Hot takes on the Democratic frontrunners
 

I like Pete Buttigieg.

I like Yang then Pete.

Everybody else seems to been playing the politics of the past.

Biden/Beto 2020

ABT lol

Biden says his announcement was a mistake. Believe him? Poor old Pete -how is the last name pronounced?

Heh, it looks like Buttplugg every time I see it.

A news guy spelled out the pronunciation yesterday; apparently it's

BOOT-edge-edge

Every four years, it is the same conclusion. Ignore everyone until after the Iowa primaries. Most front runners before then are either gone by then or not long afterwards.

Spending time discussing who is presidential material before the Iowa primaries has constantly been proven wasted time.

I read in a profile piece it's "Buddha-judge," though when he says it himself it sounds more like Buddha-jedge.

I was thinking Booty Gig, it never occurs to me to use a soft G......

This way the DNC chooses for you so nothing bad happens.

We moderates have no say on who the Dems and Reps put up.

85% of all problems are directly traceable to top moderates.

they tell us how to walk and talk?



(hey dudes, I want the clip to start at 90 seconds, but can't remember how....????)

I tried &start=90, I didn't remember needing the end bit -or is there a different way to encode times over 1 minute?

thanks

&start=90 … ?start=90

Quote this post to see it in tags in the preview window.

Joe Biden
 

Joe Biden??? Really??? Are we going to pretend how he treats women is "normal"? Right . . .

Pete Buttigeig seems like the most reasonable of those democrats running.

He's likable. He's gay but doesn't seem to define his life around that fact.

I don't know if I could ever vote for a democrat but Mr. Pete's not a polarizing personality.

Buttigieg’s immigration policies are very vague — he favors a “path to citizenship.” My own view is that the only Democrat who will beat Trump next year will campaign for control of immigration, legal and undocumented, in a sane and humane way. The issue will be dominant again — because of a huge wave of migrants, many of them rural Guatemalans, who are overwhelming the border, trying to enter the U.S. at a current pace of 100,000 a month. Their ability to claim asylum under current law permits them to show up at the border, get admitted and processed by the Border Patrol, and then released into the interior, to reside here until a court date, which could come up years later. The backlog in the underfunded immigration courts is vast, with more than a million still in line for a hearing. Many of the migrants won’t show up for the court date; those who do can still resist deportation indefinitely.

What this means is that the U.S. now has an effectively open border with Mexico, and, according to the American Bar Association, the immigration system is “irredeemably dysfunctional and on the brink of collapse.” Repeating the Democratic mantra that there is no border crisis will not work for much longer. This year will see more undocumented immigrants than in any year under Obama. And the high rate of success among those trying to enter to the country now encourages more migrants to make the journey, especially given the forces of disorder and climate change that are forcing people to flee. The lesson from Europe in 2015 is that a migrant surge fuels itself, as word gets back home. And then white nationalism takes off.

This is the kind of quote that seems like it's cherry picking information. Why only look at the Obama years unless the author is trying to hide or skew something?

I get your overall point though, and you sound reasonable. I hate the optics of a wall though. We aren't East Germany.

Undocumented immigrants from the south follow the jobs. In 2009 when Obama took over, there had been a massive drop in money and jobs available the previous year. There were actually people leaving across that border.

Maybe, but he had some positive words for Buttigeig.

Wow, thanks.

See TW? Reasonable. Not wacko extremist. Not in this thread anyway.

Optics is a good point that I'd not considered. But who would see the wall besides US border residents and naughty "migrants"?

And aside from Maddow viewers seeing endless videos of it.

So after the economy crashes we'll need ladders if there is a wall. Or ramps on the inside?

Everyone would know it was there, if it was built, just like everyone knew the iron curtain was there without having to go see it in person.

Intelligent Yang take from youtube essayist 1791.



(TL;DW: Yang is transformative in a time during which we will require transformation. His ideas attract both lefty and righty audiences and demand consideration.)

I just picked up Yang's book.

Mr. Yang has some interesting ideas. Very good ideas.

Sure, if he's elected president guys like me would still end up in FEMA camps but let's hear more.

Are FEMA camps the new death panels?

That reference was used as a parody of whacko right wing extremists™.

FEMA camps

FEMA regions map

Old conspiracy theory.

I suppose FEMA will deny the Soylent Green mills in Area 51, too. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

Not if Bigfoot has anything to say about it.

