Lets Get Political

[smjjames]

3 hours ago, Amentep said:

Please address the topics and not individual posters.

What? Gromnir was just explaining the nitpicking.

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Watched the Dem debate (with the Marlins game in PIP). My take? They all suck. Tulsi Gabard sucked less than the others. Still a goddamned Democrat though. The anti-liberty party. One of them anyway.

Figured you'd probably still watch it to see the potential trainwreck, heh. At least it didn't turn out to be an absolute trainwreck, though it wasn't hugely enlightening either.

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Would that comment be made (or was ever) for a male candidate with military background? Doubt it. 

Having military background is appealing for US voters so of course every candidate that can would capitalize on this.

Maybe if they were doing it excessively compared to the others, but otherwise you do have a point. Most of the 'waving around the uniform' was on foriegn policy, so, she was just playing to a strength of hers.

Anyways, seems like most people came out of the debates okay with no major issues, De Blasio and John Delaney came out as losers for speaking time though, ouch. Also, is it me or did De Blasio come off as stiff for some reason? Seemed like his movements were stiff for some reason.

@gromnir: Yeah, any effects from this got dilluted because there are so many candidates on stage and most of them had good debate moments and not really enough cross candidate debating, though there was a bunch with the O'Rourke-Booker-Castro trio.

Edited June 27, 2019 by smjjames

[ktchong]

 

Tulsi Gabbard Most Searched Candidate on Google After First Debate

Also, Tulsi is leading in three different early post-debate polls for the first debate, by fairly significant margins, (i.e., Drudge Report, NJ.com, and Heavy.com.)

Edited June 27, 2019 by ktchong

[Gfted1]

I added to the Google count on Gabbard because I couldn't remember if she was the woman with the missing leg(s). She is not. But if someone was, Ill bet that would play to the audience.

[ShadySands]

I think you are thinking of Tammy Duckworth, your Senator

"I wonder how many of those searches for Tulsi Gabbard were followed by nude" Random comment that made me laugh while researching the debates followed by "I wonder how many of those same nude searches Bernie gets" 

Though now I'm reminded that there were several articles going into how hot a young Bernie was 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by ShadySands
upgraded emoji game

[Gromnir]

18 minutes ago, ktchong said:

 

Also, Tulsi is leading in three different early post-debate polls for the first debate, by fairly significant margins, (i.e., Drudge Report, NJ.com, and Heavy.com.)

not even trump would cite drudge or heavy, and we honest didn't see anything from nj.com other than their expert input... none of whom identified gabbard save as side note fodder.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/

recommendation: wait 'til a few days after second debate and then check the above two links.

HA! Good Fun!

ps 

oh well. HA!

Edited June 27, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

31 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Figured you'd probably still watch it to see the potential trainwreck, heh. At least it didn't turn out to be an absolute trainwreck, though it wasn't hugely enlightening either.

 

The trainwreck was in my PiP. They lost 7-5 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, injurai said:

Was that conservative radio pushing some narrative? I'd think the real reason is that they are afraid Gabbard will walk all over Biden and Biden is the clear "blessed" candidate by the party.

It was Opie & Anthony. Their narrative is to try and be funny. I got a chuckle out of it but maybe I'm just easily amused. Or I hold political figures in such contempt that I think they deserve to be mercilessly mocked and held in slight regard. Take your pick.

[HoonDing]

Trump will win again due to voter apathy. Nobody votes for these clowns

[ShadySands]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the hurdle for warren is she might appear too similar bernie to attract independents, and independents decided the last Presidential election.  look at some o' the independents on this board and ask self, given warren's views on gun control and government spending, is they likely to vote warren even if trump is the alternative?

It's kind of hard to say since Bernie was getting so much independent support last cycle. I mean, I don't think she'll get that same level of support and it was only in the primaries but it's just tough for me to hazard a guess at this point. 

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the google trends thing is one o' those good news v. bad news items. so many new searches likely means far too many people had no idea who gabbard were before the debates.  a few o' the fringe candidates who enjoyed positive name recognition from the debates is gonna need do something to capitalize on that new awareness else they will sink back into obscurity.

Agreed.

[Gromnir]

9 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

It's kind of hard to say since Bernie was getting so much independent support last cycle. I mean, I don't think she'll get that same level of support and it was only in the primaries but it's just tough for me to hazard a guess at this point. 

Agreed.

gotta be cautious regarding bernie numbers from 2016. from a five thirty eight article from 2016.

