US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening

Status
Not open for further replies.

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
1,755
With Harris, he'll do what he always does to women of color--calls them low IQ. Or maybe he'll switch it up and call her a stupid crooked cop. No one gets off this crazy train.
 

Brock Reiher

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
32,574
I still do not understand the mentality whereby someone hears PotuS name calling and their response is to cheer and think that's great. That's not "guy I'd like to have a beer with", or "telling it like it is", it's simply being childish. Who would ever tick a box ahead of choosing possible PotuS candidates for "childish" as if that's a positive for the position? And yet cheer they do.
Conservatism is "tweeting out that AR15 stands for assault rifle 15 just to piss off gun nuts" but turned into an entire political ideology
 

thefit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,189
The bully tactic is played out, only his racist fans care about that the rest of the population is tired of this guys bullshit.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,788
I still do not understand the mentality whereby someone hears PotuS name calling and their response is to cheer and think that's great. That's not "guy I'd like to have a beer with", or "telling it like it is", it's simply being childish. Who would ever tick a box ahead of choosing possible PotuS candidates for "childish" as if that's a positive for the position? And yet cheer they do.
*shrugs* Some people are just mean pieces of shit who never left first grade mentally.

There are a lot of Col. H. Stinkmeaners out there.

 
Last edited:

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,607
Liz makes me feel like I did about Obama in 2008.
Right?

I sometimes got similar vibes from Sanders early on last time, but even from the word go there was always an aura of negativity surrounding his campaign (to say nothing of what was to come once they got really into it).

Warren is very much a force for positive change. She doesn’t go easy on Trump or the Republicans by any means, but she doesn’t come off nearly as punitive or petty as some on the left do (and just to be clear, they are often that way for very good reasons and I am not in any way saying they are wrong for being so).

Hopey changey is back, baby.
 

Fork

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,745
Lima, Peru
Sam Seder brings up a really good point with Corn Pop and thats that its difficult to know if Biden could tell a story that long nowadays without dropping it midway or making tons of fuckups like with the Aghanistan story
 

Kaitos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,347
Right?

I sometimes got similar vibes from Sanders early on last time, but even from the word go there was always an aura of negativity surrounding his campaign (to say nothing of what was to come once they got really into it).

Warren is very much a force for positive change. She doesn’t go easy on Trump or the Republicans by any means, but she doesn’t come off nearly as punitive or petty as some on the left do (and just to be clear, they are often that way for very good reasons and I am not in any way saying they are wrong for being so).

Hopey changey is back, baby.
I very much agree.

Also:

 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,409
God, the Kavanaugh news has me depressed about him being on SCOTUS all over again, like it's the day the Senate confirmed him all over again.

Because, okay. With Trump, I understand that while impeachment is of course the right thing to do and he should be impeached regardless and I'm happy that the process appears to have finally technically started, that as long as he loses next year, that's what matters and what does or doesn't happen with impeachment shouldn't matter much in the long run (again, so long as he loses, which dear god hopefully will happen regardless).

Kavanaugh though... There is no election for him. The only real chance to stop him was the confirmation hearings, and that obviously failed, because Republicans are that evil and vile. And now, bar something happening, he's there for life.

...But of course, that's not TECHNICALLY true. Congress has powers for exactly this situation: impeachment. Not only did Kavanaugh himself appear to commit crimes, but the President/Senate misused their authority to ensure the FBI could not properly investigate those allegations and try to hush it away. What's the mechanism to deal with a situation like this? Impeachment. That's literally what it's there for.

But noooooooooooooooooooooo, despite this being exactly what the mechanism is designed for, exactly why Congress has those powers to begin with, not only why they have those powers but also why they are technically Constitutionally obliged to use them whether they like it or not (not that such things matter much in practice though apparently), it's still too "extreme" to use powers exactly the way they were meant to be used, for exactly the kind of situations they're there for.

And of course there is one other solution to dealing with people like Kavanaugh, one that wouldn't require any Republican support at all as long as we get the Presidency/Senate back: stacking the court. But despite not requiring any Republicans at all and thus no "but the Senate" to hide behind, that's obviously seen as even more extreme and even more of a non-option.

