2020 Presidential Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And here's another poll, showing Biden slightly increasing his lead so who knows?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... s-poll?amp

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

G7
Trump being Putin's mouthpiece at the G7 was ... what was it? Disheartening? Sickening? Incredible? Obvious? It's as if Putin had (has) his hands up the backside of a ventriloquist dummy. His claim that it's Obama's 'weakness' that got Russia thrown out of the G8? What (new) blathering nonsense is this?

Then he skips the Environmental meeting and says, "I'm an environmentalist. A lot of people don't understand that,"
"I think I know more about the environment than most people."

*UGH*

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nice to see this.

Obama Is Ramping Up His Fight Against Gerrymandering

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

Nice to see this.

Obama Is Ramping Up His Fight Against Gerrymandering

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

Huzzah and Hallelujah!

There is a retired professor (Bill Whitford - Wisconsin) who has been working on gerrymandering in this state.

[yovargas]

From 538:

"Wednesday marked the last day candidates could qualify for the Sept. 12 Democratic primary debate, with 10 candidates able to hit 2 percent support in four qualifying national or early-state polls1 and reach 130,000 unique donors (including at least 400 individual donors in at least 20 states).

The ten candidates who have qualified are: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang."

What do y'all think of that group?

I am personally a little surprised about Klobuchar if only because she's the only one in that group that I know literally nothing about, which would seem like a bad sign that anyone is paying attention to her.

[Cerin]

Klobuchar does seem like the one least likely to make headlines; flashy she isn't. She could step into the more conservative Biden spot if he ends up crashing and burning.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Klobachar's biggest "moment" to date came during the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings, when she confronted Kavanaugh about his history of drinking, and he tried to turn it around to her, only to apologize later. She came across quite well in that hearing. Later, there were reports that she was basically an abusive boss to her staff, which she put off of simply an indication that she had high standards that she holds both herself and people that work for her to. In theory, she could be an attractive candidate, given that she is a woman, from the all-important mid-West, and a moderate. But she has never gained much traction, barely making the still very low standard to qualify for the next debates, and I doubt she will ever rise above "also-ran" status. I suspect that she is in thinking that she might be an attractive VP candidate to either Biden or Sanders (though frankly I doubt that Sanders would go with such an establishment, moderate choice, even if it would be the practical thing to do).

Really, it seems to me at this point (though it could change) to be a three person race between Biden, Warren and Sanders. Both Buttigieg and Harris have had surges, but both have fallen back in the polling and I think it unlikely that they will get back into the top tier. I doubt any of the other candidates will either, though these things can be extraordinarily unpredictable. Yang is probably the most interesting of the group, but he has no real chance of being the nominee. Of the ones that didn't make the cut, the two that came closest were billionaire Tom Steyer and Assad-apologist and (allegedly former) homophobe Tulsi Gabbard. It is possible that both of them will stick around and they may be able to qualify for future debates. Steyer can self-fund to whatever extent necessary, and has the distinction of being the most rabid backer of impeachment (which is attractive to a certain segment of the Democratic electorate, though probably is a net negative overall), and Gabbard has a small but very enthusiastic base of backers. I expect the other remaining candidates who didn't make the cut for this debate to drop out in short order, with the possible exception of Marianne Williamson, because, well, she is Marianne Williamson.


ETA: Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the coming debate is that it is the first time that Biden and Warren will be on the same stage together.

[Cerin]

Is it really necessary to get these smears in when referring to candidates you don't like? Gabbard is a dedicated non-interventionist and went to Syria to try to learn more about the conflict there, in which, imo, there is no good side. That doesn't make her an Assad apologist; I believe what actually made her an Assad apologist was her KO of Harris in the second debate, which may have made Harris a bit testy.

As far as Gabbard being a 'homophobe,' if opposition to calling gay partnerships 'marriage' makes one a homophobe, then I am one, too (not). I believe there are numerous politicians who are against abortion personally because of their religious perspective but who support abortion rights, and I see no reason why that could not also apply to LGBT issues. I like Gabbard as a candidate because of her non-interventionist views, because she quit a position of power on the DNC last election in order to support Sanders, and because she is the only one I know of who has called for exclusively paper ballots. But I think we all know she is not going to be President.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, what made her an Assad apologist is her repeatedly defending the Assad regime and refusal to acknowledge his complicity in the horrible crimes against his own people, including chemical weapons attacks. I have said that long before the confrontation between her and Harris at the debate, and before she started running for president.

As for being a homophobe, it is far more than her opposition to calling gay partnerships 'marriage' (I'm not going to get into another debate with you about that; I think you know my opinion). She worked for her father's anti-Gay PAC and another organization he ran called "Stop Promoting Homosexuality" which promoted among other things conversion therapy. The PAC called homosexuality “unhealthy, abnormal behavior that should not be promoted or accepted in society.” In 2000, Gabbard herself was quoted in a press release from the Alliance for Traditional Marriage as saying "This war of deception and hatred against my mom is being waged by homosexual activists because they know, that if elected, she will not allow them to force their values down the throats of the children in our schools” And as late as 2004, Gabbard opposed even civil unions for gay people, stating “To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” in opposing a proposed civil union bill in the Hawaii legislature. “As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.”

Later, when she first ran for Congress, she apologized for these past comments, and even supported efforts to protect same-sex marriage, which is why I said "(former) homophobe." Some have suggested that her views have not really changed and that she was simply being pragmatic in appearing to evolve on this issue, but I don't know. I do know that her repeated comments about Assad and her actions supporting his government eliminate her completely as a viable candidate in my view. You can be against intervention in wars that don't involve us without giving support to a horrible dictator and war criminal like Assad.

