2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 641
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 751
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: White women
Age: 20

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Xexos » 3 weeks ago

blackg wrote:
3 weeks ago
You do realize that you too will become "disgusting and pathetic" soon enough? Probably sooner than me and nameless.
There is no other way. It's coming, son.
But i didn't call you disgusting and pathetic, and even when i called Nameless that, it wasn't because he likes young women, we all love young women despite of age, it's natural. It also wasn't because of his age, but because of how he acts DESPITE his age. Dude wishing death and throws tantrum on guys 30 years younger than him, still obsessed about his baldness after over 2 decades, is politically retarded and doesn't have any responsibilities, etc. He just doesn't feel right either to me or to anyone else on here.

I like you though, i think you're really entertaining, funny and fun to be around. And even though you overuse your trolling sometimes, still you have a talent for comedy.
You're a shit tier dumb poster - earth is flat etc. Reminds me of the clueless aunt, uncle John was good, the kids always loved him, this is a shock to us. -Wolf Nutsack, 2020

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1878
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4776
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, Nizoral shampoo, hope.
Location: Belgium
Age: 30
Contact:

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Admin » 3 weeks ago

Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." - Ephesians 4:31-32 :christian-cross:

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1886
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5141
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 2 weeks ago

JLBB wrote:
3 weeks ago
In comparison to who exactly? In terms of policy this was possible the least substantive debate I watched, virtually no one said anything at all beyond sticking to their generic talking points and mostly outlaying ethos over policy. Klobuchar who I dislike in general for a lack of vision, policy specifics and her utter lack of charisma actually had a good night and sounded reasonable, but again where there were specifics they weren't for major issues. Virtually everyone else has turned into a caricature at this point, Steyer was totally insufferable and incoherent. Buttigieg was at his most rehearsed, disingenuous and desperate to be Obama, the points he made about accepting money from big business as a means of building a broad coalition was actually hilarious.

Yang has been ignored because the media simply dislike him, the questions they ask him tend to not lean towards the specifics of his campaign and all throughout the campaign they've have ignored his name in polls, shown photos of the wrong person, called him by the wrong name etc. Its easier to get away with it because obviously his poll numbers don't offer a path to victory either, unlike Sanders who they tried to marginalise until he was literally the frontrunner.

Maybe its because I've already looked at his campaign and policies substantially and I don't think he spoke with as eloquently as previous debates, but the specific points about focusing on the symptoms of the problems that got Trump elected rather than arbitrarily attacking Trump, a UBIs value for race focused policies and the folly of investigations into Trump subsequent to him (potentially) losing the election for example were ten times more valuable and substantive than anything else said on the debate stage. The race segment in particular was an absolute mess in regards to policy specifics with Yang the only one offering a credible solution or something direct. Even Warren brought up that people talk the talk during the campaign but historically administrations had failed to fix the issues yet herself gave no specific point to address the issues.

I mean you may not like the simplicity of his UBI as a policy solution to various discussed issues but its absolutely major in its potential to address virtually every problem discussed and there's no beating around the bush in terms of exactly how it will function. A VAT would pay for it, and everyone gets it. If you've seen him in previous debates I don't think he added value tonight over what he has said prior, but the specific policy points are so drastic and left-field in regards to the other candidates I'm not sure you can consider it "not much to say". He didn't emphasise the drug legalisation question particularly eloquently but again I'm not sure how you can't see it as substantive.

Out of interest, who do you support and do you think Bernie had a good night? Particularly during the trade segment I felt his arguments were horrible on the substance but on top other candidates simply debated the point better. That and ad nauseum talk of fighting against special interests with not a whole lot of specifics.
I like UBI as a policy and I like Yang. If I was a genie I might actually appoint him as President. That said, I thought that what I saw of him in the second half of the night was weak. His answer to (almost) everything was UBI, UBI, UBI, I get that he's basically running a single-issue protest campaign but at this point he's undermining himself. UBI may solve a lot of problems, but it won't solve them all. The one moment he had that I liked was his answer on drug addiction. He didn't answer "with universal basic income, we can eliminate drug addiction ...", No he actually sounded like a person and gave a very sensible response, that showed a deep understanding of political economy that probably went over everyone's head.

You criticize the debates for emphasizing ethos over policy, well isn't that kind of what debates are? They're boxing matches. If people actually wanted to know more about policy there would be essay competitions, where the essays would include figures and tables. As an example Trump rarely discussed policy in debates, he just tried to show strength and he was successful.

I thought that Sanders had an adequate night. I like him as a candidate too, but I believe that he would not succeed as President. He doesn't have a coalition. I liked his response to the question about Hillary Clinton saying that he had no friends. He shared a hug with Biden and then a warm joke with Klobuchar. The three of them basically stuck a knife in her and twisted it hard. I wish i had been able to see the look on HRC's face when she must have seen that.

