Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

It's a silly analysis, but has a point buried in there that's legitimate. In 2016, Sanders was pretty quickly matched up 1-on-1 against Hillary Clinton and had a clear progressive populist lane to himself around which the left and the young could coalesce. He also didn't have any strong young/fresh contenders to draw his burgeoning left/youth coalition's attention away. This year, the field will be very crowded, and many of the contenders will be heavily promoting progressive/populist policies and messaging, and among those will be younger/fresher faces who may well have more natural appeal to young voters. That will make his path to and case for the nomination more complicated than 2016. Now if it narrows to, say, Biden, Harris and Sanders, he'll be in a much stronger position to stake his claim. But if he's splitting support with Warren, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Gillibrand, etc, then he's more vulnerable than ever to a strategic consolidation of the Democratic institutionalized power players around a Harris or a Biden.

Post #590, Feb. 21

Interesting to see the different groups supporting Warren and Sanders so far, not hurting each other to this point. Warren is adopting Bernie's rhetoric in a way to cut into his lead, but I think he'll continue to run slightly ahead of her.

I wanted to mention, I think Tulsi Gabbard is now the big player here. Of the final 10, she's the 3rd progressive. If she can build enough support to stick around through a few more debates and take some massive shots like she has, then she becomes a deciding factor in Warren vs. Sanders. Tulsi will clearly support Sanders after she exits, due to their foreign policy differences. So whatever support she gains will eventually power Bernie. Bernie himself CANNOT attack Warren, as he would be immediately called a sexist by mouthbreathing media. He needs Tulsi to point out the big differences for him.

[Sour Masher]

I think Tulsi Gabbard is 100% right, those chemical weapons attacks were questionable. They were initially reported by 1 source within Syria who claimed to be a doctor. The pictures he shared to the media showed emergency workers touching and moving the bodies of the chemical weapon victims in hazmat suits but with bare hands. Several pictures of that. It's honestly highly suspect. If you think the government wouldn't lie and conspire, I've got one word for you: WMD. Question everything.

The fact that Kamala Harris is smearing Tulsi as both an Assad apologist AND a Russian asset is completely pathetic, and should disqualify her from consideration. She hasn't answered for anything in her awful track record, only to smear and belittle Tulsi. Anderson Cooper asked her about the attack on her record and she said "Oh, I'm a top-tier candidate, and she's at 0 or 1%, and she's an Assad apologist." So therefore, she doesn't feel a need to address her own record.

I think it is a dangerous misdirection from the central debate for someone of her standing to call into question the use of chemical agents against his own people in specific cases, especially since she admits he had done it other times. Is what she claims possible? Certainly is it possible, and it is okay to have that hunch and look for more evidence. But based on the evidence she relies on, if I were her, I would not go so far as to make the claims she has made and continues to support. At least not until more evidence is available.

This is especially true, because she admits that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people in other instances (she also points out the other side has done the same). To me, if the general principle is in place that Assad uses chemical weapons, focusing on specific instances to question their legitimacy is like focusing in on specific claims against Cosby. Is it possible some claims against him our bandwagon claims? Maybe, but it is dangerous to go down that road, because, for some, it starts to drag down all claims against him. Likewise, if Gabbard, or others, are not going to go so far as to claim that all reports of Assad using chemical weapons are fabricated, why bring up any potential fabrications, especially without sufficient evidence? It seems to be to highlight how the US should not rush into picking a side or intervening, which is certainly a point worth making, but not on the basis of inconclusive and shaky evidence.

The larger debate is should the US intervene in this conflict, even if what Gabbard and all others acknowledge is happening at some level, is happening, or should we stay out of such matters? That is a debate we have had here and it is a legitimate debate to have, I think. But that debate gets clouded if we can't agree on the facts, and it leaves open the question of, "well, what if it is true, does that matter?"

[Sour Masher]

And, I agree, regardless of Gabbard's position on Assad, her criticisms of Harris should not have been dismissed with ad hominen attacks by Harris. It was a weak response and deflection.

[Teenwolf]

Fair enough on both points. However, I believe Gabbard might be privy to more intelligence than she gets credit for, given her prominent ranking on the House Foreign Affairs committee and House Armed Services committee, as well as extensive travel and diplomatic talks with world leaders. I would generally say that the US are blatantly lying to enflame conflict all over the world. Including the attempt to support a coup in Venezuela, which was a completely transparent attempt to take over controlling interest in their oil. Pompeo was trying to sell it as Venezuela not allowing US aid, and the people are starving with 10,000% inflation, blah blah blah. It's completely fabricated nonsense. So I trust Gabbard's instinct that something wasn't right about the rush to respond to Syria before investigating the supposed impetus for the bombing. How many people died in the bombing response, and what good did it accomplish? It was widely reported that they bombed the runways while leaving the hangars and planes within them untouched... sure looks more like a staged event to me.

[Sour Masher]

The US certainly does have a history of getting into conflicts it should not and justifies it with flimsy or fabricated intelligence, as was the case with Iraq.

[Teenwolf]

Oh man, Joe Biden continues looking confused. He used to have conviction in the stupid things he said, but he's certainly bumbling a lot more in his old age.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...so-in-michigan

Biden, 76, mistakenly referred to the shootings as “the tragic events in Houston today and also in Michigan the day before," but later corrected himself, according to a pool report. Biden seemingly confused Houston for El Paso and Michigan for Ohio when speaking to donors about the shootings.

