-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Remember the bs we heard about the tax cuts which have accomplished nothing but juicing the stock market, making the wealthy even more wealthy (including Trump who the tax cuts were tailored to benefit), and sending deficits soaring to over $1TN. As we can see in the graph, GDP growth is about the same under Trump as it was for the previous 6 years under Obama, but tax receipts have plummeted. There's your socialism for the rich right there, in visual form.
Not sure myself ,but when Biden started campaigning the strategy was to ignore early states and win the states that come after. If I remember correctly the excuse was to save the resources for the general and thinking that Biden was already going to win the primary. It looks like the primary is going to be more competitive than thought.
Bernie's margin of win (maybe loss!) lies entirely with Amy Klobuchar. Lmao.
twitter.com
Political Polls on Twitter
“#NH YouGov/CBS Poll (Change from Jan 3) Sanders 29% (+2) Buttigieg 25% (+12) Warren 17% (-1) Biden 12% (-13) Klobuchar 10% (+3) Gabbard 2% (+1) https://t.co/vgEPzWv0Sd”
twitter.com
Klobuchar getting 4th would be the death knell to Biden, I think. I'm digging her new aggressive energy, she just needs to get better writers for her lame one-liners
We need them regardless
Bill and Barack were both "cool" and hip with the young people and surprise they won.
Gore Kerry and Hillary all weren't and they all lost.
Bernie is the coolest we have therefore he is also the most electable
The point is that it muddies the water when it comes to socialism.
Trump isn't going to get into a nuanced debate over what socialism is (and like Bernie he said he probably doesn't even actually know). When Bernie makes that statement one of three things happen:
*Trump ignores the clapback which has a 0% chance of happening.
*Trump starts defending the tax cuts for the corporations. This is a benefit for Sanders as now the conversation has shifted from socialism to tax cuts.
*Trump starts defending himself as not being a socialist (and not getting rich off of tax cuts) and now the conversation has shifted to Trump being on the defensive.
I mean, "trump - socialism for the rich" is not a bad tagline
he should also mention the farmer bailouts and how they have only benefitted the largest farmers too
Hello. I stan Rachel Bitecofer, and you should too (lots in here about ancient political strategies, political confidence, and framing, framing, FRAMING).
She's on a tear this morning if you'll check her timeline.
DING DING DING
There's no truth there, just a fallback Security Blankie for times where their minds and hearts are too loud to stay in the delusional MAGA bubble. They hug up to this and voila! Whiny failing mobster evidence goes away!
The fact it's sourced out of 4-year old RIS conspiracy theories in case Hillary won is icing on that cake...
Warren, hell, all Dems: this is your message. HAMMER HIM. CONTINUE TO POUND IT. TWIST THEIR OWN WEASEL WORDS BACK ON HIS NAME. SHIV HIS ASS.
The farmer bailouts have already been more than double the cost of the autos bailout, which were hugely unpopular among Republicans. We also saw people like Chuck Grassley, multi-millionaire, getting a slice of it after previously encouraging the bailout to happen.
The problem is that Trump's implicit true message is "socialism for the whites" and that that beats loyalty to social class in this country. (The fact that I live in the South, where class has never trumped race in the past 400 years, makes me skeptical of this approach, anyway — especially as the Alabamification of the GOP intensifies.)
Last edited:
The governor. Some states require them to appoint from the same party.
Also, some states allow the interim appointee to serve until the next regularly scheduled general election (FL, AZ). Other states allow an interim gubernatorial appointee but have a special election within a few months (MA). Finally, some states allow no appointee and have an almost immediate special election (OK, WI).
Additionally, states such as HI force the governor to pick from a list of candidates the party gives him/her.
Okay, so we're all good if someone lures Kamala/Klobuchar/Booker/Warren away as VP?
Media sending one reporter per man candidate, on location, but the women get one reporter for both of them off-site. Maybe unintentional, but still shows an at-best unbalanced image.
Saw Biden's attack ad on Buttigieg. Don't attack mayors on basic municipal initiatives like bridge lighting. Dumb and petty.
Saw Faiz this morning. If he is indicative of the Sanders campaign, they are woefully unprepared for the disinformation campaign to come. To be fair, only perhaps the most "un-cool" candidate is currently prepared for this, and that's Bloomberg. Kerry and Clinton were also victims of disinformation campaigns without adequate overcoming efforts. Coolness factor (cool or uncool) will be moot if disinformation takes hold.
Saw Biden's attack ad on Buttigieg. Don't attack mayors on basic municipal initiatives like bridge lighting. Dumb and petty.
Saw Faiz this morning. If he is indicative of the Sanders campaign, they are woefully unprepared for the disinformation campaign to come. To be fair, only perhaps the most "un-cool" candidate is currently prepared for this, and that's Bloomberg. Kerry and Clinton were also victims of disinformation campaigns without adequate overcoming efforts. Coolness factor (cool or uncool) will be moot if disinformation takes hold.
In CA, MN, and NJ, yes.
If Warren gets it, Baker, a Republican, will select an interim appointee. However, MA law requires a special election within 120 days of a vacancy. A Democrat would win that election; MA would only have a Republican senator for a few months.
That's...annoying regarding MA. How does one of the most liberal states in the country have a Republican governor in the year 2020? In the era of Donald fucking Trump.
Manchin isn't even short, though - clearly a little taller than 5'10'' - 11'' Dubya in this photo.