If I had a vote it would either go to Warren or Klobuchar.

Anybody but Buttigieg.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 881
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1808
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by JLBB » 2 weeks ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
2 weeks ago
I like UBI as a policy and I like Yang. If I was a genie I might actually appoint him as President. That said, I thought that what I saw of him in the second half of the night was weak. His answer to (almost) everything was UBI, UBI, UBI, I get that he's basically running a single-issue protest campaign but at this point he's undermining himself. UBI may solve a lot of problems, but it won't solve them all. The one moment he had that I liked was his answer on drug addiction. He didn't answer "with universal basic income, we can eliminate drug addiction ...", No he actually sounded like a person and gave a very sensible response, that showed a deep understanding of political economy that probably went over everyone's head.

You criticize the debates for emphasizing ethos over policy, well isn't that kind of what debates are? They're boxing matches. If people actually wanted to know more about policy there would be essay competitions, where the essays would include figures and tables. As an example Trump rarely discussed policy in debates, he just tried to show strength and he was successful.

I thought that Sanders had an adequate night. I like him as a candidate too, but I believe that he would not succeed as President. He doesn't have a coalition. I liked his response to the question about Hillary Clinton saying that he had no friends. He shared a hug with Biden and then a warm joke with Klobuchar. The three of them basically stuck a knife in her and twisted it hard. I wish i had been able to see the look on HRC's face when she must have seen that.

If I had a vote it would either go to Warren or Klobuchar.

Anybody but Buttigieg.
I get this reaction, unfortunately I think a big part of it was the fact that he had virtually no speaking time to enunciate broader points anyway. Agree that his answer on the drug issue was likely his best, although in saying that on the race issue I don't see a better solution than UBI and whether or not its a leftfield and a universalised answer, its far more sensible than the non-specific "let's talk about black people" that others engaged in or the "all we do is talk and nothing improves, not that I have a solution either" of Warren. His last debate was by far the best, this time I think he knew he doesn't have a shot beyond potentially a cabinet position and everyone else knows it so didn't as assured of himself. Its hard to make a lot of good points in 7 minutes out of a 2.5 hour debate unfortunately, which was virtually half the second least talking candidate.

Honestly on most issues Yang has far more policy specifics than anyone other than other than Bernie and Warren, the only area where he's very wishy washy is healthcare, he'd probably have done better to support a full medicare for all system in a primary and attack Warren + Bernie on their worst positions in areas such as the wealth tax, estate tax and immigration along with emphasising how much more effective a VAT tax is at achieving the same goals. I'm a little sad that the choices at this point are so extreme; centrists like Biden and Klobuchar who aren't that far removed from the status quo and globally in many places would be considered centre right, and on the other end people like Bernie who would be the most far left leader in the Western world and by a wide margin.

"You criticize the debates for emphasizing ethos over policy, well isn't that kind of what debates are? They're boxing matches. If people actually wanted to know more about policy there would be essay competitions, where the essays would include figures and tables. As an example Trump rarely discussed policy in debates, he just tried to show strength and he was successful.
"
For Republicans or conservatives in general I would agree with this because people enjoy that kind of macho, comedic beatdown over significant policy change to begin with. People cared about the immigration issue and that likely won Trump a lot of votes but most of their base value a candidate they admire and are entertained by rather as much as policy interest. The left at least pretend this isn't the case however, particularly progressives. Unfortunately none of the candidates on the Democrat stage are great boxers.

The point about figures and tables is amusing. Realistically, everyone spending even an hour looking at figures and tables would give people a hell of a lot more than that debate did. I've said many times I don't think even Bernie supporters who are likely the most policy aware coalition along with Yang and Warren's even understand how far left some of his policies are, or simply how extreme as on immigration. Comparing his policies to those of various Nordic states would be a worthwhile exercise for most.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1886
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5141
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 2 weeks ago



Damn !
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 881
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1808
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by JLBB » 2 weeks ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
2 weeks ago


Damn !


This was even better

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1886
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5141
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 2 weeks ago

JLBB wrote:
2 weeks ago


This was even better
Wtf did I just watch
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1886
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5141
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 2 weeks ago

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02 ... -iowa.html

Also,

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... rs-949655/

The corruption of the so-called Democratic Party is not a good look, and will undermine them in the long-term. They think that they're getting away with it, but engaging in these shenanigans over and over again erodes trust over time. Moreover, there may be people within the inner circle or maybe the second circle who will be demoralized by all of this, and this will lead to a more significant loss of activists, operatives, etc.

It is also the case that the machine is making an awful choice in backing Buttigieg. Trump is going to eat that little shit alive. I get why those morons like Buttigieg, he's kind of like Clinton (who grew up poor) and Obama (who grew up Black) -- Buttigieg is gay. So the idea is that they can run a positive campaign about how historic it's going to be to have the first openly gay President. There's also the fact that on paper he looks impressive, as he speaks Norwegian, went to Harvard, was in the military, and worked at McKinsey. He is a product of the system, and thus it is natural for the elites -- whose elitism is defined by the system -- to see him as a really excellent chap.

But -- he's going to get eaten alive by Trump. Buttigieg has never had the experience of undergoing a negative campaign. He ran for mayor of nowhere, Indiana, and now he's in a nomination race where the Dem party is imposing a "positive campaign" strategy. However, we saw in the debate that he folded like a little bitch when Lindsay Davis pressed him about race relations in South Bend. Imagine what's going to happen of Trump and the entire GOP are pounding on him for several months, non-stop. Fuck.

He's also not a good idea for the Presidency. The system is failing, and that is why a lot of people supported Trump and Sanders. Clinton ran a campaign of "The system is great !!! we just need some tweaks !!" and pissed everybody off, who she then dismissed as deplorable and irredeemables for not worshipping a system that was ruining their lives. The country doesn't need a superficial pain-killer like Obama, it needs an actual reformer, and if it doesn't get one then things will get worse.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1805
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3236

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by blackg » 2 weeks ago

South Bend, Indiana. The home of the
Notre Dame University fighting Irish football team.
One of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, Joe Montana played his college ball in South Bend.

That's all I have to say.
Moore/Trump 2020

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 881
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1808
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by JLBB » 2 weeks ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
2 weeks ago
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/02 ... -iowa.html

Also,

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... rs-949655/

The corruption of the so-called Democratic Party is not a good look, and will undermine them in the long-term. They think that they're getting away with it, but engaging in these shenanigans over and over again erodes trust over time. Moreover, there may be people within the inner circle or maybe the second circle who will be demoralized by all of this, and this will lead to a more significant loss of activists, operatives, etc.

It is also the case that the machine is making an awful choice in backing Buttigieg. Trump is going to eat that little shit alive. I get why those morons like Buttigieg, he's kind of like Clinton (who grew up poor) and Obama (who grew up Black) -- Buttigieg is gay. So the idea is that they can run a positive campaign about how historic it's going to be to have the first openly gay President. There's also the fact that on paper he looks impressive, as he speaks Norwegian, went to Harvard, was in the military, and worked at McKinsey. He is a product of the system, and thus it is natural for the elites -- whose elitism is defined by the system -- to see him as a really excellent chap.

But -- he's going to get eaten alive by Trump. Buttigieg has never had the experience of undergoing a negative campaign. He ran for mayor of nowhere, Indiana, and now he's in a nomination race where the Dem party is imposing a "positive campaign" strategy. However, we saw in the debate that he folded like a little bitch when Lindsay Davis pressed him about race relations in South Bend. Imagine what's going to happen of Trump and the entire GOP are pounding on him for several months, non-stop. Fuck.

He's also not a good idea for the Presidency. The system is failing, and that is why a lot of people supported Trump and Sanders. Clinton ran a campaign of "The system is great !!! we just need some tweaks !!" and pissed everybody off, who she then dismissed as deplorable and irredeemables for not worshipping a system that was ruining their lives. The country doesn't need a superficial pain-killer like Obama, it needs an actual reformer, and if it doesn't get one then things will get worse.
in my opinion it is genuinely looking to be a race between Trump and Bernie at this point. There's some talk about a late pull for Bloomberg as the centrist candidate, particularly as he has effectively infinite amounts of money to throw at the race.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1805
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3236

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by blackg » 2 weeks ago

Are the Dems deliberately committing electoral suicide? Bernie Sanders? Socialist?
This is surreal, what is happening to my America?

"We're not in Kansas anymore."
Moore/Trump 2020

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 881
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1808
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by JLBB » 2 weeks ago

blackg wrote:
2 weeks ago
Are the Dems deliberately committing electoral suicide? Bernie Sanders? Socialist?
This is surreal, what is happening to my America?

"We're not in Kansas anymore."
Political suicide for the country, a country full of desperate and unsatisfied voters who are unfortunately economic illiterates for the most part. Electoral suicide? Only if you consider choosing the candidate with the best chance at winning the presidency and fitting the zeitgeist electoral suicide.