Doesn't seem to be on any ticket yet, even as VP, so only time will tell.

[Bold mine]

Not to worry. Corporate America is getting ready for them even if the government isn't. What could possibly go wrong (holy Blackwater Batman)؟

Unlike the US military, civilian organizations like this are not Constitutionally prohibited from operating within the USA. Government can provide oversight; but, it doesn't have to provide oversite...whichever it feels is in its own best interest at the time.

Mr. Clod's company has a service like that on retainer--not just for execs, but for everyone, because they're so big they have dozens of employees overseas at any given time. If you're in Japan and an earthquake hits, for example, you make the call and the helicopter comes to get you.

Does it work for kidnapping?

If you can get to a phone and tell them where you are, yes. They may or may not tip off local law enforcement, I don't know. But the service is basically no questions asked, and near-immediate deployment and arrival.

Mr. Yang seems to get it.

"Presidential candidate Andrew Yang (D) on Monday evening mocked the mainstream media for still insisting that “Russia” collusion, “racism,” and “sexism” got President Donald Trump elected and not understanding that Trump’s economic nationalism actually propelled him to the White House."

He's not a Trump defender by all means but is thinking outside the Communist Democrat narrative. He has some very interesting ideas that are not generally something that I'd support. Plus he looks like a friend of mine here in Baguio. :)

He's a great candidate if Breitbart writes about him in a good light.

Another person agreeing with something that Bernie Sanders has been saying all along, e.g. Trump's appeal was economic populism; "Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don't agree..."

Love him or hate him, everything that the Democrats are doing (that has any appeal to anybody besides diehard party loyalists), is based on Bernie's 2016 platform. People say Bernie "isn't as Progressive" as he used to be-- well DUH, it's "not Progressive" anymore because EVERYBODY'S DOING IT now.

He's transformed politics. When he lost the Primary in 2016 it was like killing Obi-Wan Kenobi.

It was close enough that EVERY factor "propelled him to the White House". If someone says "it was this, not that", they're probably wrong.

question
 

Are any of these dem potentials promisin', in any way, to reduce the size & power of government on any level?

No. That's impossible. Am I wrong?

Progressives are intensely interested in reducing the size & power of large entities which overpower the liberty of individuals, we just disagree on what the primary threats are.

"No. That's impossible. Am I wrong?"

Nope: it was a trick question.

##

"Progressives are intensely interested in reducing the size & power of large entities which overpower the liberty of individuals"

Big business, in other words. Simple: make government stop protecting & catering to 'em. Otherwise: leave 'em be.

#

"we just disagree on what the primary threats are."

Actually, if you think on it, we aren't that far apart. You want corps and the like reduced in power and scope; so do I. Where we disagree: you want gov to regulate 'em; I want gov to stop -- as I say -- protecting & catering to 'em.

You'd monitor & micromanage 'em; I'd throw 'em into the wilderness to fend for themselves.

What we disagree on, then, is the proper role of American 'government'.

Agreed, on every point. You and I want the same things, for the same reasons. Just a different idea of what gets us there. I'd like to think that's a valuable lesson for American politics. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"I'd like to think that's a valuable lesson for American politics. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
 

Many don't care, so we march toward war.

Where they would dump dioxin barrels in the woods.

Seriously. How old are you? Don't you remember the pollution in the 60s and 70s? The rivers that burned? The detergent in the rivers, making a crusty brown foam? Soot covering everything? The lead in the gasoline exhaust that everyone was breathing and the crime that resulted from all that brain damage? Cars without seat belts?

The big corporations literally don't give a shit about you or me except how they can make money off of us. The big government keeps them on a leash.

you're a pampered moron
 

"Where they would dump dioxin barrels in the woods."

Covered all this before: that's what the court is for...lay your claim, make your case, win your compensation.

#

"Seriously. How old are you?"

How stupid are you?

#

"Don't you remember...?"

What I remember is folks like yourself inflating that which should remain small and harnessed into a vast regulatory nightmare. 'One is bad, all must pay' instead of 'punish the guilty and punish the guilty only'.

#

"The big corporations literally don't give a shit about you or me except how they can make money off of us."

Exactly, and neither do the folks who are supposed to be our employees.

#

"The big government keeps them on a leash."

No, largely the big government caters to them and protects them.

This is precisely what informs my politics. I can't support parties/politicians who cater to corporate interests, so consequently, Progressives who are far to THE LEFT of the mainstream are the ONLY politicians I can support, in good conscience.

