2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know I am going to get hell for saying this but..the behavior of some..not all...of the Bernie Bros is pretty similar to that of the Trump supporters: a incredible ability to live in their own reality.

Well, Trump got elected, so maybe that’s not such a bad thing after all.

That said, wasn’t the previous criticism that it was Clinton fans living in the bubble, rather than Trump fans?
 
Oh look, the DNC took a bribe from Bloomberg so they will change the rules so he can be in the debates.

DNC shooting itself in the foot again.

**** the DNC
 
It seems to me that the best thing a Democrat President could do at this point is to push the envelope on what a President can do unilaterally, in opposition to Congress, in violation of laws, in obstruction of justice and in rigging elections: do everything Trump did, but more.
Just be a bit smarter about it, leaving less evidence.

That seems to be the only way to get Republicans to take the Separation of Power seriously, regardless of who is in the White House.
 
It seems to me that the best thing a Democrat President could do at this point is to push the envelope on what a President can do unilaterally, in opposition to Congress, in violation of laws, in obstruction of justice and in rigging elections: do everything Trump did, but more.
Just be a bit smarter about it, leaving less evidence.

That seems to be the only way to get Republicans to take the Separation of Power seriously, regardless of who is in the White House.

...

No. You're confusing giving them legitimate grounds to use nice justifications to condemn Democrats with them actually caring about the principles that they're invoking to condemn Democrats. The official stance of the Republican leaders for waaay too long had has nothing to do with upholding the law, the Constitution, or actually helping others and a lot to do with "F U, suckers!"
 
Last edited:
...

No. You're confusing giving them legitimate grounds to use nice justifications to condemn Democrats with them actually caring about the principles that they're invoking to condemn Democrats. The official stance of the Republican leaders for waaay too long had has nothing to do with upholding the law, the Constitution, or actually helping others and a lot to do with "F U, suckers!"

that is indeed the current state of affairs.

But it might change their mind when it is them who have to fight the administration for every inch in the Courts and Congress.
 
It seems to me that the best thing a Democrat President could do at this point is to push the envelope on what a President can do unilaterally, in opposition to Congress, in violation of laws, in obstruction of justice and in rigging elections: do everything Trump did, but more.
Just be a bit smarter about it, leaving less evidence.

That seems to be the only way to get Republicans to take the Separation of Power seriously, regardless of who is in the White House.

In other words, a second Obama.
 
The "Bernie is not a Democrat" attack strikes a bit hollow

If Bernie is not a Democrat, then neither are his many supporters. Does the establishment really want them to vote 3rd party?

A) democrat isn't determined by who you support, but is self identity

B) this only makes sense if democrats don't want non democrats voting for them.
 
Biden spent over one million dollars on private jets in the last 3 months of 2019.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...-dollars-private-jets-last-three-months-2019/
Same criticism has been heard before.

The airline industry doesn't run midwest cow-town to east coast harbor-town direct flights. The campaign schedule they run requires such travel so they book charter flights.

This trope is meant to suggest guzzling Cristal and munching on caviar while receiving a pedicure type of affluent disregard.

It would cost way more in cash and time while producing a greater carbon footprint to fly commercial through air traffic hubs.
 
To weigh these options properly, me must also weigh the possibilities of what A vs B might actually be able to achieve in office.

Odds that Bernie (or whomever) can achieve...

Medicare for all: 0%
Free college for all: 0%
Housing for all: 0%
 
Oh look, the DNC took a bribe from Bloomberg so they will change the rules so he can be in the debates.

DNC shooting itself in the foot again.

**** the DNC
I'm kind of on the fence about that.

Yes, they appear to be changing the rules to allow Bloomberg to participate. However:

- He still would need to meet other criteria (such as reaching a certain threshold in the polls) to make it into the debates

- Like it or not, he MAY be a serious candidate, and democrats might want to be able to compare him to Biden/Sanders/Warren on a more direct level. If he performs really poorly it may end his campaign right there.
 
I think some people here really want to read everybody out of the Democratic party who is not a "Progressive".
Sort of a Bizarro version of the Tea Party.
 