So.. what? I'm just supposed to not only be fine with Republicans succeeding at getting Kavanaugh onto the court to begin with and him likely sitting there for decades, but I'm supposed to be fine with him nothing being done about that, nothing even tried, because "the politics of it tho" or whatever? Like, I don't care that it won't succeed. I know that. I more than know that. It's the right thing to do regardless though.

Because it's about far more than just Kavanaugh himself anyway. It's about that method, of putting ANYONE, even a complete piece of trash like Kavanaugh, on the court working so long as they can stonewall FBI investigations and the like. That is to say, Kavanaugh won't be the last. He's far from it. The next time there's an opening in an RRR or RDR administration? Same fucking thing will happen, even if that person is also a rapist or murderer or who even knows. Just stonewall the investigation and bruteforce him onto the court anyway. Literally nothing to lose, since they get the Seat, and it didn't even have any consequences in the Senate (not even no consequences; Republicans made gains, and that's mostly a circumstance of the maps last year, but still. And before the House is brought up, we all know that's mostly due to a referendum on Trump and healthcare and our success there obviously had little to do with Kavanaugh especially since that's well the Senate's business).

The point is, it worked. It 100% worked, with no consequences at all. And that being the case, if and when the situation arises again (and it will, that's a question of when, not if), why would they not do the same thing again?

And that's why it's so important to me personally that Kavanaugh should be impeached. Because it's not just about him, but those that will come after. That there needs to be some form of consequences, anything at all for this kinda behavior. Even something equivalent to a slap on the wrist due to articles of impeachment dying in the Senate regardless is better than nothing at all and pure silence.

Because that's another thing: yeah, I know it will die in the Senate regardless, because Republicans are scum. But as people like to point out, there are more of us than there are of them, and beyond being the right thing to do, THAT would be part of the point of such a move as well: to motivate our own base, and to try and win over independents on stuff like this as well while we're at it.

Because no duh Republicans in the Senate won't be convinced. But so what if they can't? Why are they the target audience to begin with? Of course they're going to do that, they put him on the Court to begin with, no duh they don't have any problems defending him, that's not news. The audience would be everyone else. Saying it's Republicans we need to convince regardless or nothing matters sounds little different to me than "we need to win over Trump voters to beat him in 2020" which is obviously just as false. We just need to motivate our own voters to turn out next year to beat Trump, just even a few thousand votes changing hands in a handful of states would have been enough to completely change how 2016 went, and same deal here.

That it would be all about our own base, and motivating them and fighting for the right ting regardless of what Republicans do and letting people have faith in our democracy and letting them know that even when things go wrong, even when things go terribly, terribly wrong, there are still mechanisms to set things right again and people willing to fight for what's right, whatever it takes, no matter how hard or unlikely the fight, and that's definitely more than worth something in its own right IMO, regardless of outcomes. Letting people actually have that faith, that even when things go wrong, that they can be corrected, even if it's a hard brutal fight and knowing that there's people out there willing to do it no matter how unlikely the odds, because that's the right thing to do and how those situations can be handled.

Of course though, I am very much a realist about this. I know this won't happen. I know Democrats and Pelosi are petrified of making such a move, especially after 2018 and what happened in the Senate over Kavanaugh there (even though that wasn't purely about him and likely the same thing would have happened more or less the same way regardless purely due to the maps, that seems be the narrative that it had at least an impact on the race regardless). I know it's not going to happen, no way, no how.

But it sure would be fucking nice if it would. And that's why this stuff resurfacing has me so depressed all over again: because Republicans already won. And despite the House having mechanisms to correct the vile methods Republicans used to put someone on the Supreme Court that doesn't in any way shape or form belong there, despite there indeed being members of the Democratic Caucus who would be willing to fight that fight if only they were allowed to, that Pelosi won't allow it to happen to protect other House members (who may or may not even need protecting depending on how things go and how the public ends up perceiving such things, as that's the thing, if you don't fight to begin with, there's no way of knowing how it will go), and that reluctance not only protects Kavanaugh and ensures he's there as long as he wants it, but anyone else who Republicans also strongarm when they get an opportunity, same thing.

