out in a way that partisan arguments can't obfuscate because given Barr's history of leaving out key facts and context, he is likely to actually leave out any facts or information that doesn't support whatever he wants. He has a repeated history of doing this type of stuff, which is why people are freaking out. "Some minimal evidence" could be literally nothing with this guy. He once put out a summary memo of a legal opinion justifying the kidnapping of a foreign person without consent of the country they are in and claimed in the summary he had legal justification for his claims, but then when the actual text of the legal opinion came out it later on turned out his entire justification was that Barr thought it was fine that the president break international law to do kidnap people in other countries without consent of those countries, which went against pretty much every other opinion on the topic and caused the government to immediately distance itself from the legal opinion. He had no actual legal justification, and he had just happened to have left the most important part that blew his whole argument apart out of his memo. He did a similar thing when he left out key context in his memo on the Mueller report that made it sound like the report was much less damning than it actually was. There's good reason nobody trusts him. Here's a pretty good article outlining what he did relating to his OLC opinion in the 1980s I mean theres probably a good faith argument that international law can get "broken" in certain situations. Obama violated international law when he sent an assassin team into Pakistan to get OBL. He violated Pakistan's sovereignty without Pakistan's consent. Israel also violated international law when they kidnapped Eichmann in Brazil (and there was a lot of controversy at the time I believe). So I'm not sure it's the case that barr absolutely needed to say the US cant do it because of international law. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
| ||
|
Ryzel
United States529 Posts
On October 26 2019 01:36 Mohdoo wrote: Gabbard suspending her reelection while also reciting Republican talking points on Hannity plants a pretty clear picture. Clinton proven right again Oof, don’t know how that’s going to go over with her constituents. Hawaii is as blue as it gets. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On October 26 2019 01:42 farvacola wrote: She was never really on the left anyway, so good riddance. My guess is she fills the Jill Stein role this election season. Yeah it's just weird to see a new take on the jill stein role. Instead of trying to pry away people on the far left, going more so for kinda Republican 'ish? | ||
| ||