[yovargas]

Also, most people around my age or older are former "homophobes", including most Democrats. I don't really care about that.

[Cerin]

Thank you for providing some context for those derogatory labels, V.

Personally, I think supporting either side in that conflict is equally problematic.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Also, most people around my age or older are former "homophobes", including most Democrats. I don't really care about that.

I certainly don't disagree with that (in fact, I would argue, most people are still homophobic to some extent, including most Democrats, and including those who support same-sex marriage, though that is a different topic). I would argue, however, that it is a matter of degree. Most Democrats don't have a history of supporting the horrible practice of conversion therapy, nor do they have a history of calling homosexuality "unhealthy abnormal behavior" or calling out LGBTQ people for "forcing their values down the throat of our children." I understand that your mileage may vary (and obviously it affects you more directly), but to me that is another level that makes me uncomfortable at best.

Personally, I think supporting either side in that conflict is equally problematic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "either side in that conflict." Assuming that you are referring to the Syrian civil war (such as it is), there are numerous different sides. There is the brutal Assad regime. There is (or at least has been) the equally brutal Islamic State. There are also less radical Islamist rebels. And their are separately Kurdish fighters who call themselves freedom fighters and are called terrorists by Turkey and Assad, who have done most of the fighting against both ISIS and Assad on behalf of the U.S.. There are also Syrian opposition fighters who are neither Islamist nor Kurdish. And there are the Yazidis who were particularly targeted by ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. Then there are the outside forces, including Russia, the U.S., Turkey, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. And most of all, there are the long-suffering Syrian people themselves, who just want to live their lives in peace. Lot's of sides, most of them with some degree of blood on their hands, but with varying degrees of responsibility. As for supporting different sides, in theory, I support the people of all ethnic groups who wish to live in peace. But I don't support using force to advance our so-called geopolitical interests.

[Túrin Turambar]

From 538:

"Wednesday marked the last day candidates could qualify for the Sept. 12 Democratic primary debate, with 10 candidates able to hit 2 percent support in four qualifying national or early-state polls1 and reach 130,000 unique donors (including at least 400 individual donors in at least 20 states).

The ten candidates who have qualified are: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang."

What do y'all think of that group?

I am personally a little surprised about Klobuchar if only because she's the only one in that group that I know literally nothing about, which would seem like a bad sign that anyone is paying attention to her.

I'm surprised Klobuchar made the list ahead of Gabbard, who seems to have a higher profile. That said, it's probably a good reminder to me to be careful about following politics on the internet - Gabbard's followers are far more likely to be vocal online than Klobuchar's. Otherwise I agree with Voronwë - unless there's a game-changer it's going to come down to a Mexican stand-off between Biden, Sanders and Warren.

[Cerin]

If the game-changer is that Biden flounders, I don't see his support going to either Warren or Sanders (although I did see an article recently about corporate Democrats warming up to Warren at a recent event, so maybe Biden's support would go to her).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think that Biden will completely melt-down, but I think his support will continue to wain. Some of that support will move to Warren as you say, but some will go to Sanders in part because he is perceived as being the other candidate who can best compete against Mr. Trump among working class white voters in the mid-west (also, old white man).

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

Perhaps I see more coverage on Klobuchar since I live in a neighboring Midwestern state. I like her. She seems to be intelligent, down-to-earth, hard working, and smart. Demanding and a bit of an overachieving perfectionist? Probably. I would peg her as a very middle-of-the-road pragmatic candidate. Of course, I find most of the Democratic candidates to be sharp, intelligent, with a good understanding of our laws and history and many of them bring a good amount of experience to the table, which I like. I don't think any of them will be scandalous and undisciplined. Well, by comparison to what we have that's not saying much.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I certainly think most people paying close attention considered Klobuchar a potentially viable candidate, unlike Gabbard. The last member of the House of Representatives to be elected president was James Garfield, in 1880. Before that was … never.

[yovargas]

So it looks like the 4th Democratic debate will have (at least) two more candidates than the 3rd as Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer have now qualified as well. While I understand why that happened, it's a bit annoying as I was hoping the field would be much narrower at this point. To see people being added now feels exhausting.

[Alatar]

Unless they add Michelle Obama. They can add her anytime.

[Cerin]

Can they add her anytime? Wouldn't she have to qualify the same way everyone else has? (Or perhaps you were joking.)

I'm surprised Biden's last debate performance did not finish him; but then, the debate was overshadowed by the Castro incident. Biden was asked about our responsibility in dealing with the legacy of slavery, and his answer was not coherent.

LINSEY DAVIS, MODERATOR: I want to come to you and talk to you about inequality in schools and race. In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation. And I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago, but as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?

JOE BIDEN: We have to make sure every single child does in fact have – three-, four-, and five-year-olds go to school. School, not daycare, school. We bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help, they don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure that the television, excuse me. Make sure you have the record player on at night. Make sure the kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school or a very poor background, will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.

LINSEY DAVIS, MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

JOE BIDEN: There’s so much we—No, I’m going to go like the rest of them do. Twice over, okay? Because here’s the deal. The deal is that we’ve got this a little backwards. And by the way, in Venezuela, we should be allowing people to come here from Venezuela. I know Maduro. I’ve confronted Maduro. Number two, you talk about the need to do something in Latin America. I’m the guy that came up with $740 million to see to it those three countries in fact changed their system so people don’t have a chance to leave. You’re all acting like we just discovered this yesterday.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

https://therealnews.com/stories/joe-bid ... arrassment