US Presidential Election 2020

Quin_Dub

The Nal wrote: »

By the measure that Trump didn't start an ill-advised unnecessary war largely based on a personal vendetta that destabilised the entire middle east leading to the deaths of millions of people and presided over economic appointments, interest rate hikes and military spending that plunged the planet into the worst recession in 90 years.

The historical revision of Bush from relentless war monger into some folksie naive good ol' Texan just to make Trump appear worse is baffling to me.

I'm certainly not one for letting Bush off the hook.

He started a war to gain revenge for his father , or at least he allowed himself to be led into War by his fathers cronies that he had brought with him into Government.

For that he should never be forgiven.

In terms of his economic policies , he was fairly standard issue GOP and Trump is doing much the same and maybe worse , it just hasn't hit quite yet.

I mean look at Trump , cutting taxes and interest rates in a growing economy leaving himself absolutely nowhere to go when things go bad and they will, possibly sooner than expected with the hit the economy is going to take over the summer from the Corona virus.

Trying to stack rank Trump and Bush in some kind of hierarchy of Presidential effectiveness is like deciding which turd would be less disgusting to make a cake with.

eire4

Rjd2 wrote: »

Indeed.

Biden will be a better president than Trump because how could anyone not be,,,,but the same issues that allowed Trump to become president will for the most part not be tacked.

The likes of Yang, Gabbard, Warren and Bernie were some of the few who seemed more interested in trying to tackle the inequality that led to Trump winning.

However many of the corporate Dems had no interest, instead screamed Putin@~!~!! and focused more on the obnoxiousness of the man rather than what led to plenty of Obama voters who were so disillusioned they voted for Trump.


AOC when she argued for Bernie made the point that a moderate Dem is not the long term answer because what comes after 4 years of "same as usual" for the Dems won't be pleasant to say the least.

Your spot on there. 4 more years of yet another corporate Democrat in power is not what the US needs at all. It will likely only lead to another far right Republican administration in reaction just as 8 years of Obama's corporate Democratic administration did. As ell as at state levels during Obama's tenure the Democrats got absolutely destroyed.

Foxtrol

eire4 wrote: »

Your spot on there. 4 more years of yet another corporate Democrat in power is not what the US needs at all. It will likely only lead to another far right Republican administration in reaction just as 8 years of Obama's corporate Democratic administration did. As ell as at state levels during Obama's tenure the Democrats got absolutely destroyed.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Calling Obama a corporate democrat is laughable, straight out of the Bernie playbook of calling names at everyone who would dare compromise to get things done.

What possible rationale do you have for blaming 'far right' republicans on Obama? I dont think the way to avoid a repeat is to pander to those that resented a black president, it is pathetic to even suggest it.

Democrats got destroyed at the state level because a mix of Obama's more progressive policies and the simple fact that democrats switch off too easily between presidential cycles, alongside many of the same folks that sat out in 2016 sulking that their favourite didn't get the nomination. Republicans generally get in line and vote for the person on the ticket. Hopefully Trump will be a warning to future generations but I doubt it, we saw how quickly the Gore loss was forgotten.

Rjd2

O'Neill wrote: »

I have to ask where on earth did this 'bernie bros' come from? Every video I've seen of him giving speeches, it was very mixed gender! Also, the people that's associated with his campaign (Nina Turner, AOC, Rashida Talib, Ilan Omar) aren't exactly white men, unless I completely misunderstood the term.

Their was a study that was done recently which has emerged the Bernie Bro smear is a myth which is what others and me have said here previously.

The corporate Dems however know its bollocks but its been a useful weapon to smear the one serious progressive in the race.

https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/

Trump will pummel Biden. Dems will still force a corporate shill on the people in 2024 and lose.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

This makes absolutely no sense.

Calling Obama a corporate democrat is laughable, straight out of the Bernie playbook of calling names at everyone who would dare compromise to get things done.

What possible rationale do you have for blaming 'far right' republicans on Obama? I dont think the way to avoid a repeat is to pander to those that resented a black president, it is pathetic to even suggest it.