And so yeah, I'm naturally more than a little depressed and unhappy about all this. And I know that even if Democrats were to fight, that it would result in a loss in the Senate, that that much would be guaranteed regardless. But some things are just worth fighting for regardless, and this is one of them. As at least personally, I just can't accept doing nothing here. The tactics used were too vile, the price too high already to do nothing, and by being silent, it only gets higher.

And I know the results of all this are practically pre-ordained: that it will be shocking if the House even so much as talks about Kavanaugh, nevermind actually moves for impeachment. But can't a person at least be depressed about that and wish people would fight for what's right regardless of the odds and not have everything be purely about "politics this, elections that" for one single second and instead doing the right thing regardless (and knowing in my head that it can't, that of course everything will be and always will be about elections and swing-seats and marginals and moderate members and stuff only depresses me all the more, that those are the considerations that ultimately lead to the final decisions on stuff like this instead of any actual set of ethics or morals or principles or anything of the sort).

And this has long since just turned into a rant, so I'll cut it off here less I go on for another 5 paragraphs, but I just needed to get all these feelings and thoughts out somewhere I guess, so thanks for letting me do so here (and for reading all this nonsense, for anyone who takes the time to do so).

Meh.

Edit: I supposed the TL;DR of all this, is, I just want to believe in the country again. I want to be able to believe, that if we did fight for something like this, with everything we had, that if we truly gave it everything we got and went all-in, no holds-barred, the country would be on our side because someone like that shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, and that not only is there apparently lots of evidence to that effect, but the fact that Republicans went to hard in making sure the FBI couldn't investigate any of the corroborating witnesses only makes Kavanaugh look that much more shadier, on top of the witnesses existing to begin with, and that while Republicans of course would remain stalwart, that we could win over everyone else. I'd just like to believe that, that if we actually fought, that we could win over the hearts of everyone else, and since there are more of us than them, that things would be fine.

I'd like to believe that, and I'd like to believe that such a thing wouldn't be too much to ask for, that the reality isn't so godawful that apparently even that much is far too close to being a flat-out pipedream to even consider asking, but alas...
Late, but wanted to give some dap for this post. Agreed on a lot of accounts. Nadler made some nice sharp comments earlier today as well:
"Personally, I think the President ought to be impeached," Nadler told WNYC's Brian Lehrer.
Nadler's comments were some of the most detailed he has offered thus far about his rationale for the House to pursue impeachment. He said that he believes the House should act on impeachment, even if the Senate will not remove the President, because Congress has to "vindicate the Constitution."

"We have to show that this kind of behavior -- trashing the Constitution, trashing all the norms which guarantee democratic government, aggrandizing power to the Presidency and destroying the separation of powers and thereby leading the President to become more and more of a tyrant cannot be tolerated. And it cannot be normalized," Nadler said. "We have to make sure the next President or the one after him or her knows there's a real penalty to be paid. That's why the impeachment is necessary, even if we cannot get a vote in the Senate."

He argued that the public has not heard most of the evidence against the President, which is why the committee has to hold impeachment hearings, beginning with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who is expected to appear Tuesday under subpoena for a public hearing. Nadler said he has designated the hearing as an impeachment hearing, but expressed skepticism Lewandowski would say much about the episodes where he's cited in the Mueller report, as the White House has previously directed other witnesses not to talk about anything that occurred during the Trump administration.

"We have to show that there are adequate grounds for impeachment, that there are imperative grounds for impeachment, and convince people," he said. "If that happens, if people are convinced after the hearings that the President should be impeached, then we'll be able to get the votes."
And then he gives cover talking about "the will of the American people" but I think we all know this road is only going down 1 path here when we're talking about the judiciary. But what's most important is the language on the future. It's something we tend to forget, and that's honestly what has led us to the path we're on now. Time to hop off it and challenge directly the corruption and anti-humane poison that is choking the country today. White moderates be damned.

