|
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 January 10 2020 02:32 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 01:34 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes “These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com This is a real 'Are we the baddies?' moment + Show Spoiler + No it's not, the US has always been extremely protective of what they do and their nationals. It's not a surprise, I've told it multiple times in this thread. The US do not accept any overseer, nor international jurisdiction that could target americans. Laws and treaties apply to others.
That sounds like a rogue nation that needs to be internationally sanctioned to me.
|
On January 10 2020 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:32 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2020 01:34 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1215285229063155713He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes “These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com This is a real 'Are we the baddies?' moment + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU No it's not, the US has always been extremely protective of what they do and their nationals. It's not a surprise, I've told it multiple times in this thread. The US do not accept any overseer, nor international jurisdiction that could target americans. Laws and treaties apply to others. That sounds like a rogue nation that needs to be internationally sanctioned to me.
It surely needs to. Imperialism at its worst. But it's not a "are we the bad guys ?". They know it, it's on purpose, it's far from new.
|
|
|
On January 10 2020 02:32 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 01:34 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1215285229063155713He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes “These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com This is a real 'Are we the baddies?' moment + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU No it's not, the US has always been extremely protective of what they do and their nationals. It's not a surprise, I've told it multiple times in this thread. The US do not accept any overseer, nor international jurisdiction that could target americans. Laws and treaties apply to others.
Oh don't worry most dutch people who follow politics are well aware since Bush his 'The Hague Invasion act'
It's more that it's very hard to imagine someone reading that news article without asking the 'are we the baddies' question
|
On January 10 2020 02:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:32 Nouar wrote:On January 10 2020 01:34 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1215285229063155713He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes “These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com This is a real 'Are we the baddies?' moment + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU No it's not, the US has always been extremely protective of what they do and their nationals. It's not a surprise, I've told it multiple times in this thread. The US do not accept any overseer, nor international jurisdiction that could target americans. Laws and treaties apply to others. Oh don't worry most dutch people who follow politics are well aware since Bush his 'The Hague Invasion act'It's more that it's very hard to imagine someone reading that news article without asking the 'are we the baddies' question
I suspect many have and the focus on Trump while rehabbing Bush or ignoring/rationalizing Democrats role is a result of discomfort with the answer.
|
On January 10 2020 02:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On January 10 2020 01:48 Xxio wrote:The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile system, a Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek...One Pentagon and one U.S senior intelligence official told Newsweek that the Pentagon's assessment is that the incident was accidental. https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313 You mean what was insanely obvious from the beginning turned out to be exactly true? I view the blood as being distributed 50/50 between Iran and Trump. Trump started the whole mess to begin with but Iran's extreme incompetence sealed the deal. People are pretty pissed off about the whole mess up here. With so many Canadians dead it effected a lot of people, for example my wife went to the same highschool as one of the victims. Some want some sort of revenge but they are the minority, most would agree with you that 2 bad actors again cost innocent victims their lives. Trudeau gives very political answers not condemning or supporting. He is not popular where I live so it is all really negative that he didn't take a stand, no matter your preferred response. Other parts of the country might feel different we were one of the most effected province as almost 40 of the 63 were from my province. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-trump-iran-iraq-soleimani-1.5419972
I would like to see Trudeau take a stand somewhat like this: "You idiots. You pump this macho bravado bullshit as if it doesn't do any harm, yet look at how many people died because of your bullshit. Stop this nonsense. The world pays a price for these pissing contests. I am holding Trump and Iran both responsible for this and condemn them for creating this unnecessary situation"
|
On January 09 2020 13:40 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 13:37 Gorgonoth wrote:
Provided the situation with Iran stays calm for the next eleven months I see this as a minor win for Trump. I fully agreed with Tucker's take that he would lose the election if we got into a full-scale conflict. I'm confident in saying that the American public at large doesn't want another war. In his campaign rallies, he decried the disastrous war in Iraq and that resonated with the rank and file GOP voter. Personally, it intrigued me and really granted some credibility to his "outsider" status in people's minds. Putting America First didn't include more war in the Middle East in its original 2015 sales pitch.
I'm not a fan of the strike. None should bear remorse for Qasem Soleimani as he had the blood of American lives on his hands but I just don't see how killing him advances our position in the region at all or has a lasting positive impact on the relationships there. Trump's gotta watch his step here, theoretically all he has to do is ride the job and wage growth numbers in the fall and he can win. He got lucky this time.
Also, the lack of democratic primary polling is maddening. I want to make a final projection soon but even the early states haven't had a steady string of polling since mid-December. What wage growth? lol For all he likes to bluster about the economy because of the stock market, it means jack shit for most Americans because people don't have enough money to invest into stocks.
Wage growth has been on an upward trend since the financial crash. It has held steady or grown slightly more than projections under Trump.