Democrats got destroyed at the state level because a mix of Obama's more progressive policies and the simple fact that democrats switch off too easily between presidential cycles, alongside many of the same folks that sat out in 2016 sulking that their favourite didn't get the nomination. Republicans generally get in line and vote for the person on the ticket. Hopefully Trump will be a warning to future generations but I doubt it, we saw how quickly the Gore loss was forgotten.

Obama bailed out Wall Street and massacred an incalculable number of people with his drone strikes.

The literal definition of a corporate Democrat.

Obama is, has, and always will be a glorified Republican.

briany

How sporting of the Democrats. They're putting up Joe Biden; a senile old man with no message whatsoever in order to give Trump a fighting chance.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

Obama is, has, and always will be a glorified Republican.

I don't think he was a great President but this is a ridiculous statement. He will go down in history as a great man, he did lots of great things before he was POTUS and I believe he'll do lots more in the years ahead.
You clearly haven't a clue based off of that statement.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

Trump will pummel Biden. Dems will still force a corporate shill on the people in 2024 and lose.

They have a bunch of great candidates, some of which I mentioned recently on this thread. If they put up somebody in the 40-55 age bracket they'll win in 2024.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think he was a great President but this is a ridiculous statement. He will go down in history as a great man, he did lots of great things before he was POTUS and I believe he'll do lots more in the years ahead.
You clearly haven't a clue based off of that statement.

No he won't.

You're living in fantasy land. I'm living in reality. You're pretending that Obama was reasonable.

Obama murdered an incalculable number of people.

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No he won't.

You're living in fantasy land. I'm living in reality. You're pretending that Obama was reasonable.

Obama murdered an incalculable number of people.

Show me an American president who didn't.
At least he didn't take steps to actively hide civilian deaths from drone strikes. Which president was that?? Don't tell me dont tell me I'll guess soon enough

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Obama murdered an incalculable number of people.

Trump literally removed the necessity to log drone deaths, but tell me more about Obama's "incalculable" numbers...

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Obama bailed out Wall Street and massacred an incalculable number of people with his drone strikes.

The literal definition of a corporate Democrat.

Obama is, has, and always will be a glorified Republican.

The reason the Dems lost so many state level elections and the house was because the GOP managed to paint Obama as a Kenyian Lenin. It's laughable to call him a "glorified Republican". He was a pretty straight forward Democrat, slightly more socially liberal than Bill Clinton.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No he won't.

You're living in fantasy land. I'm living in reality. You're pretending that Obama was reasonable.

Obama murdered an incalculable number of people.

You keep saying "incalculable", but i don't think it means what you think it means. The Obama administration definitely killed a lot of people, but they also tried to keep doing. The Trump admin just stopped counting.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump will pummel Biden. Dems will still force a corporate shill on the people in 2024 and lose.

Not if "de virus" doesn't show up his utter ineptitude and that's very likely at present. The stockmarket has deserted him already, also "not his fault". It's McMillan come back to haunt us all!

The Nal

duploelabs wrote: »

Show me an American president who didn't.

Oh well thats ok then. A good man.

Like all the murderers in Mountjoy are good people except the people who didn't admit to murder.

A lot of Irish people have a weird "Democrats all good, Republicans all bad" black and white view which is very odd.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

The reason the Dems lost so many state level elections and the house was because the GOP managed to paint Obama as a Kenyian Lenin. It's laughable to call him a "glorified Republican". He was a pretty straight forward Democrat, slightly more socially liberal than Bill Clinton.

Obama is a literal glorified Republican.

If you go by the polls he's actually right wing.

The Nal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'm certainly not one for letting Bush off the hook.

He started a war to gain revenge for his father , or at least he allowed himself to be led into War by his fathers cronies that he had brought with him into Government.

For that he should never be forgiven.

In terms of his economic policies , he was fairly standard issue GOP and Trump is doing much the same and maybe worse , it just hasn't hit quite yet.