So, just a little bit of...hopium. Say what you will about a lot of Democrats, but I do have faith that the judiciary will see this through and then we'll see what happens after that. Either way we should all be satisfied that at least we shined a shiny light on the destruction of our democracy and the peoples that contributed to it and excuse it.


And how Bernie made me feel in 2016

She’s the candidate this time, and by January I think it will be super obvious to everyone she’s gonna win.
I hope so. I really wanted her to run in 2016, and was disappointed that she didn't. Now's our chance to hopefully course correct.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,607
I very much agree.

Also:

If Warren trades some of Clinton’s suburban gains for Obama’s rural performance, that’s fine by me. Obama won after all.

That being said I’m not convinced Warren v. Trump would play out much differently in the suburbs than Clinton v. Trump, despite Warren being to Clinton’s left. He’s still a boorish buffoon who’s grossly unfit to be president - his turn at the wheel hasn’t convinced many otherwise (the media is going to be fascinated by a character study of a Clinton-Trump voter, at least one will have to exist). In fact, based on 2018 he could lose further ground.

Warren performing better in rural, heavier working class counties might just be icing on the cake.
 

Owzers

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,999
Sam Seder brings up a really good point with Corn Pop and thats that its difficult to know if Biden could tell a story that long nowadays without dropping it midway or making tons of fuckups like with the Aghanistan story
The heart of the story is true, the details are irrelevant.

Plot twist: Biden was Corn Pop.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
1,755
Warren has absolutely tapped into the "happy warrior" candidate. She's really good at retail politics, and she is able to talk about problems in a non-negative light. If you listen to Bernie speech, it's just list after list of how things are totally fucked up. Warren teaches you through a problem, for lack of a better phrase. She presents the problem (without seeming angry), and the guides the people listening through the solution. It goes back to preaching vs teaching that was mentioned yesterday. You also can tell she is enjoying (or faking it really) being on the trail. And it actually comes across as genuine.

You know to go back to the debates. Warren was very good, obviously. But, even more importantly, she was good without sounding canned, rehearsed or overly focus tested. Literally, the opposite of most things that come out of Harris' mouth (sorry not sorry.)

Her being good on the stump and stuff is one of the reasons I'm supporting her, as opposed to a candidate who I may be more ideologically in line with. But, she absolutely has to do better among non-white voters and non-college educated voters. Absolutely has to.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,607
But, she absolutely has to do better among non-white voters and non-college educated voters. Absolutely has to.
The problem is, this is true for basically any candidate who isn’t Biden. It isn’t really for lack of trying in Warren’s case, either.

Hopefully she’ll catch on with them, we’ll see. She’s making all the right moves, I think what she actually needs is a win in Iowa to get more folks buzzing about her.

Only five months away~
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,281
I think Biden has a lock on black voters unless something happens to change that. I guess except in the Morning Consult thing, which I don't really put much stock in but whatever.

I still don't really get the non-white Hispanic Sanders thing other than they like nuclear waste or they're generally younger.

Also...

This is not just a Sanders thing but a Biden thing too; they seem to both think the path to the WH is to win back racist whites that voted for one of the good ones?
Sanders thinks his healthcare and socialism economics will win them back?
Biden thinks being a folksy beer drinker is going to win them back?

The path to winning seems more like... Mobilise black voters. And I get that Biden is leading with them, but I don't know if he would mobilise them. I don't know if Warren would either tbf and tbh.
 

Killthee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,371
How did Spicer score?
Second lowest score of the night apparently.

“What were you doing there?” one of the judges asked when he was done. “It's like you were being attacked by a swarm of wasps.” The best he could say was that it was “strangely entertaining.”

“You were off-beat most of the dance,” another added. “But you had fun!” The team ended up getting a total score of 12 out of 30 for the night, just barely beating Lamar Odom, who ended up with 11.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,281

So, interesting point.
In "also considering" polls Warren does pretty well across the board.
Sanders only really does well with people like Liberal Icon, Yang, Marianne. And Castro probably because of Latinx.

I think Marianne will drop out. Hooligan Castro too before Iowa. Because they'll run out of money.