That's what solves the problem you're describing.

And that's fine, Flint.

Me: I think the solution is in the opposite direction.

-----

Glatt, I was harsh...you're not a moron or stupid, just naive.

-----

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" F. Bastiat

We have here a diverse field of candidates, of different ethnicity, gender, orientation and race. Now, let's watch, as the intersectionally-driven media officially loses its fucking shit.

Newsweek tweeted headline: "Pete Buttigieg has a problem with black voters, and his town hall answer on incarcerated voters shows it"

Replies: "Newsweek, did you just post wildly racist clickbait? Do you figure all blacks are criminals, and vice versa?"

Newsweek: "Well uh" (deletes tweet)

Replies: "I think the original headline told the truth pretty well, it just told the truth about you instead of the issue."

They seem to have forgotten for a moment that Buttigieg is a democrat.

That's the sort of crap they normally reserve for republicans. Glad they straightened that out.

It always surprises me when people don't seem to know the extent that the Left side of the political spectrum brutally cannibalizes itself on a daily basis. Progressives hate Liberals because they think they're Centrists. Far-Left factions think Progressives don't take direct enough action, and if you really want to see a group of people that cannot agree on anything, watch a group of Communists attack each others' credentials. "You haven't read the right books!" Then you have the Democratic Socialists, whom the hard Socialists think will never accomplish anything meaningful.

But, after 20 years of Fox News putting the "Socialist" label on Center-Right Liberals, the "Left" is just one big amorphous blob.



In short, if you think Democrats won't attack a Democrat, hoo boy.

"if you think Democrats won't attack a Democrat, hoo boy."
 

Yeah, but they won't do it right: with guns.

Flint,

Could you recommend something as a reference? Online blog or something similar? Something you read online regularly? Something quick for you to post?

You have made some good points but it's still your opinion. It's counter to what I've observed. I do read things that are completely opposite of my opinion but have not seen examples as you have described.

Democrats who supported Hillary in the 2016 primary, and Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. Anything that any one of them has ever posted, anywhere; any article in any paper that's ever been written about it; anything that mentions either one of them, to this day.

Start there?

It happens all the time. My post about Chelsea Clinton getting attacked was this escalation:

1. Rep. Omar attacked moderate Dem support of Israel

2. Chelsea lightly attacked Rep. Omar

3. Progressive students vigorously attacked Chelsea

and add:

4. Lefty pundits attacked Chelsea or progressive students, depending on where they sat

All the time. I'll try to find more examples.

The intersectional identity politics wing is practically designed to be in a constant state of attack.

It's not just Reps vs. AOC, it's just as often Dems vs. AOC

AOC vs Biden spat "AOC group condemns 'old guard' Joe Biden as candidate of 'no we can't'"

Lieberman vs AOC vs Lieberman spat "'New party, who dis?': Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocks Joe Lieberman after he said she wasn't future"

The next POTUS candidate will split the Dems. A moderate will annoy the progressives. A progressive will annoy the moderates. The divide is palpable. The time of the reformation is at hand.

Thank you.

Nancy Pelosi calls the Green New Deal the "Green Dream, or whatever" (a big ƒuck you to AOC and Justice Democrats)

Beto makes a point to self identify as "a Capitalist" (distances himself from any variety of Solcialism, or the candidates who espouse them)

Biden says "rich people are not the problem with our country" (distances himself from any candidate who wants more progressive taxation)

About 12% of Bernie voters wound up voting for Trump last time. In a new Emerson College poll, over 20 percent of Bernie supporters are saying they would not vote for other Democratic candidates if the senator loses the primary.

Bernie has a strong protectionist vibe, and has said Trump actually does not go far enough along NAFTA lines. Bernie is a nationalist who advocates for a strong US.

There is a reverse component here which is also interesting:

These are Democratic Trump voters. It appears Democratic Trump voters are most likely to be Bernie voters in the Primary.

It's called "brand insistence" --when your customers only want YOUR brand of hotdogs. If the other brand of hot dogs is all that's available, the customers will either eat hamburgers, or just leave.

nobody notices they're all just tubes of meat, almost identical




the politicians, i mean

Every time I see AOC, I think *appellation d'origine contrôlée (AOC) and I wonder what she tastes like.

*The French certification granted to certain French geographical indications for wines, cheeses, butters, and other agricultural products.