I'm kind of on the fence about that.

Yes, they appear to be changing the rules to allow Bloomberg to participate. However:

- He still would need to meet other criteria (such as reaching a certain threshold in the polls) to make it into the debates

- Like it or not, he MAY be a serious candidate, and democrats might want to be able to compare him to Biden/Sanders/Warren on a more direct level. If he performs really poorly it may end his campaign right there.

If Bloomberg is a serious candidate he should be able to meet the original requirements just like every other candidate had to. The DNC giving him special treatment and looking for ways to stop Sanders at the convention just feeds the idea that they are corrupt and the rules don't apply to the rich. If Bloomberg gets the nomination this way I think you'll have some people staying home or voting third party and potentially having a repeat of 2016.

It's just a dumb move
 
Last edited:
I think some people here really want to read everybody out of the Democratic party who is not a "Progressive".
Sort of a Bizarro version of the Tea Party.


Take a look in the mirror, bro. I have no problem with you voting for who you wish to in the primary, but evidently you have a problem with those of us voting for Sanders. You are the one being exclusionary.
 
I think some people here really want to read everybody out of the Democratic party who is not a "Progressive".
Sort of a Bizarro version of the Tea Party.

I read your posts as a sort of centrist porn.

Radicals to the left of you, radicals to the right of you. Anyone not in line must be on either camp in some way. Even posters in this subforum who are very much in your moderate centrist camp; when they make even a post or two about Trump in neutral terms you almost want them to affirm your fleeting suspicions that they are secretly on team MAGA. :boggled:
 
BILL MAHER SAYS BERNIE SANDERS IS ONLY DEMOCRAT WITH 'ARMY' OF SUPPORTERS WILLING TO FIGHT AGAINST TRUMP IN THE STREETS

HBO host Bill Maher expressed his fear that President Donald Trump and Republicans will do anything to cheat and win in 2020, saying he's glad Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has "badass" supporters willing to fight fire with fire.

....

"I like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. But I feel like, and I have said, someone like Mayor Pete or Amy Klobuchar could win more easily. But I tell you why Bernie Sanders is attractive to me now: because he's the only Democrat, who like Trump, has an army. Who when it gets to this other level, he's got a bunch of badass motherf***ers who will get in the streets," Maher said.
 
But, climate change!!! The post was meant to point out the hypocrisy of the climate change crowd, the leaders of which seem to only travel around by private jets. I personally don't care if they do it, they are the ones who talk incessantly about carbon footprints and saving the planet. For me, "Do as I say, not as I do" is a non-starter.

No it wasn't. You mentioned the cost of his travel, not his carbon footprint. If you meant us to view his travel in terms of climate change, you would have said so. This is just after-being-called-on-it excuse making.
 
Biden campaigning in a watering hole in Iowa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo,_Iowa
you go there by tour bus

Pete B. is next door in the metropolis of Cedar Rapids, which has 10 Starbucks stores. Counties that have ZERO Starbucks stores are known to be 80-90% Republican. In the middle and going West of here. In California, a Starbucks has much more power, just one store marks a vast Democratic stronghold.
 
Acknowledging that there is a problem is a necessary first step.if your campaign depends on the bankrolling of billionaires it is a step you won’t be taking.

Yes, that goes without saying.

I would rather just say what I want to say

Then do that. Why all the evasions?

than go through some torturous dance

Here's my problem with you: you keep calling it a torturous dance and other such colourful things, but it's ONE QUESTION, which you refuse to answer. You can't claim with a straight face that I've been leading you through a maze of pointless questions and platitudes to the point that you've lost patience with me. I asked you ONE QUESTION, and you have spent a LOT of energy protesting that you won't answer it.

And you do that all the time.
 
The whole hang-wringing over "Do I do something effective or follow my values" could be solved by everyone just adopting "Effectiveness" as one of your values.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that goes without saying.



Then do that. Why all the evasions?