I think Tulsi has managed to fundraise off her association with Sanders.
And Yang is a joke candidate but with money as well.
If they stay in into early states that's probably not good for him.

Also. Yuck.
"You live in a free country," he said. "Marianne and Tulsi are friends of mine, and they're running hard, and they have every right to run so it's not my job to tell people what they can do and not do. But they are serious people and they're running good campaigns."
And lol.
Gabbard has opted for campaign billboards that leave some voters puzzled: They include only her first name, a picture of her, the year 2020 and the words "A Soldier's Heart."
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,226
Just got back from a Bastille concert in philly.

That Warren speech was fire. Superb framing and storytelling. She’s starting to really feel her oats. She is not fucking around.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,591

2016: Hillary never attempted to connect with voters

2019: Why is Warren taking selfies with supporters and connecting with them? Seems like a waste of time
 

It'sEctoplasm

Member
Oct 27, 2017
319
I hope no one tells Trump about this lol

From NPR's On Becoming Joe Biden

Joe Impedimenta. My classmates hung that nickname on me our first semester of high school when we were doing two periods of Latin a day. It was one of the first big words we learned. Impedimenta—the baggage that impedes one's progress. So I was Joe Impedimenta. Or Dash. A lot of people thought they called me Dash because of football. I was fast, and I scored my share of touchdowns. But the guys at an all-boys Catholic school usually didn't give you nicknames to make you feel better about yourself. They didn't call me Dash because of what I could do on the football field; they called me Dash because of what I could not do in the classroom. I talked like Morse code. Dot-dot-dot-dot-dash-dash-dash-dash. "You gu-gu-gu-gu-guys sh-sh-sh-sh-shut up!"
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,052
I very much agree.

Also:

Her opponent in 2018 was a real moron, so that’s great that she over performed in rural areas. Bodes well for 2020.
Permaban this man.
Wow, that’s really low. When I still watched a decade or so ago, 14 may have been the lowest score I remember, and scores that low were fairly rare. They have apparently gotten more brutal, or Spicey and Lamar are just plain godawful.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,800
Potential twist on the Bolton firing: What if, despite his lifelong dream of a war with Iran, he was somehow still too soft on them for Trump's liking?
By most any account actually being reported on, Bolton is still a war-hungry neocon and Trump, while using strong arm rhetoric, is way too gunshy to actually act upon such rhetoric.
 

Fork

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,745
Lima, Peru
I did some calculations and, comparing to the start of august, Warren has gained ground with almost every single mayor pollster while Biden has dropped in all of them. Bernie is also growing and he always fighting with Warren for second place. Harris is dropping all around.

Morning Consult:

From the 2nd of august to the 16th of september

Biden -1 (33 to 32)
Sanders +2 (18 to 20)
Warren +3 (15 to 18)
Harris -4 (10 to 6)

Ipsos/Reuters:

From the 5th of august to the 11th of september

Biden -3 (25 to 22)
Sanders -4 (20 to 16)
Warren +1 (10 to 11)
Harris -3 (7 to 4)

Qunnipiac:

From the 29th of july to the 28th of august

Biden -2 (34 to 32)
Sanders +4 (11 to 15)
Warren +4 (15 to 19)
Harris -5 (12 to 7)

YouGov/The Economist:

From the 30th of july to the 10th of september

Biden -2 (26 to 24)
Sanders +4 (13 to 17)
Warren +6 (18 to 24)
Harris -4 (10 to 6)

CNN:

From the 15th of august to the 9th of september
Biden -5 (29 to 24)
Sanders +2 (15 to 17)
Warren +4 (14 to 18)
Harris +3 (5 to 8)
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,199
I wouldn't be surprised if Trash Can Trump decided to tweet out one day that Putin should do something about the rising protests in his country.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,637
The path to winning seems more like... Mobilise black voters. And I get that Biden is leading with them, but I don't know if he would mobilise them. I don't know if Warren would either tbf and tbh.
This to me is one of the great frustrating paradoxes of both this cycle and 2016, and something I fear will be a reprise of that election, in that the candidate who locks up the nomination because of massive black voter support could also lose the general election because of a failure to mobilize that black voter support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.