Who caused it?, Will it inevitably crash?, and Is it temporary?, are all interesting questions but ultimately don't matter if it holds steady for another year because Trump can truthfully point to the economy under him in being a net positive for many Americans in a re-election pitch.+ Show Spoiler +
www.frbatlanta.org
www.cnbc.com
tradingeconomics.com
That's not even mentioning the stock market or cutting regulations which help small businesses.
|
Wage growth calculations with no cost comparators are absolutely useless outside a purely academic context.
|
On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions
It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices.
Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats.
China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices.
|
On January 10 2020 03:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On January 10 2020 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On January 10 2020 01:48 Xxio wrote:The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile system, a Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek...One Pentagon and one U.S senior intelligence official told Newsweek that the Pentagon's assessment is that the incident was accidental. https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313 You mean what was insanely obvious from the beginning turned out to be exactly true? I view the blood as being distributed 50/50 between Iran and Trump. Trump started the whole mess to begin with but Iran's extreme incompetence sealed the deal. People are pretty pissed off about the whole mess up here. With so many Canadians dead it effected a lot of people, for example my wife went to the same highschool as one of the victims. Some want some sort of revenge but they are the minority, most would agree with you that 2 bad actors again cost innocent victims their lives. Trudeau gives very political answers not condemning or supporting. He is not popular where I live so it is all really negative that he didn't take a stand, no matter your preferred response. Other parts of the country might feel different we were one of the most effected province as almost 40 of the 63 were from my province. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-trump-iran-iraq-soleimani-1.5419972 I would like to see Trudeau take a stand somewhat like this: "You idiots. You pump this macho bravado bullshit as if it doesn't do any harm, yet look at how many people died because of your bullshit. Stop this nonsense. The world pays a price for these pissing contests. I am holding Trump and Iran both responsible for this and condemn them for creating this unnecessary situation"
Trump would just make fun of his blackface and that would be the end of the fight. Notice how Trudeau has kept his mouth shut recently?
|
On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices.
You can spout all the nonsense you want about the trade war, but analysis has shown that the US economy has suffered as a result of it.
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/1/1/5626442
Import and retaliatory tariffs caused large declines in imports and exports. Prices of imports targeted by tariffs did not fall, implying complete pass-through of tariffs to duty-inclusive prices. The resulting losses to U.S. consumers and firms that buy imports was $51 billion, or 0.27% of GDP.
What this means is that anything tariffed was paid entirely by the purchaser inside the United States. Prices definitely rose, whether you noticed is another matter.
edit::
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/champagne-iran-plane-crash-1.5420398
In other news, USA intelligence appears to have shown that missiles were fired at the plane. Trudeau has an announcement about it, live in 15 min - not sure if there's any other sources on that
|
Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday.
|
On January 10 2020 03:57 Gorgonoth wrote:
Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday.
Oh noe. My #YangGang isn't going to pull through?! I'm boycotting! /s
I'd like Pete B. to do some massive legislation in the coming months for his city in an attempt to show what he's willing to do/fight for as a president/VP. I think even if it is just show, it'll give that feel good to many voters and possibly push him over the edge in the early states.
I'd be onboard with a Sanders/Warren ticket before a B/B ticket. Iowa and NH will be telling as well as Nevada.
|
On January 10 2020 04:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 03:57 Gorgonoth wrote:
Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday.
Oh noe. My #YangGang isn't going to pull through?! I'm boycotting! /s I'd like Pete B. to do some massive legislation in the coming months for his city in an attempt to show what he's willing to do/fight for as a president/VP. I think even if it is just show, it'll give that feel good to many voters and possibly push him over the edge in the early states. I'd be onboard with a Sanders/Warren ticket before a B/B ticket. Iowa and NH will be telling as well as Nevada.
He's no longer mayor?
EDIT: He only got ~8,500 votes too so "massive legislation" seems like a misnomer.
|
On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices.
The trade war with China has caused massive economic problems for farmers here in the Midwest.
Farmers are going bankrupt at record numbers.
Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday.
Buttigieg and Biden are definitely not the same politically and don't have the same voter base. Buttigieg is quite a bit to the left of Biden, although Warren and Sanders make him look like a conservative in comparison.
Also B/B and Warren/Sanders tickets are terrible ideas politically. The only advantage that Biden might get is to woo younger white voters that are into Buttigieg, and there is pretty much no tangible difference among the electorate between Warren and Sanders. Biden's bigger problem is going to be motivating progressives to actually vote, while Warren/Sanders will struggle with winning over conservative Democrats, certain minorities, and independents. The aforementioned VP choices would do nothing to help with either of those problems.
|
On January 10 2020 06:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices. The trade war with China has caused massive economic problems for farmers here in the Midwest. Farmers are going bankrupt at record numbers. Show nested quote +Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday. Buttigieg and Biden are definitely not the same politically and don't have the same voter base. Buttigieg is quite a bit to the left of Biden, although Warren and Sanders make him look like a conservative in comparison. Also B/B and Warren/Sanders tickets are terrible ideas politically. The only advantage that Biden might get is to woo younger white voters that are into Buttigieg, and there is pretty much no tangible difference among the electorate between Warren and Sanders. Biden's bigger problem is going to be motivating progressives to actually vote, while Warren/Sanders will struggle with winning over conservative Democrats, certain minorities, and independents. The aforementioned VP choices would do nothing to help with either of those problems.
