2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you think prevents neo-Nazis from being a protected class, and what makes you think conservatives agree with the concept of protected classes enough to bother with these gymnastics?
bully Nazis.jpg


Moderator Action: Ajidica, please refrain from posting image only posts. All posts must typically have some text in them, with the exception of the photo/video threads. Simply posting a link to a picture or video in a normal thread does not meet the criteria for a non-spam post. Thank you. --LM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ahaha, who just spent two years hee-hawing that the president was a Russian spy

No one that I know of. Most people have spent two years deeply concerned that the president is willing to work with foreign intelligence services as long as they support his personal goals while denigrating our own intelligence agencies. But, I see that you are okay with that.
 
Biden rumoured to announce, not-in-person, on Thursday. Gods, I fudging hope not, but w/e. The Dems are doing what the Reps did in 2016. I hope they start butchering each other quickly and weed out the weak now and not drag it along.
 
I wouldn't have guessed that there was a lane in the democratic primary for being a white guy with very little depth who can make you feel good with words, but apparently there is and Buttigieg is taking over O'Rourke for control of that lane. Future VP pick maybe ?
 
a white guy with very little depth who can make you feel good with words
Being a white guy with very little depth who could make people feel bad with words worked for the Republicans last cycle, so . . . :dunno:
 
I wouldn't have guessed that there was a lane in the democratic primary for being a white guy with very little depth who can make you feel good with words, but apparently there is and Buttigieg is taking over O'Rourke for control of that lane. Future VP pick maybe ?

On this subject I read an Atlantic piece today that accused the media coverage of Pete of being too shallow, then suggested as a corrective a series of shallow questions none of which touched on actual policy positions or on principles that might guide policy.
 
To be fair, neither of the last two presidents did anything with policy during their campaign, so either it's not much a winning strategy, or at the very least, you can run a campaign with no policy and win. Trump had 0 policy, and many members from the Obama camp have said that in 2008 when Hillary was dropping specific, detailed proposals, they were literally just winging it.
 
To be fair, neither of the last two presidents did anything with policy during their campaign, so either it's not much a winning strategy, or at the very least, you can run a campaign with no policy and win. Trump had 0 policy, and many members from the Obama camp have said that in 2008 when Hillary was dropping specific, detailed proposals, they were literally just winging it.

How is that fair? I'm not commenting on the wisdom of running a policy-heavy campaign, but rather the irony of the Atlantic arguing that the coverage of Pete is too shallow:
But journalists aren’t digging much deeper than his orientation—and I have a theory on why. In the places where they live—in the pockets of the country that the Donald Trump minion Stephen Miller has disparagingly labeled “cosmopolitan”—sexuality is a hot topic. Maybe even the hottest topic. Military service? Not so much. Religious faith? Not at all.

And the punchline:
If reporters are going to provide it to them, they need to start asking Buttigieg different questions when they meet him on the campaign trail.

When lots of his peers at Harvard and Oxford grabbed their diploma and headed off to Wall Street or Silicon Valley, Buttigieg decided to serve his country in the military. Why? What spurred that decision? What did he learn from the experience beyond what he saw on the battlefield? Why does he think more Americans aren’t choosing to serve their country in the same way?

Here’s another one: Buttigieg would be the first president to have deployed to a war zone since George H. W. Bush, a man elected more than 30 years ago. What did that experience teach him? How would it affect the decisions he would make as commander in chief?

Need a third line of questioning? How about this one: Mayor Pete was raised in the Catholic Church, and governs a city dominated by the nation’s most prominent Catholic university, Notre Dame. Nevertheless, he now worships at an Episcopal church in South Bend. Why the conversion? Has he ever had a crisis of faith? What does he think about (particularly blue) America’s increasingly secular orientation? What does it mean for our society over the long term?


Finally, they should ask about the professional struggles he’s had to overcome. Every chief executive faces moments of self-doubt. Has there ever been a moment in his military or elected service when faith has filled that void? Moreover, in an era where, per Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone, people are desperately searching for community, is his religious faith born more of a search for spirituality or fellowship? Having been a mayor myself—and having spoken with hundreds of other chief executives—I know that, even for agnostics, faith can become a place of comfort. Is there a moment when faith brought him to a different decision than he might have otherwise made?

Wow, Rahm (I didn't notice before but the piece's author is Rahm Emmanuel), real deep stuff there...
 
Which is really a shame. With the rise of the internet and all the information available at our fingertips, you'd think more effort would be put into communicating policy, but instead it seems to favor personality over policy. Really SAD
 
No, Obama and Trump have it right in this environment: work in broad, visionary terms and let people fill in the details that they'd favor.

Make yourself an empty vessel, as much as possible. Hard to do, it's an achievement in its own right not to get pinned down.

Now the special twist on this for Dems in 2020 is that they should have some policy to differentiate themselves from policy-absent Trump.
 
No, Obama and Trump have it right in this environment: work in broad, visionary terms and let people fill in the details that they'd favor.

Make yourself an empty vessel, as much as possible. Hard to do, it's an achievement in its own right not to get pinned down.

Now the special twist on this for Dems in 2020 is that they should have some policy to differentiate themselves from policy-absent Trump.
In what universe is Trump policy-absent? It's not close to this one.

J
 
How is that fair? I'm not commenting on the wisdom of running a policy-heavy campaign, but rather the irony of the Atlantic arguing that the coverage of Pete is too shallow:

Sorry, not a dig on you. It's just clear that:

Americans don't like policy much
Media will cover things in a non-policy way
The occasional dogbone major media throws to policy is usually dumb and milqutoast

I guess I should have said more like "I just don't expect better" at this point. The Atlantic article was dumb but very much in line with what is standard and desired and them trying to pat themselves on the back in a shallow way is too. I can't even get mad at Pete EdgegyMcedge for absolving himself of policy honestly. It works. That it works is upsetting and I'd like to expect better but I don't know. I'd say there's only two policy heavy candidates in the whole Dem side right now.
 
Fair enough - I agree we shouldn't expect better - I just found it amusing that in that story they're like "coverage too shallow, here are some deep questions the media should be asking him" and then those questions are shallow weaksauce as well.

I'd say there's only two policy heavy candidates in the whole Dem side right now.

I'm guessing Warren's one, who's the other?
 
Yang's policy section on his website is longer and more detailed than all the other candidates combined, not even exaggerating. It's like almost too much. And he tweets about it a lot, and sometimes stuff that doesn't even matter? He literally has entire policy sections devoted to like, daylight savings time and even more granular stuff.

But yeah him and Warren.
 
God, I'd almost forgotten he even existed. I guess I'm biased by the fact that my first exposure to him was a bunch of surrealist "#Yangweed" memes. I'll have to look into him, I know almost nothing about him.
 
He's liberalish? centre-leftish? It's hard to say. But his big thing is UBI so I hope he makes some coverage just to promote that. He's also weird/outside the norm/leftish on some other stuff, think he wants full decriminilzation of all drugs but I don't think he's as economically radical (outside UBI) as the Bernie/Warren wing. I think he's a smart guy and he has no chance and he wouldn't even make my top 5 probably, but I hope a few powerful people at least consider UBI because of his run in a best case scenario.
 
He's been on Joe Rogan, so there's a reasonable interview available there. People can listen to it, and then easily forward it to people who will listen to it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom