Election 2020

[The Feral Slasher]

TW, what do you make of this article from The Hill and the fact that South Carolina Repubs are advocating al Repubs to vote for Sanders? It very much seems like the GOP thinks Sanders winning the primaries is the best path to victory for Trump. Are you upset by this type of rigging and unfairness, even though it helps your man? If they were doing this for any other candidate, I think you'd be going ballistic: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...kTj?li=BBnbfcN

"The plan - orchestrated by Greenville GOP chairman Nate Leupp and several other prominent Republican Party leaders - revolves around GOP leadership's belief that Sanders poses the least amount of challenge to President Trump in November's general election"

Taking a page from Hillary's pied piper strategy. Genious

[Sour Masher]

Taking a page from Hillary's pied piper strategy. Genious

Yes, it could certainly backfire, as it did when Hillary and the dems thought Trump would be an easy opponent to beat. I do think they are underestimating Sanders and his base. It is still a shady abuse of the current system, and I suspect if it was being abused to aid any other candidates, many fervent Sanders supporters would be up in arms decrying that the DNC was being complicit in sabotaging Sanders by not doing what it can to combat this.

[The Feral Slasher]

Yes, it could certainly backfire, as it did when Hillary and the dems thought Trump would be an easy opponent to beat. I do think they are underestimating Sanders and his base. It is still a shady abuse of the current system, and I suspect if it was being abused to aid any other candidates, many fervent Sanders supporters would be up in arms decrying that the DNC was being complicit in sabotaging Sanders by not doing what it can to combat this.

Maybe so. I actually didnt read much of the article, my phone battery was dying

[Sour Masher]

The fact that someone as even-handed and seemingly open-minded as you has to add this disclaimer speaks volumes about the general nature of Sanders supporters.

Thanks for the kind words. I think I come off as wishy washy vacillating between candidates, but it is an attempt to be open-minded about who the best candidate to beat Trump is.

I do find myself sometimes drawn to Sanders' integrity and consistency in his effort to ensure all Americans have access to medical care (among other things I also like about him) but turned off by some of the extremity of his ideology and overly simplistic and costly implantation plans, which I do not agree with in total, and the somewhat scary level of unwavering dedication of his most fervent fans. TW's recent embracing of the idea that Sanders' base is basically the left's version of Trump's base. It makes me think the IntheCorn may be right that the extremes may end up pulling our system apart. I do not really want the left to turn into a militant army of unwavering support for one man and an uncompromising dedication to support all his ideas no matter what.

I do not want the country controlled by these extremes, with the middle being shouted down and forced to choose from two sides, neither appealing to them, and being vilified by both sides for being too close to the other side. It is a shame it may come to that, but I suppose I understand it as a reaction to Trump's rise.

[Teenwolf]

The fact that someone as even-handed and seemingly open-minded as you has to add this disclaimer speaks volumes about the general nature of Sanders supporters.

I take this as a personal jab.

I have a great relationship with Sour Masher, always very respectful. Because, listen closely, Sour Masher respects me in return! Isn't that interesting? See, most posters here respond to me with tinfoil hat emoji's, mocking, and dismissiveness. You could all learn a lot from Sour Masher's ability to engage with me without being a total asshole. He's in a very small group.

TS Garp, your whining about Sanders' supporters lack of civility is pathetic. This thread is about politics and politics provoke passionate opinions. Grow up. If you want to have a thread where you compete in the civility Olympics, go for it. I'm not censoring myself based on your pearl clutching.

[Teenwolf]

TW, what do you make of this article from The Hill and the fact that South Carolina Repubs are advocating al Repubs to vote for Sanders? It very much seems like the GOP thinks Sanders winning the primaries is the best path to victory for Trump. Are you upset by this type of rigging and unfairness, even though it helps your man? If they were doing this for any other candidate, I think you'd be going ballistic: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...kTj?li=BBnbfcN

"The plan - orchestrated by Greenville GOP chairman Nate Leupp and several other prominent Republican Party leaders - revolves around GOP leadership's belief that Sanders poses the least amount of challenge to President Trump in November's general election"

I think its hilariously stupid. Man, maybe B-Fly was right about party organizers being total idiots.

I think they genuinely believe that Sanders is an easy opponent, but it will backfire.

Would I be mad if they were doing the same for Biden? Well, if they ran the same campaign to elevate Biden I think it would be terrifying. We just have to be thankful these Republicans are so incredibly short-sighted.

[Teenwolf]

Here is an interesting article from the Atlantic on the negative impact of McKinsey and other management consultant firms on the middle class. Helpful for me, who have only heard or read more cartoon mustache twirling versions of why they are bad. But this make a good case for the extent of their negative impact without resorting to vilification (but still makes it clear how devastating they have been). I appreciated that, because the idea of technocracy, in the abstract, never seemed too bad to me. But the article makes a strong case for the negative impact of them as implemented by these firms. The short of it is that they stripped away the natural progression and rise of American workers from "the mail room to the corner office," and shifted the corporate ethos that used to consider the growth, training, and advancement of its employees to entirely serve the interest of shareholders and ruthless efficiency, even if it means massive layoffs, outsourcing, etc.

Although the article aims at explaining why Mayor Pete should be looked at suspiciously, for me, the secondary affect of this article is that it reaffirmed what first attracted me to Warren. Her specific proposals to regulate and change business are essentially a return to that old way of doing things, that gave workers the ability to start at the bottom, but rise up, through nurturing and training, and offered a shared sense of responsibility and ownership of a company at all levels. A way of not abandoning profit motives or the realities that such capitalistic motives lead to expansion and growth, but balancing them with that old corporate ethos that cared about and nurtured its workers, and gave them ways to advance, stability and security, and raises that outpaced CEO raises. For all of the attacks on Warren, and I admit some are warranted, I still like her vision of reform and believe it is the more realistic and better path than the revolution Sanders offers.

Here is the link, and any Sanders supporters, don't be turned off by my Warren conclusions. They are my own and have nothing to do with the article or its intent. The main focus of the article is to explain why Mayor Pete is viewed suspiciously by the left, and it accomplishes that goal effectively for me as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...cE2?li=BBnbfcN

These McKinsey style elites are vampires. The crazy part is where CEO pay skyrocketed to incentivize further cost cutting. That's where I align with Sanders proposal on implementing a rule that CEO's can only make a certain multiple of their lowest paid worker. Whether that's 50x or 1000x is undecided, but I like that rule as a metric that focuses on the underpaid workers.

If Mayor Pete rises because of hype around his Iowa overperformance, it will be good to see Sanders expose Pete's history like this article does.

[B-Fly]

Ultimately Buttigieg outperforming expectation in Iowa and New Hampshire and thus staying in the race longer is probably good for Sanders, IMO. Even if Pete's support from African American primary voters rises from near zero to, say, eight or nine percent, he's not remotely viable. It just delays the possibility of a moderate/establishment coalition uniting around an "anti-Bernie" who would actually have a chance of securing the nomination, namely Biden or Bloomberg (or even Warren).

It also underscores how absurd it is to always allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, and how absurd the Iowa caucuses are generally. On the latter, Buttigieg is "winning" based on the reported results to date not because he got the most votes in Round 1 … and not because he got the most votes in Round 2 (Bernie led both counts), but because just like our ridiculous Electoral College the delegate awarding system in Iowa utterly destroys the concept of one person, one vote equity. In the case of Iowa, it's not even necessarily about high population versus low population counties, but about prior turnout numbers, so if you inspire a big turnout in 2020 in a location that had a smaller turnout in Iowa's 2016 or 2018 (yes, even non-presidential election) caucuses, you still only get the "delegate value" determined by those prior year turnouts. It's really dumb, and I'm ultimately glad the underlying dumbness of the caucus system is getting more exposed this year because of the app debacle. I just wish it didn't also play into such an easy narrative for Trump.

[The Feral Slasher]

Ultimately Buttigieg outperforming expectation in Iowa and New Hampshire and thus staying in the race longer is probably good for Sanders, IMO. Even if Pete's support from African American primary voters rises from near zero to, say, eight or nine percent, he's not remotely viable. It just delays the possibility of a moderate/establishment coalition uniting around an "anti-Bernie" who would actually have a chance of securing the nomination, namely Biden or Bloomberg (or even Warren).

completely agree with this. I'd like all the centrists to stay in the race and for Warren/Sanders to figure out how to combine their support behind one of them. I don't see how else either of them has a chance.

[In the Corn]

I have a great relationship with Sour Masher, always very respectful. Because, listen closely, Sour Masher respects me in return! Isn't that interesting? See, most posters here respond to me with tinfoil hat emoji's, mocking, and dismissiveness. You could all learn a lot from Sour Masher's ability to engage with me without being a total asshole. He's in a very small group.

TS Garp, your whining about Sanders' supporters lack of civility is pathetic. This thread is about politics and politics provoke passionate opinions. Grow up. If you want to have a thread where you compete in the civility Olympics, go for it. I'm not censoring myself based on your pearl clutching.

So TW you get to tell everyone else here to stop being an asshole, but you get to be an asshole to TS Garp.

Put your big fucking boy pants on, or stop name calling and other's will do the same to you.

I love your passion, don't get me wrong, but you denigrate anyone with a different passion or pokes a hole in your myopic view of Bernie and the Democrats.

[DMT]

It really is hilarious that TW is [one of] the least respectful poster in this thread but whines about being disrespected.

[TS Garp]

So TW you get to tell everyone else here to stop being an asshole, but you get to be an asshole to TS Garp.

Put your big fucking boy pants on, or stop name calling and other's will do the same to you.

I love your passion, don't get me wrong, but you denigrate anyone with a different passion or pokes a hole in your myopic view of Bernie and the Democrats.

Thank you, ITC.

[GwynnInTheHall]

So TW you get to tell everyone else here to stop being an asshole, but you get to be an asshole to TS Garp.

Put your big fucking boy pants on, or stop name calling and other's will do the same to you.

I love your passion, don't get me wrong, but you denigrate anyone with a different passion or pokes a hole in your myopic view of Bernie and the Democrats.

I don't know about you but I'm trying to fit into smaller pants thank you very much...……...I know, I know-Take to the weight loss thread.

[In the Corn]

I don't know about you but I'm trying to fit into smaller pants thank you very much...……...I know, I know-Take to the weight loss thread.

Significant Shrinkage!

[gcstomp]

lets applaud that sotu!
this is again a case where dems are held to a different standard. pelosi on replay clearly extended hand to shake trumps hand and trump locked eyes and saw it, it was an intentional snub. trump then hits pelosi numerous times in his 75 minute absurdly partisan sotu that was a maga rally. note maga rally, i mean synonymous with fascist white power rally where facts are for suckers, you buy in to trump or you are the other, to be villified on hannity, der govt network.

you could verify that this was a parade of lies via numerous sites https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/fa...f-the-union-3/ but to what end? we know trump lies all the time, last i looked it was 15K+ https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ims-over-days/ coupled with low brow 3rd grade nicknames in his attacks on all who insist on some semblance of accuracy. the reality show twists like awarding rush the medal of freedom, who is one of the great single worst lifetime offender sources of radical divisiveness who has caused immeasurable harm over the decades. this is almost as bad as awarding jeffrey dahmer an iron chef award and having the cult followers assembled obediently pop up n their feet and applaud the absurdity.

pelosi ripped up the clansman papers because that is what is appropriate to do when you just sat thru such a contemptible speech by the impeached but cant say criminal, for so great has the cover up been he can never be charged. the r are in breathtaking lockstep, this maybe will lead to first re election by an impeached president, the 1st re election of someone who not for even 1 day has had a majority 50%+ positive. the dems are for most part in agreement with vast majority of issues, namely a safety net for society primarily in health care, whether it is called single payer, or a revamping of aca, it shouldnt be a my way or highway but dems are like little tribes demanding purity or else they cant unite vs naked evil. repub are like a tight parade goose stepping perfectly down mainstreet with every step as unified and clean as a practiced rockettes performance.