"We should also avoid reading too much into Sanders’s support among independent leaners in terms of how he’d fare in November: The independents who vote in party primaries are in no way representative of independents generally."

bernie did well enough with independents who typical identify democrat more than republican, but these were not the same independents who won battleground states for trump. currently, demo-leaning independents favor biden, particularly minority and over 50 independents. have honest not seen specific numbers for independents targeted direct for battlegrounds... which seems like an odd oversight. 

bernie has a message which should resonate with many independents. gonna need to convince 'em that trump's failed promises 'bout reinvigorating a dying manufacturing sector necessitate a bold change rather than a slight shift. seems like it should be an easy sell, but clear it ain't.

am s'posing one bright spot for bernie is the independents who voted trump in the battlegrounds also typical voted obama previous, which is why presidential results were so shocking to many.  'ccording to exit polls, the 2016 battleground state vote were not a vote for trump, whom most voters didn't approve, but votes were cast for a lesser o' evils. clinton were a continuation o' obama policies for many battleground independents. biden may need overcome same hard feelings... is a hurdle bernie might not need overcome. 

admission: at time o' the election, and even short after, we believed bernie woulda' been a superior democrat candidate. democrats were gonna vote democrat regardless o' bernie or clinton.  the thing is, we believed bernie woulda' motivated more o' those apathetic democrats who rare vote, and at the same time, we thought bernie woulda' had a better chance with independents.

honest don't know anymore. am recognizing trump inexplicable, and beyond all reason, has his 30% core guaranteed, with another 10% virtual locked in as well. more mind boggling is that inevitable scandals revealed 'tween now and the election will only hurt democrats-- trump, is immune to scandal. every story o' deceit, corruption or lurrid excess only further convinces his base trump is real and relatable... or that the deep state is out to get him... or both? converse, if a young woman comes forth between now and the elections and claims that in 2008, gabbard failed to pay for her girl scout cookie order (thin mints and  samoas? how gauche) it is all over for the candidate, regardless o' truth o' the story.

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

I'm of the belief that Bernie would have won in 2016 as I don't believe that level of support for Trump existed then as it does now. To your point, I also knew people that hated Trump but voted for him as the lesser of two evils but have since turned into Trump diehards in the following years. Anecdotal but I've heard other people say the same. 

It's part of the reason I got off social media, got tired of old friends and acquaintances becoming more politically radicalized. Complete disengagement may not have been the best answer for civil discourse but was the best choice for our sanity.

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, 213374U said:

Does it bother you that he can bring a lawsuit against his former employer over this, or that self-styled "Christian" groups are willing to foot the bill?

I'm not Gorth, but since the Folau thing is a big deal here (his wife is a prominent NZ sportswoman who has semi publicly supported him) I would say that most people are bothered by him suing over being sacked rather than who is funding it; especially since the funding source is a direct consequence of who he is and what he did. He got warned previously about his behaviour and chose to ignore it and literally no team in Australia wanted to be associated with him in the end so the ARU had very little choice, while Israel could have just shut up for a year.

There were also a lot of rumours that he was fishing for a buyout of his Australian Rugby contract so he could go to France or elsewhere for bigger money. He's simply not a very sympathetic guy unless you're a fringe christian. Having said that, he may have something of a case as his contract was, apparently, not very well written when it came to social media expectations. IMO the post he got fired for was a lower end issue, but he'd definitely primed the situation and knew what he was doing.

[Gorth]

10 hours ago, 213374U said:

Does it bother you that he can bring a lawsuit against his former employer over this, or that self-styled "Christian" groups are willing to foot the bill?

I have a lot of faith in 'self-styled "Christian" groups' to be completely devoid of morals and ethics. It's the hypocrisy and lack of balls of the guy that bothers me. If he had been a Christian, he should have been familiar with the idea of do onto others what you wish them to do to you. You are a discriminating bigot, expect people to take offense at it.

 

I doubt the guy is more Christian than my little toe though, and Zoraptor hit the nail in the head. It's all about money and how he could get out of his current arrangement with his wallet lined with a new shiny layer of dollar bills while looking for more profitable organizations. He just isn't man enough to say so and get off the Island, the sooner the better really.

 

[smjjames]

Huh, apparently McConnell called making DC and Puerto Rico states 'socialist'. This is what pisses me off about the usage of the word socialist in modern political discourse, it gets used as a replacement for 'idea that I don't like', even for things that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with socialism.

edit: Is it me or are they intentionally avoiding giving Williamson questions or chances to talk? I know the candidates only have so much time to talk, but they could be doing it more evenly. At least they seemed to be during the first half hour.

Edited June 28, 2019 by smjjames

[injurai]

9 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

It was Opie & Anthony. Their narrative is to try and be funny. I got a chuckle out of it but maybe I'm just easily amused. Or I hold political figures in such contempt that I think they deserve to be mercilessly mocked and held in slight regard. Take your pick.

