2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Page 9

PhantomWolf · 31st December 2018, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Confession. I'd put money on the table right now that fewer people who were eligible to vote in 2016 and didn't voting in 2020 then people who switch parties from D to R or vice versa between 2016 and 2020.

"Non-voter" is almost like it's own party at this point with the same level of heel dug in tribalism.

A huge wave of new voters is about as likely as a bunch of people from the other side coming to yours at this point.

I'm not so sure that is a safe bet, especially considering that the US just had the biggest turnout for a Midterm in 50 years. That means that a lot of the "Don't vote in Midterms" turned out and voted this time. With people seeing a lot of close and upset races, then I suspect that there will be more people from the "My vote doesn't count" brigade reconsidering their options. I would not at all be surprised to see 2020 break election box records for voters.

lobosrul5 · 31st December 2018, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm saying if I'm the Dems I put the odds of pulling in "non-voters" at about the same as pulling in Republicans, not a lot. The idea that energy spent trying to pull in non-voters is any more or less wasted then energy pulling in Republicans doesn't ring true to me.

"But everyone I know is so passionate about politics now, that just has to translate to higher turnout" has been the narrative for the last 2 or 3 elections.

2020 is going to be a battle of the margins, just like every other election.

I thought a prevailing theory of the 2016 loss was the "Bernie Bros" stayed home?

Stacyhs · 31st December 2018, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I'm not so sure that is a safe bet, especially considering that the US just had the biggest turnout for a Midterm in 50 years. That means that a lot of the "Don't vote in Midterms" turned out and voted this time. With people seeing a lot of close and upset races, then I suspect that there will be more people from the "My vote doesn't count" brigade reconsidering their options. I would not at all be surprised to see 2020 break election box records for voters.

I agree.

SezMe · 31st December 2018, 07:50 PM

Just found this thread. Is Bloomberg in the "Maybe" column for the Dems?

Brainster · 4th January 2019, 11:14 AM

Martin O'Malley is not running again to the disappointment of his legions of admirers. Curiously, he segues into an endorsement of Beto 2020.

Quote:

The challenges we face will not solve themselves. Building an economy that works for all of us, reversing climate change, passing immigration reform — they all require leadership. O’Rourke has the wisdom to listen, the courage to lead, and a rock-solid faith in the powerful goodness of our nation. Because he is of a new generation, O’Rourke understands that a new way of governing — with openness, transparency, and performance — is called for to tackle our problems in the Information Age. And because he is from a border state, O’Rourke understands the enduring symbol of our country is not the barbed wire fence, it is the Statue of Liberty.

I say curiously, because Beto is not officially running yet. O'Malley's endorsement may not mean a lot but presumably he obtained some assurance from O'Rourke's people before announcing his support.

sir drinks-a-lot · 8th January 2019, 11:09 AM

The first Democratic Primary debate is only 6 months away. They'll start attacking each other soon.

I was thinking Beto had the best chance so far, but I'm thinking we'll get a dark horse candidate instead. It is far too early.

Warren seemed like a strong candidate to me until I saw her "I think I'll have a beer" video. I think she suffered from the same phenomenon as Hillary and Mitt Romney - they just can't make themselves look like they're not putting on an act. (And, after all, they are putting on an act)

Also, Oprah takes it if she decides to run.

The Great Zaganza · 10th January 2019, 12:43 AM

Stephen Dubner had Andrew Yang on his Podcast, who is running as D in 2020.

Might be the best for the country to have him in the White House, as P or VP.
Doesn't have a shot though, especially if he doesn't get into the debates.

Firestone · 12th January 2019, 01:11 AM

Oy vey:

Quote:

Tulsi Gabbard, the Democratic US representative from Hawaii, said she will run for president in 2020, CNN reported on Friday.

“I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week,” she said in an interview with CNN that is scheduled to air on Saturday.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...emocrat-hawaii

varwoche · 12th January 2019, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

Oy vey:

Don't worry. All sorts people will run who don't have an ice cube's chance in hell, and will quickly drop out once things get underway. As for the big picture, worrying is in order.

Stacko · 12th January 2019, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Don't worry. All sorts people will run who don't have an ice cube's chance in hell, and will quickly drop out once things get underway. As for the big picture, worrying is in order.

I think the fear is that Assad's congresswoman will run as independent or Green after she flames out of the Dem primary and play the Jill Stein role.

kellyb · 12th January 2019, 10:34 AM

What's the most unforgivable thing Gabbard has said about Assad?

Stacko · 12th January 2019, 11:12 AM

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack

ETA: Even The Intercept isn't buying her and they love "non-interventionists."

SezMe · 12th January 2019, 11:15 AM

Julián Castro is formally in.

kellyb · 12th January 2019, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack

That skepticism has been warranted, repeatedly.

Quote:

UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use
Syrian rebels have made use of the deadly nerve agent sarin in their war-torn country's conflict, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte has said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...apons-use.html

You have to be really cautious about assigning blame in for attacks like these when a country has been targeted for regime change.

Stacko · 12th January 2019, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

That skepticism has been warranted, repeatedly.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...apons-use.html

You have to be really cautious about assigning blame in for attacks like these when a country has been targeted for regime change.

And if you're still "skeptical" after all the evidence in is pointing to Assad having done it, you're just being his Sarah Sanders.

kellyb · 12th January 2019, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

And if you're still "skeptical" after all the evidence in is pointing to Assad having done it, you're just being his Sarah Sanders.

Your reply makes no sense.

You just don't believe the UN report that it was the rebels and not Assad in that case?

kellyb · 12th January 2019, 06:18 PM

Couple more:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...94409Z20130505

Quote:

GENEVA (Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/12...pons-use-syria

Quote:

“The United Nations Mission collected credible information that corroborates the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Khan Al Asal on 19 March 2013 against soldiers and civilians,” according to the final report, which team leader Dr. Åke Sellström handed over to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at UN Headquarters in New York.

PhantomWolf · 12th January 2019, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Julián Castro is formally in.

I like Julian and I think he may even get to be PotUS one day, but at the moment I think he would be better in the VP position.

Perhaps have him as a VP to one of the more experienced runners, and then in 2028 have him run as PotUS and AOC on the ticket as VP targeting her run in 2036.

Stacko · 12th January 2019, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Your reply makes no sense.

You just don't believe the UN report that it was the rebels and not Assad in that case?

No, I just understand that 2013 and 2017 were different years that had different events occur within them.

kellyb · 12th January 2019, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

No, I just understand that 2013 and 2017 were different years that had different events occur within them.

2013 was the first one, and was...not just initially blamed on Assad, but done so in a way which was used to support imminent invasion/regime change which was only barely averted. It took quite a while for the reality of what went down to be proven. (I has Syrian friends on twitter at the time, anti-Assadist protesters, who were screaming that it was non-Syrian rebels who did it. "Foreign rebels" was another aspect that took time to prove.)

Anyway, the Syrian civil war is really complex, and things are rarely as they seem over there.

That would be the case even without "Western interference", but the "proxy war" and regime change aspects makes it especially so.

Travis · 13th January 2019, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack

ETA: Even The Intercept isn't buying her and they love "non-interventionists."

She is also an enemy of the LGBT community actively campaigning against gay marriage and such.

So....how is it that the Bernie Bros are going in hard for Tulsi even saying she ought to be Bernie's running mate since...clearly he will win

?

varwoche · 13th January 2019, 08:44 AM

Gabbard is an example of a common phenomenon -- one that's politically incorrect to point out.

Ex-military are extra welcome to the Democratic party for obvious reasons, and they undeservedly rise through the ranks because of that. Evidence: Gabbard.

People of color and woman are extra welcome to the Republican party for obvious reasons, and they undeservedly rise through the ranks because of that. Evidence: Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin.

Stacko · 13th January 2019, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

She is also an enemy of the LGBT community actively campaigning against gay marriage and such.

So....how is it that the Bernie Bros are going in hard for Tulsi even saying she ought to be Bernie's running mate since...clearly he will win

?

Aside from the far fringe left I haven't seen that much support for her. On the alt-right however:

I haven't had a anti-semitic troll attack in a while. Then I tweet about Tulsi Gabbard and ... the brown-shirts re-appear. Interesting.

I'd keep my eye on her campaign finances.

Tulsi Gabbard has an army of dudes who created their twitter accounts last week and stole their avis from iStockPhotos campaigning for her.

Craig4 · 13th January 2019, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Julián Castro is formally in.

I saw his speech; he did alright. He spent too much time talking about his family, background and city. It felt like he was speaking the purely local audience and not to the national TV audience. He didn't leave me with much of an understanding of his vision for the country.

kellyb · 13th January 2019, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

She is also an enemy of the LGBT community actively campaigning against gay marriage and such.

She was against marriage equality in 2004, but by by 2012, she was completely in favor, and actually co-sponsored this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

Quote:

The Respect for Marriage Act, abbreviated as RFMA (H.R. 2523, S. 1236), was a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would have repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and required the U.S. federal government to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.

A whole lot of people genuinely changed their mind about gay marriage between those time periods. Hillary Clinton didn't support it till 2013.

Trebuchet · 13th January 2019, 01:06 PM

This is setting up to be another Klown Kar like the R's had in 2016.

kellyb · 13th January 2019, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

This is setting up to be another Klown Kar like the R's had in 2016.

Why do you say that?

We have Biden, Gabbard, Castro, and some guy nobody's ever heard of who've declared so far...

I don't see any of them as remotely as bad as the best of the R candidates from 2016, and there are only 4 thus far.

acbytesla · 13th January 2019, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Why do you say that?

We have Biden, Gabbard, Castro, and some guy nobody's ever heard of who've declared so far...

I don't see any of them as remotely as bad as the best of the R candidates from 2016, and there are only 4 thus far.

Didn't Warren formally announce too?

Venom · 13th January 2019, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

This is setting up to be another Klown Kar like the R's had in 2016.

You can't be serious

kellyb · 13th January 2019, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Didn't Warren formally announce too?

She only announced an exploratory committee. But it's close to announcing formally.

Trebuchet · 13th January 2019, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Why do you say that?

We have Biden, Gabbard, Castro, and some guy nobody's ever heard of who've declared so far...

I don't see any of them as remotely as bad as the best of the R candidates from 2016, and there are only 4 thus far.

Not as bad, no, but there are about 22 months until the election and we already have four and a half.

Originally Posted by Venom

You can't be serious

I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.

Tsukasa Buddha · 13th January 2019, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

She was against marriage equality in 2004, but by by 2012, she was completely in favor, and actually co-sponsored this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

A whole lot of people genuinely changed their mind about gay marriage between those time periods. Hillary Clinton didn't support it till 2013.

You are making an inaccurate comparison. The infamous quote is about her opposing civil unions, which Clinton and mainstream Democrats supported:

Quote:

“To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” she said. “As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.”

And as late as 2016 she said she hadn't changed her mind:

Quote:

Gabbard may back legislation that supports the LGBTQ community, but it’s unclear if her personal views have evolved with her career.

A 2016 profile of the combat veteran published in Ozy suggests otherwise: “She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others,” noted reporter Sanjena Sathian.

Linky.

Even more:

Quote:

That same year, in the Hawaii State House, she delivered a long, fierce speech against a proposed resolution meant to target anti-gay bullying in public schools. She objected to the idea of students being taught that homosexuality is “normal and natural,” and worried that passing the resolution would have the effect of “inviting homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth.”

Linky.

The Hawaiian LGBT Caucus didn't support her in 2016. I'd recommend reading the entire story, but the conclusion is:

Quote:

For Golojuch, though, the statement is too little, too late.

“Co-sponsoring is not leadership,” he told me after reading the statement. “She tells one organization one thing, and another something else. When we needed her, she wasn’t there. We still don’t know what her true position is on LGBT rights.”

JoeMorgue · 13th January 2019, 04:27 PM

I look forward to the Democrats doing all the work of digging up all the dirt on their opponents to make it easier for the Republicans.

Elagabalus · 13th January 2019, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I look forward to the Democrats doing all the work of digging up all the dirt on their opponents to make it easier for the Republicans.