Find it hard to respect a party that would pick a Bernie over a Yang or a Bernie at all, ultimately the party will get what they deserve. Unfortunately there’s no going back to normal after an implemented Bernie agenda.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1886
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5141
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 2 weeks ago

JLBB wrote:
2 weeks ago
Political suicide for the country, a country full of desperate and unsatisfied voters who are unfortunately economic illiterates for the most part. Electoral suicide? Only if you consider choosing the candidate with the best chance at winning the presidency and fitting the zeitgeist electoral suicide.

Find it hard to respect a party that would pick a Bernie over a Yang or a Bernie at all, ultimately the party will get what they deserve. Unfortunately there’s no going back to normal after an implemented Bernie agenda.
President Sanders would be limited in his power. There are other bodies such as the Congress, the supreme Court, the state and local governments (which are often required to implement federal policy), and the permanent bureaucracy including the FBI, CIA, etc. There is no prospect of Sanders turning the USA into the USSA or anything "to the left of Scandinavia" which you keep bringing up as if it's either plausible or a bad thing. What he might do is be able to modestly tilt things.

The above doesn't apply to Trump, as there is no internal ideological diversity among Republicans. They universally support Trump on all issues with maybe a 2% or 3% disagreement rate, and thus he can implement a lot of his destructive agenda at will. Many Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, have no ideology to speak of, they just support whoever happens to be powerful. We're now seeing the legacy: less credibility overseas, children in cages, decreased environmental standards, record federal deficits, etc.

How are we going to go back to normal after an implemented Trump agenda allowing coal mining companies to dump their debris into rivers?

Iran recently bombed an American base, injuring over 100 American troops, and the world unanimously told the USA to stand down. Trump's friends, Putin, Duterte, Kim Jong Il, etc, did not stand with Trump against Iran. How are we going to go back to normal after Trump has implemented his agenda of politically isolating the United States?

Sanders in contrast will have to compromise significantly to pass laws with either Democratic or Republican support.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

Guest-2
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1185
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2493
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Guest-2 » 2 weeks ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
2 weeks ago
President Sanders would be limited in his power. There are other bodies such as the Congress, the supreme Court, the state and local governments (which are often required to implement federal policy), and the permanent bureaucracy including the FBI, CIA, etc. There is no prospect of Sanders turning the USA into the USSA or anything "to the left of Scandinavia" which you keep bringing up as if it's either plausible or a bad thing. What he might do is be able to modestly tilt things.

The above doesn't apply to Trump, as there is no internal ideological diversity among Republicans. They universally support Trump on all issues with maybe a 2% or 3% disagreement rate, and thus he can implement a lot of his destructive agenda at will. Many Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, have no ideology to speak of, they just support whoever happens to be powerful. We're now seeing the legacy: less credibility overseas, children in cages, decreased environmental standards, record federal deficits, etc.

How are we going to go back to normal after an implemented Trump agenda allowing coal mining companies to dump their debris into rivers?

Iran recently bombed an American base, injuring over 100 American troops, and the world unanimously told the USA to stand down. Trump's friends, Putin, Duterte, Kim Jong Il, etc, did not stand with Trump against Iran. How are we going to go back to normal after Trump has implemented his agenda of politically isolating the United States?

Sanders in contrast will have to compromise significantly to pass laws with either Democratic or Republican support.
I also suspect Sanders WOULD compromise on healthcare for all to fix Obama care if that was the option. I don't think he would pass on improvements to something just out of a stubborn ideal goal. Unlike Trump and Mconnel, When R senator Lamar Alexander and D senator Murphy were compromising on a bipartisan bill to FIX Obama care it was Mconel and Trump who wanted no part of it.
Lets keep it real, (this is me speculating) if Obama care could be fixed, and it can be renamed Trumpcrae--I dont doubt it would all of a sudden be seen as a 'good idea' by Trump. We all know he loves to put his name 0n things. (although, he may want the government to pay a licensing fee)

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 553
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1508
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by yettee » 2 weeks ago

Hairblues wrote:
2 weeks ago
I also suspect Sanders WOULD compromise on healthcare for all to fix Obama care if that was the option. I don't think he would pass on improvements to something just out of a stubborn ideal goal. Unlike Trump and Mconnel, When R senator Lamar Alexander and D senator Murphy were compromising on a bipartisan bill to FIX Obama care it was Mconel and Trump who wanted no part of it.
Lets keep it real, (this is me speculating) if Obama care could be fixed, and it can be renamed Trumpcrae--I dont doubt it would all of a sudden be seen as a 'good idea' by Trump. We all know he loves to put his name 0n things. (although, he may want the government to pay a licensing fee)
You had a good call on Amy Klobuchar. She's still in it with a small but realistic chance. I like her too... I think when we discussed this months ago I said I liked Kamala and she'd do well, I do like her but she is out for now!

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests