US Presidential Election 2020

Even if you make the argument that his hand was lazy, it wasn't. The move to her breast was intentional and not caused by his talking to the woman. It's a very clear and obvious cupping, the kind you would do with your wife in bed. It takes effort to have your hand in that position with the thumb like that and her flinching is caused by him cupping her breast.

That is one of multiple videos. It's absurd to believe he didn't also do it off camera.

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even if you make the argument that his hand was lazy, it wasn't. The move to her breast was intentional and not caused by his talking to the woman. It's a very clear and obvious cupping, the kind you would do with your wife in bed. It takes effort to have your hand in that position with the thumb like that and her flinching is caused by him cupping her breast.

That is one of multiple videos. It's absurd to believe he didn't also do it off camera.

Have you something unedited? Remember when the video of the Jim Acosta mic grab was released edited to make it look more aggressive?

Just googled and found this.

https://twitter.com/sharikasoal84/status/1235412512956243969?lang=en

There's two separate videos.

It's not normal. No normal man does that. There are multiple examples with children and with grown women. And that's just what's on camera. If he's so blatant in going for children's breasts during a photo op, what's he like in private.

If anyone here dismisses it, please end the post with "I would allow him to do that to my child's chest in private.". If it's all faked video and I have been made a fool of, I will donate 100euro to a charity as an apology for wasting people's time and spreading fake news.

The Nal

Urgh. Watch these clips being rolled out until November. GOP already have video packages in the can ready to go.

Danzy

Brian? wrote: »

Are you criticising Bernie for being a decent human being?

Being decent is fine, he was too weak to win the race, he should have given it his all.

The Nal

Bernie is a total bull****ter who wouldn't be able to deliver on his main policies. Glad hes gone.

Wanderer78

Danzy wrote:

Being decent is fine, he was too weak to win the race, he should have given it his all.

I'd imagine he did, I certainly wouldn't be able for that campaign, and I'm half his age

Wanderer78

The Nal wrote:

Bernie is a total bull****ter who wouldn't be able to deliver on his main policies. Glad hes gone.

He would have tried, but wouldn't have been able or allowed to, their society isn't exactly designed for change, not the changes he was proposing, he's probably the most honest campaigner they ve ever had

ancapailldorcha

Uncivil posts and responses deleted.

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's two separate videos.

From the one source

sid waddell

The Nal wrote: »

Bernie is a total bull****ter who wouldn't be able to deliver on his main policies. Glad hes gone.

How is he a "total bul****ter"? Because you disagree with his policies, which by any sane reading are moderate and sensible? It's not Bernie's fault the US political system isn't remotely fit for purpose. One of the worst systems anywhere in the world.

Brian?

Deleted User wrote: »

Just googled and found this.

https://twitter.com/sharikasoal84/status/1235412512956243969?lang=en

There's two separate videos.

When watched at normal speed, I really don't see anything at all. When it's slowed down and zoomed in, it looks weird.

Biden is far too quick to put his hands on people. He does it with women, men, boys and girls. It's a bit odd that way, but it certainly doesn't make him a pedophile.

The Nal

sid waddell wrote: »

How is he a "total bul****ter"? Because you disagree with his policies, which by any sane reading are moderate and sensible? It's not Bernie's fault the US political system isn't remotely fit for purpose. One of the worst systems anywhere in the world.

I agree with all of his policies. All very sound. Its the way the country should be. Perfect in theory. But most of them are unrealistic to implement. He knows that. Hence why its bullshít. Its the Democrat equivalent of "Build the wall".

Gbear

Danzy wrote: »

Being decent is fine, he was too weak to win the race, he should have given it his all.

It's not weakness. He's too hard, in the materials technology sense.
He's rigid, brittle, unbending. It's possible he could've tacked to the center and gathered a large enough coalition to get the nomination.