I mean look at Trump , cutting taxes and interest rates in a growing economy leaving himself absolutely nowhere to go when things go bad and they will, possibly sooner than expected with the hit the economy is going to take over the summer from the Corona virus.

Trying to stack rank Trump and Bush in some kind of hierarchy of Presidential effectiveness is like deciding which turd would be less disgusting to make a cake with.

No its not. Trump is far better. Remember Bushs reaction to Katrina? I could go on. Endless examples. W is the worst president ever. Apart from James Buchanan maybe.

Propping up Bush to dump on Trump is bizarre behaviour.

Brian?

Deleted User wrote: »

Obama is a literal glorified Republican.

If you go by the polls he's actually right wing.

He's right wing, just like almost every other Democrat.

Quin_Dub

The Nal wrote: »

No its not. Trump is far better. Remember Bushs reaction to Katrina? I could go on. Endless examples. W is the worst president ever. Apart from James Buchanan maybe.

And tell me , how is Trumps response to the current challenge any better??

The Nal wrote: »

Propping up Bush to dump on Trump is bizarre behaviour.

I'm not propping up Bush in any way , he was roundly awful , but I'm not seeing anything to suggest that Trump is better (even slightly) than he was.

ancapailldorcha

Bush was at least somewhat dignified. He at least attempted to act in a serious, sombre and professional manner in a time of crisis. Trump on the other hand merely sees an opportunity to convince people how great he is.

The Nal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And tell me , how is Trumps response to the current challenge any better??

Its totally different and still ongoing.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'm not propping up Bush in any way , he was roundly awful , but I'm not seeing anything to suggest that Trump is better (even slightly) than he was.

Bush killed millions of people. Directly and indirectly.

duploelabs

The Nal wrote: »

Oh well thats ok then. A good man.

Like all the murderers in Mountjoy are good people except the people who didn't admit to murder.

A lot of Irish people have a weird "Democrats all good, Republicans all bad" black and white view which is very odd.

OK, can you tell me the answer to the second part of my post then?

Quin_Dub

The Nal wrote: »

Its totally different and still ongoing.

I accept that , but nothing in his actions thus far suggest that he is likely to make even a passable attempt at doing the right things here.

The Nal wrote: »

Bush killed millions of people. Directly and indirectly.

Without question.

However , I don't think that Trump has avoided that accolade due to anything approaching a higher moral code compared to Bush.

All of this is largely semantics to be honest , to suggest that Trump is "better" because he hasn't done a comparable amount of damage (yet) is disingenuous to say the least.

They are both awful , but I'll accept not equally so , neither has much if anything in the way of redeeming features.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

Their was a study that was done recently which has emerged the Bernie Bro smear is a myth which is what others and me have said here previously.

The corporate Dems however know its bollocks but its been a useful weapon to smear the one serious progressive in the race.

https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/

Did you even read the article or just the headline that confirmed your opinion?

It doesn't prove it is a 'myth' and if anything it proves the commentators are correct.

The author clearly states that it doesn't target the tweets that relate to politics. Out of 100 tweets, Bernie supporters could tweet 90 toxic things about politics and 10 positive things about movies, whereas a Warren supporter could tweet 90 toxic things about movies and 10 positive things about politics and they would both be ranked the same way in this study.

This analysis looks at all tweets. I would like to look just at twitter interactions between candidate's supporters, look at tweets responding or mentioning media professionals. I want to use some algorithms in the research that evaluate hate speech, racism, sexism. I'd like to look at specific topics of discussion, and possibly evaluate the influence of negative tweets (eg. retweets and number of followers who could see a tweet/retweet).

Even if you want to ignore that key issue, the study still states that given their higher usage on the platform, there are still more toxic Bernie Bros on twitter. From other candidate's and supporter's perspectives, they hear more negative things from Bernie's followers.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Obama bailed out Wall Street and massacred an incalculable number of people with his drone strikes.

The literal definition of a corporate Democrat.

Obama is, has, and always will be a glorified Republican.

An absolutely deluded post. Again, this reeks of that toxic mindset that if you don't do 100% what I want then I'll frame you as being the same as the enemy.