Fair enough

[Bartimaeus]

Some absolute nutjob in an IRC channel I was on started messaging me out of the blue a few weeks back. Kept messaging me over and over, pestering me about who I was going to vote for, and who I favored in the Democratic race. Literally messaged me for about an hour about how wonderful Kirsten Gillibrand seemed, and wanted to know my thoughts on whether or not I thought she had a chance of being the Democratic candidate. I had never even heard her speak before. Ended up saying I had to go and making a new username just to get him to stop bothering me. I guess I could've blocked him, too, but it's generally better to stay polite with the nutjobs, I think. Anyways, I finally got to hear her talk tonight and I think I hate her. Not sure if the nutjob biased me against her or if she really was that dreadful tonight (holy cow, the amount of interruption from this lady). Either way, I'd like to award a big "screw you" to that IRC nutjob now - you wasted an hour of my time about a candidate that was polling at like sub-1% at that time, and is probably going to go below even that after this.

Think I liked Harris the best out of everyone (whom I knew nothing about beforehand). Was not terribly impressed by Bernie for most of it, which was disappointing - too much of the ol' stump speech (which effectively served as deflection), not enough in-context/situational answers. Will be nice to see a more controlled debate forum than the clownshow that this was with so many candidates that have virtually 0% chance of doing anything, and where they're hopefully not all trying to shout over each other for speaking time.

[ShadySands]

I didn't really like anyone on the debate stage but I thought the author was amusing and was surprised at how little the tech guy spoke.  I'm also hopeful the debates will get better as the field narrows. I laughed when Hickenlooper bragged that we were the first to legalize recreational marijuana as he was actually opposed to it. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by ShadySands

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I didn't really like anyone on the debate stage but I thought the author was amusing and was surprised at how little the tech guy spoke.  I'm also hopeful the debates will get better as the field narrows. I laughed when Hickenlooper bragged that we were the first to legalize recreational marijuana as he was actually opposed to it. 

not gonna assume. who were the "tech guy?"

HA! Good Fun! 

[ShadySands]

Google says Andrew Yang. I though I saw them flash tech something or other under him. I didn't catch his name during the debate but to be honest I was only half watching. Google also says the authors name was Marianne Williamson.

[smjjames]

10 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

not gonna assume. who were the "tech guy?"

HA! Good Fun! 

Andrew Yang, he's a silicon valley entrenpuer. edit: Ninja'd, but anyways.....

I saw on the 538 liveblog that he spoke little because he was sticking to the debate time rules (inexperience?), but he, like Williamson (the author shadysands is referring to), didn't get many chances to speak either.

TBH though, the debate format of 10 people all at once just doesn't work all that well. It didn't work well in 2016 and it still doesn't work well. I know the DNC is trying to appear as inclusive as possible after the debacle of 2016, but theres gotta be a better way to handle debates and large fields like this.

Edited June 28, 2019 by smjjames

[ShadySands]

It's funny because Yang is way up near the top on my ISideWith results but I didn't even know who he was. 

[injurai]

Given how tech/corporate-centric our world is, I think Andrew Yang is in a unique position to tackle some of our current problems by guiding existing corporate institutions with revised incentives. Though some of his ideas are rather pie-in-the-sky. He's weaker on issues that are unique to the government, especially military policy, and that's where I think Tulsi really starts to pull ahead. Honestly them together would be a fantastic team.

[Gromnir]

18 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Google says Andrew Yang. I though I saw them flash tech something or other under him. I didn't catch his name during the debate but to be honest I was only half watching. Google also says the authors name was Marianne Williamson.

hmmm.

 

only bother with the first 1:20.

yang is an entrepreneur, but he is a lawyer by education with a ba in economics. his business ventures has been education/test prep and a healthcare startup.

much o' his platform is based  on recognition that automation is ending the need for a human component in manufacturing and even in many service fields. 

*shrug*

HA! Good Fun!

ps you get a degree in economics from brown and go ba instead o' bs... am thinking that alone denies you from ever being able to claim "tech guy" mantle.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Gromnir

[ShadySands]

I think they had him listed as a tech executive or entrepreneur in the debates. Now I'm curious enough to go back and rewatch just to see

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, ShadySands said:

I think they had him listed as a tech executive or entrepreneur in the debates. Now I'm curious enough to go back and rewatch just to see

am not doubting they had him labeled as a tech guy. we were multitasking, so were audio only for the debate. is a bit weird though, no? started as corporate lawyer but his signature "job" is venture for america, which is a nonprofit which helps recent graduates become entrepreneurs themselves. ny based.

HA! Good Fun!