You could call that a weakness, but I don't think it's fair to call it weakness generally. He's been extremely consistent, straightforward and steadfast in his beliefs. If he was "weaker", more willing to compromise, then he might've gotten over the line (although arguably, his brand of being iconclastic and unbending might be exactly why he got as far as he did).

sid waddell

The Nal wrote: »

I agree with all of his policies. All very sound. Its the way the country should be. Perfect in theory. But most of them are unrealistic to implement. He knows that. Hence why its bullshít. Its the Democrat equivalent of "Build the wall".

You agree with his policies but say "it's bull****"? Sure that makes no sense at all.

The whole point of politics is you campaign on what you believe in, not on what you don't believe in. Otherwise there's no point.

Even if you don't win, you help to change the conversation, and without changing the conversation, you really will never stand a chance of ever getting those policies implemented.

For years people in this country campaigned for gay rights, and for sane, sensible abortion rights, and for years they got nowhere. But they continually shifted the conversation and eventually it happened. It couldn't have happened without those campaigners in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

The Nal

sid waddell wrote: »

You agree with his policies but say "it's bull****"? Sure that makes no sense at all.

The whole point of politics is you campaign on what you believe in, not on what you don't believe in. Otherwise there's no point.

Even if you don't win, you help to change the conversation, and without changing the conversation, you really will never stand a chance of ever getting those policies implemented.

For years people in this country campaigned for gay rights, and for sane, sensible abortion rights, and for years they got nowhere. But they continually shifted the conversation and eventually it happened. It couldn't have happened without those campaigners in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

Campaigning is one thing. Running for public office knowingly promising unimplementable policies is different. Bernie is smart. He knows he can't deliver on these things due to the state of the playing field. Its not realistic.

Hillary had harsh words for him in the Hillary documentary.

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

Harsh but shes right about baloney.

pixelburp

Hillary continuing to passively insult the voting base I see. Nobodys that naive to think a Sanders presidency would have been a smooth path to (say) Medicare for all - there are plenty of Democrats in Name Only in the senate who'd oppose - but what marks Sanders out is that he aims high. American normalcy is clearly rotten and compromises or slight degrees of reform simply won't do anymore. Better to aim high and achieve 60% of one's goals than be a political jobsworth.

MadYaker

I honestly laughed at those videos of Biden. Is that it? No wonder the creepy joe stuff didn’t stick.

sid waddell

The Nal wrote: »

Campaigning is one thing. Running for public office knowingly promising unimplementable policies is different. Bernie is smart. He knows he can't deliver on these things due to the state of the playing field. Its not realistic.

Hillary had harsh words for him in the Hillary documentary.

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

Harsh but shes right about baloney.

You say Bernie is smart but on the other hand you say he's full of bull****.

These statements do not compute.

Anyway, he's lost now, rational Americans can go back to hoping that Not Trump wins, not because Not Trump offers any hope of a decent future but because he's Not Trump.

Maybe if the Democrats hadn't continually allowed the conversation to be shifted to the far right over decades, they wouldn't be in this situation.

briany

pixelburp wrote: »

Hillary continuing to passively insult the voting base I see. Nobodys that naive to think a Sanders presidency would have been a smooth path to (say) Medicare for all - there are plenty of Democrats in Name Only in the senate who'd oppose - but what marks Sanders out is that he aims high. American normalcy is clearly rotten and compromises or slight degrees of reform simply won't do anymore. Better to aim high and achieve 60% of one's goals than be a political jobsworth.

I'm afraid that Hillary is basically right in that Bernie was an independent with ideas quite radical to both the Democratic and Republican establishments, neither of whom wanted much of anything to do with him. Well, OK, the Democrats do want something to do with him, but only for as long as he's useful, i.e. campaigning to get his base to vote for Biden and with as little change to Biden's platform as possible.

However, it's also classless and yet again shows Hillary as a smug careerist to just poo-poo the wishes of many, many Americans so openly.

Back to Bernie, I don't see how he could have gotten even 60 percent of his agenda through congress and the senate. We saw what a battle Obama had of getting his health plan through, so anything more momentous than that would face multiples of resistance AFAICS. Bernie may be able to do a deal with Biden where one big policy point is tacked onto Biden's campaign platform and see how that gets on. Incremental change like that looks to be as good as it gets for the USA.

Danzy

Bernie in 2020 shifted position on alot of things on 2016, to appeal to party activists who are often deeply put of touch with their base.

Like the Momentum bourgeoisie taking control of Labour, they spent more time appealing to each other than listening to the electorate, who they were often dismissive of.

Gbear

Biden taking part of Bernie's policy platform on board (as well as parts from Warren's), is about the best the left of the Democrats could hope for in terms of advancing their agenda.

In both the UK and the US the conservatives have structural advantages to the way that politics works. However, the Tories are far more dominant than the Republicans. I think part of that is down to flexibility - the Tories aren't being too fussy about payments for workers, in comparison to how its like pulling teeth for the Republicans, and are again shamelessly using it to steal money for the rich. The Tories are pushing a more economically populist message than previously. How much they'll adhere to that is another thing, but there's a less Reganite bent to how they're presenting themselves.

It's the opposite way around in the two countries, with Labour being incredibly intransigent and hidebound in how they approach politics for most of the last 50 years, valuing ideological purity over actually achieving anything. The exception was Blairism. The Iraq war was a failure of Western politics as a whole, and I don't think a Tory government wouldn't have gone to Iraq, so with the pretty hefty caveat that they participated in crimes against Humanity and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, Labour under Blair was phenomenally successful for progressive politics.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but I think Biden presents another massive opportunity for leftists in the US, if they can only swallow their egos for five minutes, show some empathy for those outside their incredible positions of privilege who need incremental improvements, and accept something less than perfect.

StringerBell

duploelabs wrote: »

From the one source

And still edited.

I gave the first one a look, if that's the best they can come up with then I think Biden is probably safe. Even in an edit its a stretch to say its anything different then I am sure you will find footage of countless politicians doing in photo ops.

If there are no unedited videos available that's fine too, speaks volumes of course, but yeah.

eire4

The Nal wrote: »

Campaigning is one thing. Running for public office knowingly promising unimplementable policies is different. Bernie is smart. He knows he can't deliver on these things due to the state of the playing field. Its not realistic.

Hillary had harsh words for him in the Hillary documentary.

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

Harsh but shes right about baloney.

Clinton saying nobody likes Sanders is the height of irony.

eire4

sid waddell wrote: »

You say Bernie is smart but on the other hand you say he's full of bull****.

These statements do not compute.

Anyway, he's lost now, rational Americans can go back to hoping that Not Trump wins, not because Not Trump offers any hope of a decent future but because he's Not Trump.

Maybe if the Democrats hadn't continually allowed the conversation to be shifted to the far right over decades, they wouldn't be in this situation.

The Democratic Party has been a disaster economically for the vast majority of Americans since they embraced Milton Friedman's disaster economics euphemistically called trickle down economics and that is still who they are today economically. The core of the bigger picture problem though for me is how corrupted and utterly broken the American system is. Reality is congress is bought and paid for by and legislates for the benefit of the wealthy and major corporations which has lead to the growing income and wealthy inequality. The supreme courts blessing that somehow corporations are people and allowed to buy politicians and have them do their bidding is where power is in DC as is the 2 party duopoly on power of the Republicans and Democrats who enact rules and laws at every level to make sure that there is no possibility that other parties can emerge on a national level to challenge their cartel like hold on power.

StringerBell

The Republicans would be more associated with trickle down economics tbf but you are not wrong when you say the system is completely broken and corrupted. George Carlin put it best a long time ago when referring to the ruling class, not the politicians or those they shove in front of you to give you the illusion of choice, but the real power in America - Its a big club, and your not in it - to the ordinary US citizen.

It is as accurate now as it was then.

eire4

StringerBell wrote: »

The Republicans would be more associated with trickle down economics tbf but you are not wrong when you say the system is completely broken and corrupted. George Carlin put it best a long time ago when referring to the ruling class, not the politicians or those they shove in front of you to give you the illusion of choice, but the real power in America - Its a big club, and your not in it - to the ordinary US citizen.