And this is where we get the best possible choices of lesser of two evils. With Sanders/Warren we'll at least, wishful thinking, get some good legislation worked on and passed. B/B would give us something but not enough. You know the alternative is trump and that isn't acceptable. It isn't acceptable if B/B is pushed down our throats either, but we more or less have our candidates. I would hope that no matter who gets the tap, does UBI and various other proposals from the other candidates. (Except reparations). (EDIT: clarification).
|
On January 10 2020 06:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices. The trade war with China has caused massive economic problems for farmers here in the Midwest. Farmers are going bankrupt at record numbers. Show nested quote +Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday. Buttigieg and Biden are definitely not the same politically and don't have the same voter base. Buttigieg is quite a bit to the left of Biden, although Warren and Sanders make him look like a conservative in comparison. Also B/B and Warren/Sanders tickets are terrible ideas politically. The only advantage that Biden might get is to woo younger white voters that are into Buttigieg, and there is pretty much no tangible difference among the electorate between Warren and Sanders. Biden's bigger problem is going to be motivating progressives to actually vote, while Warren/Sanders will struggle with winning over conservative Democrats, certain minorities, and independents. The aforementioned VP choices would do nothing to help with either of those problems.
Hmm I think their voter base is very similar, represented by the related downward trend of Biden in early states and Buttigieg's corresponding surge.
They both represent moderate or center-left democrat. Pete may be farther left of Biden on policy, but his forward-facing moments to the public in debates and interviews ( which are more important IMO than contrasting website policy statements) make him appear indistinguishable from a younger Joe Biden. Buttigieg is still closer to Biden than Warren even if there's a little more breathing room than Sanders and Warren on policy.
You're underestimating the efficacy of Warren and Sanders syncing up. In a state like NH Warren is still polling at 15. If you give Sanders even half that vote he has the edge in a crucial state. Same story in Iowa and Nevada.
Any contest Warren actually enters will do nothing except hurt Sanders. Pretty much the same for Pete, but the rub here is Biden's got home-court advantage heading into South Carolina and super tuesday.
|
On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions
Not to do an "well actualy" but the thing that they voted on was to create a mechanism to give themselves the authority to draft a resolution asking for American troops to leave the country. The Iraqi government is currently a caretaker government as being a parliamentary system a majority government has to be formed and no one wants to share power.
A thanks Britian is warranted again as the two major religious groups and the kurds in the north mean that there probably will never be a functioning parliamentary government in Iraq. The non Iranian friendly part of the country doesn't really want America to leave and the country to become a Iranian puppet state but they can't not do anything so they compromised and let the world fool themselves on this one.
|
On January 10 2020 07:00 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 06:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices. The trade war with China has caused massive economic problems for farmers here in the Midwest. Farmers are going bankrupt at record numbers. Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday. Buttigieg and Biden are definitely not the same politically and don't have the same voter base. Buttigieg is quite a bit to the left of Biden, although Warren and Sanders make him look like a conservative in comparison. Also B/B and Warren/Sanders tickets are terrible ideas politically. The only advantage that Biden might get is to woo younger white voters that are into Buttigieg, and there is pretty much no tangible difference among the electorate between Warren and Sanders. Biden's bigger problem is going to be motivating progressives to actually vote, while Warren/Sanders will struggle with winning over conservative Democrats, certain minorities, and independents. The aforementioned VP choices would do nothing to help with either of those problems. Hmm I think their voter base is very similar, represented by the related downward trend of Biden in early states and Buttigieg's corresponding surge. They both represent moderate or center-left democrat. Pete may be farther left of Biden on policy, but his forward-facing moments to the public in debates and interviews ( which are more important IMO than contrasting website policy statements) make him appear indistinguishable from a younger Joe Biden. Buttigieg is still closer to Biden than Warren even if there's a little more breathing room than Sanders and Warren on policy. You're underestimating the efficacy of Warren and Sanders syncing up. In a state like NH Warren is still polling at 15. If you give Sanders even half that vote he has the edge in a crucial state. Same story in Iowa and Nevada. Any contest Warren actually enters will do nothing except hurt Sanders. Pretty much the same for Pete, but the rub here is Biden's got home-court advantage heading into South Carolina and super tuesday.
I really don't see how we get past the hump of the centrist base of the democfatic party outnumbering the progressive side. The Biden-pete side just has the numbers reguardless of how the charis are moved around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/46MFZqF.jpg)