Obama's choice was to let the economy meltdown or bailout certain industries.

The auto-bailout alone apparently saved around 1.5m jobs, mostly blue collar.

Though bailing out Wall Street, he brought in a huge amount of regulation, including parts led by Warren.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

An absolutely deluded post. Again, this reeks of that toxic mindset that if you don't do 100% what I want then I'll frame you as being the same as the enemy.

Obama's choice was to let the economy meltdown or bailout certain industries.

The auto-bailout alone apparently saved around 1.5m jobs, mostly blue collar.

Though bailing out Wall Street, he brought in a huge amount of regulation, including parts led by Warren.

There's a massive difference between the auto-bailout and Wall Street bailout.

You know that, of course.

The Nal

SNIP. No GIF's please.

timsey tiger

America is withdrawing from Afghanistan, with the Taliban still on the field, so it looks like we can add that Trump is a war losing president.

eagle eye

timsey tiger wrote:

America is withdrawing from Afghanistan, with the Taliban still on the field, so it looks like we can add that Trump is a war losing president.

Are we calling this a bad thing?

serfboard

Foxtrol wrote: »

The auto-bailout alone apparently saved around 1.5m jobs, mostly blue collar.

IIRC, Trump's farmer's bailout has now surpassed Obama's auto bailout in monetary terms.

Obama's auto bailout was necessitated by the GFC. Trump's farmer's bailout was necessitated by his own stupid trade war.

And the rural types who voted for Trump, and who supposedly despise "socialism" and "big government", didn't mind a bit of socialism and big government when it came their way ... :rolleyes:

timsey tiger

eagle eye wrote: »

Are we calling this a bad thing?

No, just calling him a loser.

eagle eye

timsey tiger wrote:

No, just calling him a loser.

So then we just dismiss you as somebody who twists everything to suit their own agenda.

timsey tiger

eagle eye wrote: »

So then we just dismiss you as somebody who twists everything to suit their own agenda.

As you see fit, but who among us doesn't do this.

ancapailldorcha

timsey tiger wrote: »

No, just calling him a loser.

Mod: Please post more constructively than this.

Posts containing little more than a GIF and a Youtube video have been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

One-liner deleted.

eagle eye

timsey tiger wrote:

As you see fit, but who among us doesn't do this.

I don't. I'm all for Democrats but I don't bend things to suit any agenda. I've been saying for a long time now that the Democrats need somebody between 40-55 as the candidate to win an election. I've given up on this election because none of the top candidates have an earthly hope.
The Democrats need to step back now and not become like Trump flinging dirt and acting in a manner not befitting somebody in public office. Trump is a disgrace but sometimes you just have to stay above it and prepare for the future. The party's image is the most important thing now, you don't want to look exactly like the opposition.
There are a lot of good candidates for 2024 but they need to get those guys on the trail immediately after this election. They need lots of of good exposure well in advance of the next Presidential race.

Quin_Dub

timsey tiger wrote: »

America is withdrawing from Afghanistan, with the Taliban still on the field, so it looks like we can add that Trump is a war losing president.

eagle eye wrote: »

Are we calling this a bad thing?

Well , yes to a certain extent. Whilst ending a conflict and getting US troops out of harms way would always be a positive for the average American , the manner in which it is being achieved is pretty crappy , but consistent with Trumps foreign policy decisions thus far. No regard for Allies or relationships built up over the years be previous administrations

The so-called "cease fire " was only between the Taliban and the US.

The Taliban are free to continue to attack anybody else as they see fit.

Perfectly happy to throw the nascent Afghani government to the wolves without any regard to the future..

eire4

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Well , yes to a certain extent. Whilst ending a conflict and getting US troops out of harms way would always be a positive for the average American , the manner in which it is being achieved is pretty crappy , but consistent with Trumps foreign policy decisions thus far. No regard for Allies or relationships built up over the years be previous administrations

The so-called "cease fire " was only between the Taliban and the US.

The Taliban are free to continue to attack anybody else as they see fit.