It is as accurate now as it was then.

George Carlin as he so often did getting it with the proverbial nail on the head.

I get what your saying about Disaster capitalism it was started by the Republicans but the Democrats since Reagan have been on board with it too and that is one of the reasosns why income inequality has got so bad. It also has been a fundamental principle of American so called foreign under both parties as they bully and force countries to adopt disaster capitalism in even more extreme forms in their countries so that American corporations can benefit. Central and South America is replete with this American form of imperialism in particular although it is not exclusive to those 2 regions.

The Nal

eire4 wrote: »

Clinton saying nobody likes Sanders is the height of irony.

Yeah. They've been putting dreadful candidates out front now, Obama aside, since Bill Clinton. And even before that the last good one was probably JFK. HRC, Bernie or Biden to beat Trump across 2 elections. A very unlikable women whos had her time in the sun and two journeymen white blokes pushing 80 years of age. Rubbish.

Foxtrol

Sand wrote: »

I'd imagine its because there really isnt a tremendous difference between a Trump and a Biden presidency. For all the hysteria about Trump, apart from the interactions with the media, he has been a very conventional US president. Completely at odds with the disruptive campaign he ran.

People genuinely despise Trump as a person ( and I'm not going to defend him - I associate his voice to nails on a chalkboard) but if you want genuine change in the US then a Biden vs. Trump contest is wholly uninteresting. Whoever wins, things stay on the same course. Why should TYT row behind Biden? There isnt going to be anything other than superficial differences between his presidency and Trumps - less tweets at best, more smelling of girls hair at worst.

You obviously haven't paid any attention to US politics or are an ideologue.

Trump has broken so many norms for presidents and is continuing to do so on a daily basis in a way that is killing thousands of people.

There is a huge difference between Trump and Biden on nearly every policy area and even if you ignore policy and how they each would staff the executive branch, the difference in the judges they'd nominate is enough to change the US in a fundamental way.

briany

Both Trump and Biden are well into the vulnerable demographic for Coronavirus. I guess we know that Pence steps up if Trump is hit with it, but what about Biden? What does the DNC look like if he can't run? Who would they pick instead of him?

serfboard

eire4 wrote: »

Clinton saying nobody likes Sanders is the height of irony projection.

While I think this is closer, whether it's projection or irony it's certainly laughable.

briany

serfboard wrote: »

While I think this is closer, whether it's projection or irony it's certainly laughable.

On a personal level, she was probably annoyed that Bernie stood a shot of getting the nomination from the Democratic party. In a cynical way, she could have felt that he had little right to, since he had been an independent who didn't have to fall in line with either party. She, on the other hand, had put in all that work of not only ingratiating herself to the Democratic establishment, but becoming an integral part of it.

serfboard

briany wrote: »

She, on the other hand, had put in all that work of not only ingratiating herself to the Democratic establishment, but becoming an integral part of it.

Certainly one of the unpleasant aspects of her character, was her sense of entitlement to the nomination.

Foxtrol

serfboard wrote: »

Certainly one of the unpleasant aspects of her character, was her sense of entitlement to the nomination.

Entitlement is never nice but in this regard I think it is a lot more understandable to feel a sense of entitlement when you've put in years of effort than Bernie's situation, where he acted entitled after not even being part of the party.

Clinton doesn't help herself but a lot of people who dislike her tie themselves in knots trying to justify it, like here.

eire4

serfboard wrote: »

While I think this is closer, whether it's projection or irony it's certainly laughable.

Haha good addition there. Either one as you say laughable.

sid waddell

Jesse Ventura is now making noises about running as the Green Party candidate in the Presidential election. A quick internet search shows Ventura has/had his own television show on RT and has had very positive things to say about Vladimir Putin. Looks like Putin has found his Jill Stein-type disruptor candidate for 2020, but with a much bigger profile and TV-friendly personality, one curiously similar to Trump.

eire4

sid waddell wrote: »

Jesse Ventura is now making noises about running as the Green Party candidate in the Presidential election. A quick internet search shows Ventura has/had his own television show on RT and has had very positive things to say about Vladimir Putin. Looks like Putin has found his Jill Stein-type disruptor candidate for 2020, but with a much bigger profile and TV-friendly personality, one curiously similar to Trump.

