2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
At this pt - does it even matter anymore? Trump will come up with even bigger lies to one up him and then we really have hit rock bottom.
bidens support is very soft. like 95% of the people who support him get called up for a poll while watching wheel of fortune and theyre like "oh yeah biden, he was raprocks VP right? he seemed fine ill go for him". its the 5% of hardcore supporters like lsd and shamans you have to worry about.
Not trying to argue but rather curious. What do you dislike?
Even though he’s not a lefty, he attracts support from across the spectrum and he has a good way of explaining his more progressive policies — making them palatable to non leftists. Also gotta agree with his initiative to redefine how the economy ought to be measured.
I love Bernie as much as the next bro but America deserves nothing less than 8 years of a president who calls Obama Raprock.
He reminds me a bit of Ron Paul - says random things that most people generally agree with (in Paul’s case it was anti-interventionism) and slowly accrues a clique of followers even though it’s certain he has no chance of winning. In Yang’s case, he will be remembered as the guy who shifted the Overton window on UBI from fringe concept into the political mainstream.
Last edited:
Love it
I hope you are right though, it would be a disaster if Biden wins the nomination.
The more I think about it, the more it boggles me.
Rap/Rock. What on earth was his muddled brain trying to feed him when he said that? Run DMC vs Aerosmith?
I didn't want to say it before, but I noticed that too.
Your last sentence however is one of the two main reasons I love the guy. And as an aside, I'm part Asian so I gotta support the brethren similarly to how I gotta rep for Tulsi because we both grew up in Hawaii.
His wife must be wanting to get the guy treatment even if the DNC is pushing him along.
I like this guy
This really
I'm not completely against UBI but it would have to follow something like UBS(Universal Basic Services)and more radical lefty politics(Far more to the left than what Sanders is pushing at the moment).
I agree with him that using GDP as measurement of a successful society is a really really bad idea.
I don't think we can go any lower than where we currently are.
Its also wrong to just excuse the lies just because we are used to Trump lying everyday. The day will come when Trump is out of office and the US needs to then go back to normal.
Wouldn’t worry about who to vote for if I were you. These machines will make the decision for everyone. The fix is in.
Democratic strategist folks
It actually amazes me that anyone would want to be known as a "democratic strategist" after losing a general election to a Reality TV star, alleged sexual assaulter, that had to pay a firm to provide people to attend his announcement bid.
Not only have they learnt nothing from 2016, their idea is to double-down on the centrism and stupid comments like this specimen.
Last edited:
democracy dies in darkness
I'd vote for Bernie and the general point is obviously true, the media deserve distrust. This specific point seems an odd way to make it though.
The study clearly doesn't say 500k people went bankrupt from medical expenses, and if you take the "very much agree" (that medical expenses contributed to bankruptcy) measure as indicative, the numbers would be significantly below 500k. And that's before separating out what was the cause, what were the prominent factors, and what were incidental. It's likely medical expenses were among the most important factors in most cases, but unlikely to be in all of them, and it's very unlikely to be the cause of most of them. So what Sanders said isn't true, based on the source cited.
It's a bit over-zealous to phrase it the way Sanders did, and it's a bit over-zealous for the WP to call it a lie. They both do that in exactly these scenarios on a regular basis, and the greater power lies in Sanders exaggeration than the WP's fact check, so it's a strange point of focus. If you don't care whether Bernie uses the right numbers then fair enough, but you shouldn't care about the professionals who are paid to care either.
Sanders said 500,000 people go bankrupt, not 500,000 people suffer the after-effects of bankruptcy. So no, Himmelstein's point about the "restricted" definition effecting that many people in a wider family is just changing the narrative, because the big picture point is what matters to him and it is of course true. Bankruptcy from medical bills has a shockingly large effect in America, both in the relative and absolute sense.
People that say they somewhat agree that medical bills contribute to their bankruptcy is clearly not the same as saying it was, conclusively, the cause of it. If they thought that medical bills caused it they wouldn't be somewhat on the fence about it. We have no idea whether the people who said they "very much agree" that it contributes to bankruptcy would've also said "it was the cause" if they were asked it, because they weren't asked it. But even if all of them did, that's less than 500,000 people going bankrupt based on that study.
No idea about the other studies, or the wider analysis. I'm just saying the evidence provided in that one study seems perfectly contestable vs. the way it was framed by Sanders. If he got the figure from another study and it actually supports it then that's great. They probably should've provided that one instead though.
You're arguing semantics. At the end of the day I'll trust the author to analyse his own study. If we don't, then we might as well throw the entire study out, and then there's no discussion to begin with. But there's little room for "I trust the study but I disagree with the author".
Its going to be tempting for them, but i hope the Dems don't waste a lot of money and resources on Texas. They need to focus on winning back Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Agreed, but the temptation to invest there will be strong since Trump is virtually guaranteed to lose the election by a humiliating number if he can't pick up the 38 in Texas. Another reason I think Beto will be in the mix for someone's VP as they're weighing the calculus.
I think it's slightly too early to call yes/no to that question yet. For now I'd hedge. 3 or 4 months more of the trade war should tell which way the wind is blowing. And give Beto a chance to revitalise himself somewhat.
Not sure if this was aimed at me? I didn't say I trust the study, I know feck all about it other than the measures they've quoted, which inevitably have limitations that authors would prefer to avoid focusing on. And it's not a question of interpretation whether his follow-up response was true or not. He answered a different question to the one he was asked. If Bernie Sanders had talked about the wider effects of bankruptcy then his response would've been useful. But if Bernie had talked about that he would've used bigger numbers, because that's what he does.
I think he was right to answer a different question and place it in a larger frame to control the narrative, but that's not the point. The fact checker checked a specific fact. The measure he provided does not support the statement Sanders made.
And I'm only arguing semantics because of the nature of the discussion. It's a fact checker. They're being purposefully nitpicky. The way to respond to it is to change the narrative not double down on a misrepresentation of the data. Unfortunately the limitations of the question prevent anyone from making a statement that bankruptcy was caused by any one factor, and not only ignoring that but adding in people that only slightly agree is just misrepresentation.
Don't do a Clinton! Texas will be blue soon enough. Win the swings for now.
Bernie-Beto, Warren-Beto and Biden-Beto have no chance of flipping Texas to the Dems in 2020. Trump is more popular than Cruz and Beto's voter pull as a VP will be negligible. Texas is not going for some Northeasterner over Trump (either Bernie or Biden). Only Clinton advisors could possibly think investing in Texas is a good idea for 2020
Last edited:
It remains very bizarre to me that your system involves candidates essentially picking a cheerleader, that could then conceivably become unelected leader of the most powerful country in the world.
As funny an image of Beto addressing the nation, standing on the desk in the oval office is.
It's pretty simple actually.
It was designed by a bunch of slave owning cnuts to keep power in elitist hands and hasn't been properly updated since then.
Biden maybe, but Beto is too conservative for Bernie or Warren.
Party "activists" seem to be fascinated with Harris, Buttigieg, and Booker
Dems just need to expend enough resources in Texas to keep the GOP nervous is all. Then they will also be spending time there instead of the Upper Midwest/PA, because they absolutely cannot lose TX whereas the Dems don’t need to win it.
I think they will apply that strategy in AZ, TX, and GA since each are slowly lurching away from the GOP. If Trump's popularity takes a dip (due to let's say the economy tanking over the next 9-12 months) each of them will be in play. Less so if the economy remains relatively stable.
Clinton doubled what Trump spent and she did it trying to run up the score. It's incredible that these lessons haven't been learned since 2016.
You should seriously be given a spot in some serious campaign. Obviously I should be hired alongside to moderate your inner Che but still..
Money to trounce Trump would be better spent in senate races. Without the senate it will be yet another wasted 4 years and I can't imagine another 4 years of the turtle.
Senate races in AZ and GA are real pick up opportunities for the Dems.
- Status