And to get all flustered when Trump goes lowbrow and mocks them with a "I know you are, but what am I?" and follows it up by repeating everything they say only with a whiny voice and the Dems will STILL be surprised that he set the bar so low!! And the Trumptards will love him for it.

PhantomWolf · 13th January 2019, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

This is setting up to be another Klown Kar like the R's had in 2016.

Not really, even the worse of the D's who have announced are more intelligent than the entire 2016 R Panel put together.

kellyb · 13th January 2019, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

You are making an inaccurate comparison. The infamous quote is about her opposing civil unions, which Clinton and mainstream Democrats supported:

And as late as 2016 she said she hadn't changed her mind:

Linky.

Even more:

Linky.

The Hawaiian LGBT Caucus didn't support her in 2016. I'd recommend reading the entire story, but the conclusion is:

I was aware of all that, but she supports marriage equality for sure. I don't really care about the ideological purity of candidates when it's definitely not going to negatively affect their policy decisions whatsoever. Your "that same year " quote is again referring to 2004, also.

And I really do think she must have changed her mind, or she wouldn't have co-sponsored that marriage equality act in 2012.

Brainster · 13th January 2019, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Why do you say that?

We have Biden, Gabbard, Castro, and some guy nobody's ever heard of who've declared so far...

I don't see any of them as remotely as bad as the best of the R candidates from 2016, and there are only 4 thus far.

Biden is still "biden" his time as far as I know. I do expect him to run, but as far as declaring he is behind Warren at this point.

kellyb · 13th January 2019, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Biden is still "biden" his time as far as I know. I do expect him to run, but as far as declaring he is behind Warren at this point.

Oh, you're right. Thanks!

Tsukasa Buddha · 13th January 2019, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I was aware of all that,

...

Your "that same year " quote is again referring to 2004, also.

Then why were you comparing her to Clinton? Her views were far more anti-gay than the mainstream Democrats at the time. It's not accurate to downplay them.

Quote:

but she supports marriage equality for sure. I don't really care about the ideological purity of candidates when it's definitely not going to negatively affect their policy decisions whatsoever.

And I really do think she must have changed her mind, or she wouldn't have co-sponsored that marriage equality act in 2012.

I'm not seeing where you get your certainty from. By her statements, she didn't change her mind on abortion or homosexuality, but changed her view on them as public policy because she didn't want to end up like Islam. That's a fair weather ally at best (well, to some if we ignore the alt-right level Islam rhetoric), and a political opportunist at worst.

Judging by the rest of her history, I'm going with opportunist.

acbytesla · 13th January 2019, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I look forward to the Democrats doing all the work of digging up all the dirt on their opponents to make it easier for the Republicans.

Best to get it out BEFORE you pick a nominee. Figure on the Republicans being able to dig.

31st December 2018, 04:04 PM	#321
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing FLA February 2021 Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,399	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Confession. I'd put money on the table right now that fewer people who were eligible to vote in 2016 and didn't voting in 2020 then people who switch parties from D to R or vice versa between 2016 and 2020. "Non-voter" is almost like it's own party at this point with the same level of heel dug in tribalism. A huge wave of new voters is about as likely as a bunch of people from the other side coming to yours at this point. I'm not so sure that is a safe bet, especially considering that the US just had the biggest turnout for a Midterm in 50 years. That means that a lot of the "Don't vote in Midterms" turned out and voted this time. With people seeing a lot of close and upset races, then I suspect that there will be more people from the "My vote doesn't count" brigade reconsidering their options. I would not at all be surprised to see 2020 break election box records for voters.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

31st December 2018, 04:06 PM	#322
lobosrul5 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 2,195	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I'm saying if I'm the Dems I put the odds of pulling in "non-voters" at about the same as pulling in Republicans, not a lot. The idea that energy spent trying to pull in non-voters is any more or less wasted then energy pulling in Republicans doesn't ring true to me. "But everyone I know is so passionate about politics now, that just has to translate to higher turnout" has been the narrative for the last 2 or 3 elections. 2020 is going to be a battle of the margins, just like every other election. I thought a prevailing theory of the 2016 loss was the "Bernie Bros" stayed home?
lobosrul5 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 2,195