He would still need to win the Green Party's own primary first and that is already underway with Howie Hawkins having built a strong lead already. So he would have to officially become part of that process first and make up a lot of ground on the current primary leader. Given we are already at the end of April I highly doubt he will even officially enter the Green Party's primary at this late stage. In other words I doubt this will happen so jumping the gun there a bit I think.

kowloon

Ventura is the one who supposedly persuaded Trump to run for president in 2000.

briany

sid waddell wrote: »

Jesse Ventura is now making noises about running as the Green Party candidate in the Presidential election. A quick internet search shows Ventura has/had his own television show on RT and has had very positive things to say about Vladimir Putin. Looks like Putin has found his Jill Stein-type disruptor candidate for 2020, but with a much bigger profile and TV-friendly personality, one curiously similar to Trump.

I notice a trend in American politics - every time a 3rd party or independent candidate threatens to get a few votes, they're painted as disruptors or, lately, Russian-backed.

The way the Americans accept their political duopoly as the natural order of things would make you sick.

sid waddell

briany wrote: »

I notice a trend in American politics - every time a 3rd party or independent candidate threatens to get a few votes, they're painted as disruptors or, lately, Russian-backed.

The way the Americans accept their political duopoly as the natural order of things would make you sick.

Ventura has worked for RT and been highly complimentary of Putin. You can dismiss that if you want, but I don't, and nobody should. The prospect of a disruptor third party candidate running on a progressive platform to split the Democratic vote is one that has long been touted as a serious threat by clued in observers. If the Democrats or progressives were smart they'd be trying to inveigle Justin Amash or Mitt Romney to run as a disruptor to split the Republican vote.

The fact is that the US is a two party system - a terrible system it may be - but anybody who has any real intention of working for positive change has to work within the Democratic party. Anybody running third party or independently in a presidential election on a progressive platform is a disruptor - because they have zero chance and will only hand the White House to Trump again, which would be an even more total disaster than the already total disaster his term so far has brought.

briany

sid waddell wrote: »

Ventura has worked for RT and been highly complimentary of Putin. You can dismiss that if you want, but I don't, and nobody should. The prospect of a disruptor third party candidate running on a progressive platform to split the Democratic vote is one that has long been touted as a serious threat by clued in observers. If the Democrats or progressives were smart they'd be trying to inveigle Justin Amash or Mitt Romney to run as a disruptor to split the Republican vote.

The fact is that the US is a two party system - a terrible system it may be - but anybody who has any real intention of working for positive change has to work within the Democratic party. Anybody running third party or independently in a presidential election on a progressive platform is a disruptor - because they have zero chance and will only hand the White House to Trump again, which would be an even more total disaster than the already total disaster his term so far has brought.

That the Dems could be worried about a progressive 3rd party candidate splitting their vote is more of an indictment of their own failure to find a unifier candidate of their own. They should get their house in order.

The way the Democrats are set up, they want to stifle anyone who is too progressive, and basically defang them. The only hope you'd have is to pull a Trump and take over the party. However, I don't think there is the numbers of voters to do that, but there is still a large chunk of voters there who aren't really represented by either main party, so it's not wrong that another party exists to represent them, even if that party has no chance of winning.

eagle eye

Yeah, with all the claims against
Biden from women it'd be a good move to get him to pull him and parachute in Cuomo or somebody like Michelle Obama. Eight years of presidency guaranteed. Get a good young candidate like Joe Kennedy and you could be talking holding office for sixteen years.