Ticket splitting white liberals who like to show how enlightened and ~~~bipartisan~~~ they are by voting for "good" Republicans. We've convinced people that voting for one party, even the good one, makes you intellectually inferior.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074#tab_default_2>
The Washington Post on Twitter
“Meet the 71-year-old staging a one-man protest in his Trump-loving retirement community https://t.co/2h7R2iiex1”
Knew it was going to be about The Villages before I clicked the link. I was down around Orlando visiting my dad in October and it is *deep* Trump Country. Everyone around them also hates them because they're buying up all the land and forcing all the stores and stuff on their properties to give perks to their residents.
These are juvenile school yard taunts. So a day ending in Y for Trump.
Jesus christ, who gives a fuck.
Also worth pointing out that Massachusetts Democrats have a legislative supermajority and can override Baker's vetoes. They could easily change the law to either ensure the legislature has to pick a replacement, or take away the governor's ability to appoint a replacement leaving the seat vacant until the special election, or something like that.
They've already done this twice recently, once in 04 to ensure Romney wouldn't be able to appoint a replacement for Kerry if he'd won the election, and changed it back in 09 so Patrick could appoint a Democrat to fill Kennedy's seat after he died.
Last edited:
Ummmmmmmm his college football height is listed at 6'3" and imdb has him at 6'.
This is so god damn good.
Also, I want to point out -- this is why Bernie would do well in debates against Trump. He won't get steamrolled by outright lies. Before this interview progressed any further, he immediately cut off Wallace and corrected Trump's lie/told the truth.
This is something Pete wouldn't do, Trump would walk all over him. Normally debates don't have an entirely strong effect in comparison to other things, but I think they would hurt Pete incredibly, especially considering the age difference between him and Trump.
Maybe, but recall Trump was 6'2" in 2012 for his drivers license, and he was still growing in 2016, then 6'3" according to the Navy doctor. He'll probably be 6'4" this year.
Bernie's margin of win (maybe loss!) lies entirely with Amy Klobuchar. Lmao.
Political Polls on Twitter
“#NH YouGov/CBS Poll (Change from Jan 3) Sanders 29% (+2) Buttigieg 25% (+12) Warren 17% (-1) Biden 12% (-13) Klobuchar 10% (+3) Gabbard 2% (+1) https://t.co/vgEPzWv0Sd”
that Biden drop is just wow. I really don't get the buttigieg obsession. He is nothing like 2008 Obama.
also, can you imagine being those black cops on bikes?
I don't think they're dumb. I think there's an ignorance and naivete at work, but also capitalist realism has been foundational programming in our society for the better part of the entire last century, so it's going to take some time to get people out of the "better things aren't possible" mindset.
I think its just a taunt that sounds similar to his name. It makes no fucking sense as usual.
I wish the discourse could be the same on the dem side, so the nominee could refer to him as Demented Donald during the debates. but alas. Or maybe Dumbshit Donald...there are many options available.
I wish the discourse could be the same on the dem side, so the nominee could refer to him as Demented Donald during the debates. but alas. Or maybe Dumbshit Donald...there are many options available.
Bernie would mop the floor with Trump in debates but honestly so would anyone on the Democratic side. Well everyone except Biden.
But Trump was trounced by Clinton in debates and made to look a fool, it didn't really change the outcome.
Dictator Donald
But Trump was trounced by Clinton in debates and made to look a fool, it didn't really change the outcome.
Let's call him by his actual title:
Dictator Donald
They don't like the idea that Romney honestly thought the Preisdent was guilty so they're creating a counter-narrative that there was some other reason that he voted to remove.
Yeah, I don't think debates matter too much in this era. Just about anyone can eat Trump's lunch in a debate and he'll still coast on low standards.
If that's in response to my post, that's not what I was talking about. I'm saying Bernie would do well against Trump in debates, whereas Pete would get flattened and be negatively impacted.
Hillary did laps around Trump in debates but it didn't seem to help her much, opposed to being unprepared and getting demolished by Trump throwing shit in your face.
The only thing that matters at this point is who wins the votes of those people who dislike both candidates because neither candidate is going to be well liked overall
What would happen in VT if Bernie won the general election?
I think a problem with "Trump is a socialist too, but he's a socialist for the rich" is that it's not really an attempt to make people comfortable with Sanders' own socialism. Like, it's a nice bit of rhetoric, but of course no one actually thinks Trump is a socialist. This is just the very standard "Republicans are more concerned with the interests of the rich than the interests of working people" line that Democrats have been using for decades but now with this weird tu quoque added in. To the extent that people take this seriously, he's giving an example of socialism being bad in order to say that they should give his socialism a try, which obviously doesn't make much sense. If they rightly don't take it seriously, then it's just saying "Republicans are bad, so let's try socialism". He's not actually getting at the substantive concern here, which is how his being a socialist makes him seem scarier than a regular Democrat. He's actually leaning into it, right? To the extent that he's saying something about what sets him apart here, it's "damn right we need socialism instead of regular Democrats now".
Same as MA, pretty much. Phil Scott appoints a GOP replacement; a special election happens within months.
I think the problem is that people underestimate Trump's ability to debate, and think that winning the debate is just a matter of being more factual. It's the same way a lot of people end up losing or failing to move the needle in debates with alt-right figures. That only works if both parties have some level of commitment to intellectual honesty. Of course Trump is a blithering idiot and a pathological liar who can barely string together half-coherent sentences, but that doesn't really stop him from putting up a fight in debates despite his opponents usually being far more intelligent and coherent.
Also, I thought I read someone on here the other day saying he said he wouldn't be doing any debates in 2020. Can't remember who said that or in which thread, but does anyone know what I'm talking about? Can be that verified?
- Status