4th January 2019, 11:14 AM	#325
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,358	Martin O'Malley is not running again to the disappointment of his legions of admirers. Curiously, he segues into an endorsement of Beto 2020. Quote: The challenges we face will not solve themselves. Building an economy that works for all of us, reversing climate change, passing immigration reform — they all require leadership. O’Rourke has the wisdom to listen, the courage to lead, and a rock-solid faith in the powerful goodness of our nation. Because he is of a new generation, O’Rourke understands that a new way of governing — with openness, transparency, and performance — is called for to tackle our problems in the Information Age. And because he is from a border state, O’Rourke understands the enduring symbol of our country is not the barbed wire fence, it is the Statue of Liberty. I say curiously, because Beto is not officially running yet. O'Malley's endorsement may not mean a lot but presumably he obtained some assurance from O'Rourke's people before announcing his support.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

8th January 2019, 11:09 AM	#326
sir drinks-a-lot Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 4,513	The first Democratic Primary debate is only 6 months away. They'll start attacking each other soon. I was thinking Beto had the best chance so far, but I'm thinking we'll get a dark horse candidate instead. It is far too early. Warren seemed like a strong candidate to me until I saw her "I think I'll have a beer" video. I think she suffered from the same phenomenon as Hillary and Mitt Romney - they just can't make themselves look like they're not putting on an act. (And, after all, they are putting on an act) Also, Oprah takes it if she decides to run.
	__________________ I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. --Abraham Lincoln

10th January 2019, 12:43 AM	#327
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,880	Stephen Dubner had Andrew Yang on his Podcast, who is running as D in 2020. Might be the best for the country to have him in the White House, as P or VP. Doesn't have a shot though, especially if he doesn't get into the debates.
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so

31st December 2018, 04:08 PM	#323
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,241	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf I'm not so sure that is a safe bet, especially considering that the US just had the biggest turnout for a Midterm in 50 years. That means that a lot of the "Don't vote in Midterms" turned out and voted this time. With people seeing a lot of close and upset races, then I suspect that there will be more people from the "My vote doesn't count" brigade reconsidering their options. I would not at all be surprised to see 2020 break election box records for voters. I agree.

31st December 2018, 07:50 PM	#324
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 25,126	Just found this thread. Is Bloomberg in the "Maybe" column for the Dems?

12th January 2019, 01:11 AM	#328
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,998	Oy vey: Quote: Tulsi Gabbard, the Democratic US representative from Hawaii, said she will run for president in 2020, CNN reported on Friday. “I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week,” she said in an interview with CNN that is scheduled to air on Saturday. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...emocrat-hawaii
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

12th January 2019, 05:23 AM	#329
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,467	Originally Posted by Firestone Oy vey: Don't worry. All sorts people will run who don't have an ice cube's chance in hell, and will quickly drop out once things get underway. As for the big picture, worrying is in order.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

12th January 2019, 09:26 AM	#330
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Originally Posted by varwoche Don't worry. All sorts people will run who don't have an ice cube's chance in hell, and will quickly drop out once things get underway. As for the big picture, worrying is in order. I think the fear is that Assad's congresswoman will run as independent or Green after she flames out of the Dem primary and play the Jill Stein role.

12th January 2019, 10:34 AM	#331
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	What's the most unforgivable thing Gabbard has said about Assad?
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

12th January 2019, 11:12 AM	#332
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack ETA: Even The Intercept isn't buying her and they love "non-interventionists."
	Last edited by Stacko; 12th January 2019 at 11:24 AM.

12th January 2019, 11:15 AM	#333
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 25,126	Julián Castro is formally in.

12th January 2019, 11:33 AM	#334
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by Stacko Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack That skepticism has been warranted, repeatedly. Quote: UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use Syrian rebels have made use of the deadly nerve agent sarin in their war-torn country's conflict, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte has said. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...apons-use.html You have to be really cautious about assigning blame in for attacks like these when a country has been targeted for regime change.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

12th January 2019, 03:02 PM	#335
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Originally Posted by kellyb That skepticism has been warranted, repeatedly. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...apons-use.html You have to be really cautious about assigning blame in for attacks like these when a country has been targeted for regime change. And if you're still "skeptical" after all the evidence in is pointing to Assad having done it, you're just being his Sarah Sanders.

12th January 2019, 05:24 PM	#336
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by Stacko And if you're still "skeptical" after all the evidence in is pointing to Assad having done it, you're just being his Sarah Sanders. Your reply makes no sense. You just don't believe the UN report that it was the rebels and not Assad in that case?
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

12th January 2019, 06:18 PM	#337
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Couple more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...94409Z20130505 Quote: GENEVA (Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday. The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte. https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/12...pons-use-syria Quote: “The United Nations Mission collected credible information that corroborates the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Khan Al Asal on 19 March 2013 against soldiers and civilians,” according to the final report, which team leader Dr. Åke Sellström handed over to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at UN Headquarters in New York.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

12th January 2019, 07:45 PM	#338
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing FLA February 2021 Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,399	Originally Posted by SezMe Julián Castro is formally in. I like Julian and I think he may even get to be PotUS one day, but at the moment I think he would be better in the VP position. Perhaps have him as a VP to one of the more experienced runners, and then in 2028 have him run as PotUS and AOC on the ticket as VP targeting her run in 2036.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

12th January 2019, 07:55 PM	#339
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Originally Posted by kellyb Your reply makes no sense. You just don't believe the UN report that it was the rebels and not Assad in that case? No, I just understand that 2013 and 2017 were different years that had different events occur within them.

12th January 2019, 08:19 PM	#340
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by Stacko No, I just understand that 2013 and 2017 were different years that had different events occur within them. 2013 was the first one, and was...not just initially blamed on Assad, but done so in a way which was used to support imminent invasion/regime change which was only barely averted. It took quite a while for the reality of what went down to be proven. (I has Syrian friends on twitter at the time, anti-Assadist protesters, who were screaming that it was non-Syrian rebels who did it. "Foreign rebels" was another aspect that took time to prove.) Anyway, the Syrian civil war is really complex, and things are rarely as they seem over there. That would be the case even without "Western interference", but the "proxy war" and regime change aspects makes it especially so.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

13th January 2019, 08:29 AM	#341
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24,101	Originally Posted by Stacko Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack ETA: Even The Intercept isn't buying her and they love "non-interventionists." She is also an enemy of the LGBT community actively campaigning against gay marriage and such. So....how is it that the Bernie Bros are going in hard for Tulsi even saying she ought to be Bernie's running mate since...clearly he will win ?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale Humor blog

13th January 2019, 08:44 AM	#342
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,467	Gabbard is an example of a common phenomenon -- one that's politically incorrect to point out. Ex-military are extra welcome to the Democratic party for obvious reasons, and they undeservedly rise through the ranks because of that. Evidence: Gabbard. People of color and woman are extra welcome to the Republican party for obvious reasons, and they undeservedly rise through the ranks because of that. Evidence: Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. Last edited by varwoche; 13th January 2019 at 10:32 AM.

13th January 2019, 08:47 AM	#343
Stacko Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,837	Originally Posted by Travis She is also an enemy of the LGBT community actively campaigning against gay marriage and such. So....how is it that the Bernie Bros are going in hard for Tulsi even saying she ought to be Bernie's running mate since...clearly he will win ? Aside from the far fringe left I haven't seen that much support for her. On the alt-right however: I haven't had a anti-semitic troll attack in a while. Then I tweet about Tulsi Gabbard and ... the brown-shirts re-appear. Interesting. I'd keep my eye on her campaign finances. Tulsi Gabbard has an army of dudes who created their twitter accounts last week and stole their avis from iStockPhotos campaigning for her.

13th January 2019, 10:06 AM	#344
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: I live in a swamp Posts: 22,895	Originally Posted by SezMe Julián Castro is formally in. I saw his speech; he did alright. He spent too much time talking about his family, background and city. It felt like he was speaking the purely local audience and not to the national TV audience. He didn't leave me with much of an understanding of his vision for the country.

13th January 2019, 10:46 AM	#345
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by Travis She is also an enemy of the LGBT community actively campaigning against gay marriage and such. She was against marriage equality in 2004, but by by 2012, she was completely in favor, and actually co-sponsored this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act Quote: The Respect for Marriage Act, abbreviated as RFMA (H.R. 2523, S. 1236), was a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would have repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and required the U.S. federal government to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. A whole lot of people genuinely changed their mind about gay marriage between those time periods. Hillary Clinton didn't support it till 2013.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

13th January 2019, 01:06 PM	#346
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 31,330	This is setting up to be another Klown Kar like the R's had in 2016.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

13th January 2019, 01:12 PM	#347
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by Trebuchet This is setting up to be another Klown Kar like the R's had in 2016. Why do you say that? We have Biden, Gabbard, Castro, and some guy nobody's ever heard of who've declared so far... I don't see any of them as remotely as bad as the best of the R candidates from 2016, and there are only 4 thus far.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

13th January 2019, 01:44 PM	#348
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,593	Originally Posted by kellyb Why do you say that? We have Biden, Gabbard, Castro, and some guy nobody's ever heard of who've declared so far... I don't see any of them as remotely as bad as the best of the R candidates from 2016, and there are only 4 thus far. Didn't Warren formally announce too?
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

13th January 2019, 01:48 PM	#349
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,975	Originally Posted by Trebuchet This is setting up to be another Klown Kar like the R's had in 2016. You can't be serious

13th January 2019, 01:49 PM	#350
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by acbytesla Didn't Warren formally announce too? She only announced an exploratory committee. But it's close to announcing formally.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

13th January 2019, 03:24 PM	#351
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 31,330	Originally Posted by kellyb Why do you say that? We have Biden, Gabbard, Castro, and some guy nobody's ever heard of who've declared so far... I don't see any of them as remotely as bad as the best of the R candidates from 2016, and there are only 4 thus far. Not as bad, no, but there are about 22 months until the election and we already have four and a half. Originally Posted by Venom You can't be serious I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

13th January 2019, 04:05 PM	#352
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 15,302	Originally Posted by kellyb She was against marriage equality in 2004, but by by 2012, she was completely in favor, and actually co-sponsored this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act A whole lot of people genuinely changed their mind about gay marriage between those time periods. Hillary Clinton didn't support it till 2013. You are making an inaccurate comparison. The infamous quote is about her opposing civil unions, which Clinton and mainstream Democrats supported: Quote: “To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” she said. “As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.” And as late as 2016 she said she hadn't changed her mind: Quote: Gabbard may back legislation that supports the LGBTQ community, but it’s unclear if her personal views have evolved with her career. A 2016 profile of the combat veteran published in Ozy suggests otherwise: “She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others,” noted reporter Sanjena Sathian. Linky. Even more: Quote: That same year, in the Hawaii State House, she delivered a long, fierce speech against a proposed resolution meant to target anti-gay bullying in public schools. She objected to the idea of students being taught that homosexuality is “normal and natural,” and worried that passing the resolution would have the effect of “inviting homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth.” Linky. The Hawaiian LGBT Caucus didn't support her in 2016. I'd recommend reading the entire story, but the conclusion is: Quote: For Golojuch, though, the statement is too little, too late. “Co-sponsoring is not leadership,” he told me after reading the statement. “She tells one organization one thing, and another something else. When we needed her, she wasn’t there. We still don’t know what her true position is on LGBT rights.”
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

13th January 2019, 04:27 PM	#353
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,583	I look forward to the Democrats doing all the work of digging up all the dirt on their opponents to make it easier for the Republicans.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

13th January 2019, 05:12 PM	#354
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 7,016	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I look forward to the Democrats doing all the work of digging up all the dirt on their opponents to make it easier for the Republicans. And to get all flustered when Trump goes lowbrow and mocks them with a "I know you are, but what am I?" and follows it up by repeating everything they say only with a whiny voice and the Dems will STILL be surprised that he set the bar so low!! And the Trumptards will love him for it.
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 7,016

13th January 2019, 06:04 PM	#355
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing FLA February 2021 Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,399	Originally Posted by Trebuchet This is setting up to be another Klown Kar like the R's had in 2016. Not really, even the worse of the D's who have announced are more intelligent than the entire 2016 R Panel put together.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)