Democrats really do need to get their house in order, very sad state of affairs right now. Not having a legitimate good alternative to Trump and the Republicans is so disappointing.

briany

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah, with all the claims against
Biden from women it'd be a good move to get him to pull him and parachute in Cuomo or somebody like Michelle Obama. Eight years of presidency guaranteed. Get a good young candidate like Joe Kennedy and you could be talking holding office for sixteen years.

Democrats really do need to get their house in order, very sad state of affairs right now. Not having a legitimate good alternative to Trump and the Republicans is so disappointing.

Michelle Obama certainly has the effortless charisma that is a must for any presidential candidate to be convincingly successful in their bid. But last I checked, she didn't seem that interested in running. And if that's still the case, I find it a bit of a breath of fresh air because this idea of political dynasties in a democracy is troubling. I have some understanding of why it happens, but it really seems like a few familes being close to the source of power is one of those things that should be a relic of the feudal times and have no place in a modern democracy.

Maybe Cuomo could run at the next cycle if things don't go Biden's way. I'd imagine he'd want a bit of a rest after this current crisis dies down, not throw himself immediately into the presidential race.

It's really a pity that Ventura didn't run on the Democratic ticket. He was going to be called a Russian asset anyway, just as Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders were. He'd have had the best shot at being a Democratic Trump in that he could barge in and capture one half of the party while also appealing to a certain amount of disaffected floating voters. And he would have been unlike Trump in that he'd still have a shred of integrity and class.

Quin_Dub

briany wrote: »

Michelle Obama certainly has the effortless charisma that is a must for any presidential candidate to be convincingly successful in their bid. But last I checked, she didn't seem that interested in running. And if that's still the case, I find it a bit of a breath of fresh air because this idea of political dynasties in a democracy is troubling. I have some understanding of why it happens, but it really seems like a few familes being close to the source of power is one of those things that should be a relic of the feudal times and have no place in a modern democracy.

Maybe Cuomo could run at the next cycle if things don't go Biden's way. I'd imagine he'd want a bit of a rest after this current crisis dies down, not throw himself immediately into the presidential race.

It's really a pity that Ventura didn't run on the Democratic ticket. He was going to be called a Russian asset anyway, just as Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders were. He'd have had the best shot at being a Democratic Trump in that he could barge in and capture one half of the party while also appealing to a certain amount of disaffected floating voters. And he would have been unlike Trump in that he'd still have a shred of integrity and class.

Ventura is an Atheist who has recently said that "Religion is the root of all Evil" - As such there's not a snowballs chance in hell of him getting elected in the US.

Not saying his opinion is incorrect or invalid , just totally incompatible with US Elected office where every single one of them have to loudly and repeatedly speak of their faith and trust in God.

serfboard

briany wrote: »

there is still a large chunk of voters there who aren't really represented by either main party

IIRC, something like 100 million Americans don't vote.

serfboard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

incompatible with US Elected office where every single one of them have to loudly and repeatedly speak of their faith and trust in God.

Going by the record as regards the Presidency, you have to be Christian and male. JFK aside, you have to be Protestant, and Obama aside, you have to be white.

It's different for Congress, though. Rashida Tlaib, for example, is a brown, Muslim woman.

pixelburp

That trend will only change once the power of the Swing State - which are white, conservative god fearing folk if we're being honest - becomes irrelevant. Demographics clearly show the majority live in the melting pot urban areas, where diversity is simply a fact of life, but that doesn't reflect in the electoral college system. Until the system changes or those States themselves diversify, there's just no way in hell an American president will be anything but a white, Christian male.

briany

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Ventura is an Atheist who has recently said that "Religion is the root of all Evil" - As such there's not a snowballs chance in hell of him getting elected in the US.

Not saying his opinion is incorrect or invalid , just totally incompatible with US Elected office where every single one of them have to loudly and repeatedly speak of their faith and trust in God.

As Trump seemed to prove, you can say a lot of stuff so long as your message resonates. If Trump can talk s*** about a war veteran on more than one occasion and still be elected, then I can't call anything that anyone says an instant disqualifier.

marno21

Justin Amash is seeking the Libertarian Party nomination

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1255291408732360712