Perfectly happy to throw the nascent Afghani government to the wolves without any regard to the future..

Well he did stab the Kurds in the back recently so not a surprise.

serfboard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Perfectly happy to throw the nascent Afghani government to the wolves without any regard to the future..

Civil Wars are a pretty common result whenever an empire withdraws from a country.

Quin_Dub

serfboard wrote: »

Civil Wars are a pretty common result whenever an empire withdraws from a country.

Oh come on - The cease fire that the Trump administration negotiated only covered Taliban vs. US Troops , no mention of trying to stop the Taliban attacking Afghani's

Whatever about things going south after the US leaves , which of course is a possibility.

But what Trump has done here is though is throw the Afghan government and it's troops to the wolves.

eagle eye

Quin_Dub wrote:

But what Trump has done here is though is throw the Afghan government and it's troops to the wolves.

Well if they're not strong enough to hold onto power then so be it. Outsiders shouldn't be getting involved unless there is mistreatment of human beings.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

Well if they're not strong enough to hold onto power then so be it. Outsiders shouldn't be getting involved unless there is mistreatment of human beings.

They *are* involved already.

It's about extracting themselves in the more humane way possible.

DreamsBurnDown

Back on topic. Huge night ahead in Michigan, a must win state for Democrats in November. This was the closest state in 2016 with Trump winning by 13k votes. For what they are worth polls are suggesting a big win for Biden, which would put Bernie in a tough spot.

duploelabs

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Back on topic. Huge night ahead in Michigan, a must win state for Democrats in November. This was the closest state in 2016 with Trump winning by 13k votes. For what they are worth polls are suggesting a big win for Biden, which would put Bernie in a tough spot.

4 years ago, the polls had Hilary with about the same amount of a lead, Sanders won it then

briany

duploelabs wrote: »

4 years ago, the polls had Hilary with about the same amount of a lead, Sanders won it then

Yeah, but in the 4 years since the 2016 election, you'd think pollsters would have found ways to pick up on the data they obviously weren't back then. Otherwise every poll they make will need a huge asterisk next to it.

DreamsBurnDown

duploelabs wrote: »

4 years ago, the polls had Hilary with about the same amount of a lead, Sanders won it then

Correct, and the same thing could happen again. It will need a big turnout from the 18-30 year olds for Bernie to win, so far this primary season they have not been showing up in numbers.

eire4

duploelabs wrote: »

4 years ago, the polls had Hilary with about the same amount of a lead, Sanders won it then

Very true and polls for primaries tend to be less accurate in general but it does not look good at all for Sanders tonight sadly. The night will tell the tale but it looks like the corporate Democrats are going to get what they want and kill off any chance of positive change that benefits the economic lives of the vast majority of Americans.

Red for Danger

If establishment Democrats are willing to coalesce around Biden, a guy who can't be trusted to speak in public and is only getting worse.

You now know they've chosen trump over sanders

He just pulled of this great political upset!!! Where is he???
Is he gone so bad he can't be trusted for more than 7 minutes. How is he gonna debate one on one?

They're money and power is safer with trump and thats that.
As soon as Biden's in the clear of sanders, they'll turn round and blame the Sanders and his supporters, just like 2016

Foxtrol

Red for Danger wrote: »

If establishment Democrats are willing to coalesce around Biden, a guy who can't be trusted to speak in public and is only getting worse.

You now know they've chosen trump over sanders

He just pulled of this great political upset!!! Where is he???
Is he gone so bad he can't be trusted for more than 7 minutes. How is he gonna debate one on one?

They're money and power is safer with trump and thats that.
As soon as Biden's in the clear of sanders, they'll turn round and blame the Sanders and his supporters, just like 2016

Well if Bernie and some of his supporters act like spoiled brats again then they'll again deserve their fair share of the blame if that happens.

Sanders had 4 years to grow his base and build relationships and he is doing worse so far. It is starting to look like part of his vote in 2016 was an anti-Hillary vote rather than a pro-Bernie one. Twitter echo chambers dont seem to translate into votes