[revo]

Oh man, Joe Biden continues looking confused. He used to have conviction in the stupid things he said, but he's certainly bumbling a lot more in his old age.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...so-in-michigan

And Dopey Donnie followed suit by saying in a press conference "May god bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo."

[The Feral Slasher]

I think it is fear of losing freedoms. The way we are taught in schools shows great pride in our fight for independence, and our heroic efforts in WWII. I think there has long been a sense of pride of being the biggest, baddest nation in the world, and no one can push us around and no one could take us on. With the end of the Cold War, though, and the rise of conflicts mostly being economic and intelligence based, I don't know why that MIC fervor has not died down. We could comfortbaly cut our defense budget in half and still have that sense of security, but I don't know if most Americans truly understand that.

I just saw this as the top story on the Yahoo home page under the headline "Putin Threatens U.S. with Nuclear Weapons". The article itself has a different title, but bullshit like this that is constantly pushed by our media to instill fear.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-washington-well-develop-nuclear-134500724.html

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Monday that Moscow would start developing short and intermediate-range land-based nuclear missiles if the United States started doing the same after the demise of a landmark arms control treaty.

[GwynnInTheHall]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1666/mi...l-defense.aspx

Thanks for the link Mike. This is what I took away from the poll:

It didn't address the reasons WHY we need a strong military or solutions to reduce that need. So it's assertion that our Military and spending for Defense is at the right level in the majority of Americans minds lacks context.

It's obvious that there is a disconnect with some of those polls as there are people who actually think the US isn't the #1 military in the world, they also think it should be and that it won't be in the future so spending more on defense to regain or sustain that ranking seems necessary to the when it's really not.

During the Obama administration, the public thought we spent too much on the Military, but as the 2016 election neared and after Trump took office, the sentiment changed to not enough or just right. Why do you suppose that happened?

Half the people in the poll see the USA's Military dominance diminishing over the next 20 years.

Also, not in context of the discussion we're having, there are still those who believe we should have a draft, ban gays from openly serving and women from combat (all pretty much the same number)

So I stand by what I've said--the Avg. American wants to be defended, protected and in today's world (post trump) we seem to be putting ourselves in a position to need more protection daily. reduce the need and i'd wager the numbers go back to the Obama era of spending too much as being the majority of Americans.

I haven't even touched the economic incentives to maintain the current state of Defense spending.

But you are right in that there will always be those who want the USA to be overly dominant compared to the rest of the world when it comes to Military Might.

[DMT]

I just saw this as the top story on the Yahoo home page under the headline "Putin Threatens U.S. with Nuclear Weapons". The article itself has a different title, but bullshit like this that is constantly pushed by our media to instill fear.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-washington-well-develop-nuclear-134500724.html

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Monday that Moscow would start developing short and intermediate-range land-based nuclear missiles if the United States started doing the same after the demise of a landmark arms control treaty.

Total BS but they have changed the title, likely after receiving complaints.

[revo]

Will Hurd, the only black GOPer in Congress, becomes the 6th Republican Congressman to retire rather than run again in ‘20.

With Texas Rep. Kenny Marchand announcing he won’t run, he becomes the 4th Texan GOPer and 11th GOPer overall (compared to 2 Dems) to announce they won’t run for re-election in 2020.

[Sour Masher]

With Texas Rep. Kenny Marchand announcing he won’t run, he becomes the 4th Texan GOPer and 11th GOPer overall (compared to 2 Dems) to announce they won’t run for re-election in 2020.

These things give me hope. I sometimes think most politicians are craven sycophants who are about getting and maintaining power at all costs. It is nice to see people have difference with the way their party is run and take a stance. I hope one day soon the GOP realizes Trump is taking them down a dark and wrong path and these folks who are stepping aside now are given a chance to rejoin races when they again believe in their party.

[DMT]

These things give me hope. I sometimes think most politicians are craven sycophants who are about getting and maintaining power at all costs. It is nice to see people have difference with the way their party is run and take a stance. I hope one day soon the GOP realizes Trump is taking them down a dark and wrong path and these folks who are stepping aside now are given a chance to rejoin races when they again believe in their party.

But are they stepping down out of principle or because they don't expect to win?

[Sour Masher]

But are they stepping down out of principle or because they don't expect to win?

Good point. I assume case by case. Maybe both in most cases. Either way, it gives me hope that change is coming. It needs to come.

[revo]

But are they stepping down out of principle or because they don't expect to win?

Less about principle and more about not expecting to win.


In polling news, the IBD/TIPP poll just released shows Biden with a commanding 13 point lead over Trump (54-41), but among independents led 59-35. Bernie was next, up 50-45.

The same poll showed Trump with his lowest approval score in six months, dropping to 40%.


DMN/Emerson has a Texas poll out, which shows both Biden & Sanders leading Trump by 2%, with the others further back:

Texas: Trump vs. Biden	        DMN/Emerson	Biden 51, Trump 49	Biden +2
Texas: Trump vs. Sanders	DMN/Emerson	Trump 49, Sanders 51	Sanders +2