Here's my problem with you: you keep calling it a torturous dance and other such colourful things, but it's ONE QUESTION, which you refuse to answer. You can't claim with a straight face that I've been leading you through a maze of pointless questions and platitudes to the point that you've lost patience with me. I asked you ONE QUESTION, and you have spent a LOT of energy protesting that you won't answer it.

And you do that all the time.

Flawed question. Explained at least twice.

Right, we don’t go through a maze of pointless questions because I will only engage with a flawed question on my terms.
 
The whole hang-wringing over "Do I do something effective or follow my values" could be solved by everyone just adopting "Effectiveness" as one of your value.


Actually, the biggest part of it really seems to be differing perceptions of effectiveness to begin with. Some people think moderates like Biden would be more effective at winning against Trump. I and some others think Sanders would be more effective instead.
 
numbers games

Bernie Sanders' campaign knocked on 500,000 doors in Iowa in January.

Another goal of the campaign was to make 5 million calls to voters across the country before the Iowa caucuses. They completed that goal in three weeks. The bar was then raised to 10 million calls. Smashed within the next two.

Sanders raised $1.3 million in a day right after getting attacked by a Democratic super PAC.

On February 1, Sanders attended his final rally in Iowa which allegedly drew over 3,000 people.
 
Why not? The marginal rate was 91% in some pretty good years before Reagan stumbled into the Oval Office.

Actually JFK lowered the top marginal rate to 70%. It's somewhat amusing that he ran on a platform of lower taxes and increased defense spending; Reagan I.
 
The Sanders campaign is powered by ordinary Americans, not bought by billionaires and their one-percenter interests.


The Donors Powering the Campaign of Bernie Sanders

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont received donations from an estimated 1.4 million people through the end of 2019 — far more than any other candidate in the Democratic primary race, according to fund-raising records filed with the Federal Election Commission. The map above shows his expansive donor base around the country, including in Iowa, whose caucuses will be held on Monday.

Mr. Sanders is powering his campaign with small donations from supporters across the United States, and he collected roughly $95 million from donors in 2019 without holding a single high-dollar fund-raising event.​

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive.../democratic-presidential-campaign-donors.html

NYT had to come up with a separate map to illustrate what was happening with the other runners, such is his dominance.
 
Last edited:
Biden campaigning in a watering hole in Iowa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo,_Iowa
you go there by tour bus

Pete B. is next door in the metropolis of Cedar Rapids, which has 10 Starbucks stores. Counties that have ZERO Starbucks stores are known to be 80-90% Republican. In the middle and going West of here. In California, a Starbucks has much more power, just one store marks a vast Democratic stronghold.

At a guess I'd say there are ten Starbucks locations within 5 miles of my home. And I live within the most Republican major city in the country (Phoenix).
 
The Sanders campaign is powered by ordinary Americans, not bought by billionaires and their one-percenter interests.


The Donors Powering the Campaign of Bernie Sanders

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont received donations from an estimated 1.4 million people through the end of 2019 — far more than any other candidate in the Democratic primary race, according to fund-raising records filed with the Federal Election Commission. The map above shows his expansive donor base around the country, including in Iowa, whose caucuses will be held on Monday.

Mr. Sanders is powering his campaign with small donations from supporters across the United States, and he collected roughly $95 million from donors in 2019 without holding a single high-dollar fund-raising event.​

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive.../democratic-presidential-campaign-donors.html

NYT had to come up with a separate map to illustrate what was happening with the other runners, such is his dominance.

Those donor maps are really interesting. Thanks for sharing. Seems to me it shows that the people really want a candidate with integrity who will fight for the working class and against corruption, which Sanders and Warren are perceived as the top candidates in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Flawed question. Explained at least twice.

Right, we don’t go through a maze of pointless questions because I will only engage with a flawed question on my terms.

You do understand that calling a single question a "maze" of questions especially after I pointed it out, will not make it look like you're being honest with me, right?

I don't care if you think the question is flawed. I think it runs to the heart of the matter, and since it's the only thing I'm interested about in this discussion, you calling it a maze of questions is simply a lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom