Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lexicus, Mar 11, 2020.
Yes, you do sound Commodore-ish.
DoJ closed inquiries into 3 Senators (Loeffler, Inhofe and Feinstein) for insider trading but they're still looking at Burr.
How will this end, something that Trump loves is turning on him?
A post by US President Donald Trump has been given a fact-check label by Twitter for the first time.
President Trump tweeted: "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent."
Twitter placed a warning label under that message and a subsequent tweet.
Twitter's notification displays a blue exclamation mark underneath the tweets, suggesting readers "get the facts about mail-in ballots".
Ok, that's fair. Policy [EDIT: sorry, "platform" was the word used, not that it makes a difference, but still] was the term used so I went with it, but you're right it't not the best term to use to describe "Beat Trump". But, I do assume that "Beat Trump" was the "clear & powerful vision" motivating most Democratic primary voters. I don't know that, & don't pretend to speak for them, but that's my guess of what individual voters decided, on their own, with little to no outside influence. I could be wrong of course.
But reality demonstrates otherwise, no offense meant. I guess it comes down to "Do you support Policy X?" Dem voter: "Yes." "Do you think a candidate who supports Policy X can beat Trump?" Dem voter: "No." That's what I believe happened, & explains Bernie' drop off from '16 to '20. Dem voters likely weighed "Beat Trump" vs. "What would be nice in an ideal world" & came down on the "Beat Trump" side, in even greater numbers than 4 years ago because "Beat Trump" is paramount, where it was simply assumed 4 years ago.
It still assumes the voters can be influenced, mind-controlled even, by some ill-defined Cabal of higher-ups, I don't even know who you're talking about that would attempt what you're describing? Who are these "senior Democratic Party leaders" who 1) actually support Sanders's policies, 2) would throw their support behind him, & 3) the voters would slavishly listen to? Obama? Fails #1 & #2. Hillary? Please. AOC? Fails #3. Warren? Maybe, but not only fails #3 but got into an ill-advised feud with Bernie. You're describing some scenario where there are some mega-influential #1's, who legit believe #2, & have influence to pull off #3. They don't exist. And even if they did, you still assume Democratic voters in the millions, across multiple states, would sublimate their own desires ("Beat Trump") to fall in line with these hypothetical people. It's unrealistic.
As I've said repeatedly... it wasn't the message that was the problem... it was the messenger.
Yeah, but to my mind that's not "voters rejected Sanders' platform," that's "voters supported Sanders' platform, but decided that beating Trump was more important than any policy issue."
So, in your mind the perception of Democratic primary voters as to who would be best-positioned to beat Trump would not be influenced whatsoever by the endorsements of "senior Democratic Party leaders" like Rep. Clyburn in South Carolina (to use one example of an endorsement widely held to be important to the election results in that state)? I'm not sure there is any hard evidence but I think that endorsement by party elites, however we want to define that term, would be a major factor in voters deciding who was best-positioned to beat Trump. More than one poster on this very forum expressed skepticism about Sanders' chances in the general election precisely on the basis that he would not work well with the rest of the Democratic Party. We don't need to posit any kind of weird mind-control or surrender of free will to believe that this is the case.
Just speaking for myself, I do think beating Trump is tremendously important, but it should not be the only thing Democrats concern themselves with, and HOW Trump is beaten may also prove somewhat important in the medium to long-term. For example, just speaking hypothetically, it might be possible to beat Trump by being even more cartoonishly racist than he is, but that is not something the Democratic candidate should do (nor do I think it is something most Democrats would support). Now that's a hypothetical, but it is quite concerning to me that Biden ran an ad attempting to one-up Trump on xenophobic bombast wrt China.
I don't see how that's any different than what I said.
I think you demonstrated my point better than I did. Didn't he endorse Biden?
It seems self-evidently different to me.
You seem to be arguing that his endorsement of Biden had no effect on the outcome of the election. Do you think SC would have turned out differently had he endorsed Bernie?
1) Self evident doesn't work for me, again no offense. 2) I'm saying I assume, with no basis for that whatsoever, that like most Dem voters,Clyburn made a calculation weighted towards "Beat Trump". Do you have some insight on why Clyburn really truly wanted Bernie but still endorsed Biden that would invalidate my assumption? Because I'm simply chalking it up to practicality, as I am with most Dem voters.
I don't understand what you're talking about here. You seem to be responding to a point I was not making.
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm suggesting that senior figures within the Democratic Party voicing their support for Sanders, privately and publicly, would improve his chances of securing the nomination. I quite genuinely did not realise that it was contentious to propose that senior members of a political organisation might carry some sort of sway within that organisation.
One of the major hurdles that Sanders faced was credibility outside of his movement. His policies were widely popular, and Sanders himself was widely liked, but there was also wide scepticism that he would win the election, or that he would be able to carry out his policies if he did, and this scepticism was not rooted simply in the supposition that voters would not support him, and that they would not return legislators who supported his policies, but on the widespread belief that he would not have the co-operation of the Democratic Party either in the campaign or in office.
If some leading Democrats, even just a small number, were to voice their support for Sanders, this would have challenged these assumptions. It would lend credence to the claim that Sanders was electable, and would demonstrate that the party was prepared to work with him. Biden won on the basis that he was perceived be the only "electable" candidate on the field; if even a minority of senior Democrats publicly dissent from this view, then this mystique of electability dissolves, and voters would be permitted, we might say forced, to compare them on the merit of policy, on which Sanders had an advantage.
You're very keen to defend Democratic primary voters against allegations of "mind-control", but in doing so you're painting them as deeply politically ignorant, as naively selecting a preferred candidate based on a list of policy position and personality, with no reference to the broader political context or the actions of others. Is that any less condescending?
I think I understand the argument you are making here and I agree with some of it, but I've got to push back on the implication that no senior or leading Democrats voiced their support for Sanders. Elizabeth Warren is the easiest example that contradicts such a position. And Warren made supporting Bernie a bedrock of her brand right from the start of the campaign... indeed, supporting Bernie was initially the sole position she took on any issue. All she was saying early on was "I'm with Bernie". And while AOC certainly can't be described as a "senior" Democrat, she certainly is a leader. So it wasn't that no Democrats gave Bernie any public support. Bernie just failed to leverage the support he received into a victory.
Going back to Warren for a bit... I never really bought her "feud" or rift or whatever that was... with Bernie. I think that Warren remained ideologically supportive of Bernie, but shrewdly calculated that she was being slowly backed into a corner where she was going to have to either endorse Bernie and risk alienating herself from the party, not to mention risk being on the losing side... or endorse someone else and be branded a traitor by her progressive base of supporters. So right around this time, in a clever bit of fence riding, Warren suddenly claimed great offense at Bernie's "toxic" supporters and how she and her supporters were being attacked and bullied etc on social media. IIRC it was also around this time that the Warren campaign accused Bernie of being sexist or some such for saying he was skeptical that a woman could win... or something along those lines.
I saw the whole thing as theater... a ruse designed to give Warren some cover for delaying her endorsement of Bernie, on the grounds that she had been offended, and thus needed time to "think things over". If not for that little "feud" contrivance, Warren would have had no excuse to not back Bernie immediately when she dropped out, especially when it was clear to everyone that the Democrats were circling the wagons around Biden.
I think people should be allowed to show support for whoever they want and not be pressured into it by people that don't agree with them. It's part of the process.
Don't feel so bad. Trump was going to steamroll anyone they sent out. It isn't like there was a good choice in the first place. Now, as the C-19 crisis winds down, Trump is starting to look bullet proof.
A senior Obama administration economist and Harvard professor, Jason Furman is predicting significant growth before the election, “We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country.”
The gist of his argument is that the economic situation does not model well as a normal economy. It models much better as a natural disaster--sharp economic decline, period of loss and uncertainty, clean up, sharply rising economy.
lol starts to wind down
It started last month. The cleanup phase is starting.
Show me where this straight line starts to curve downwards.
That's funny. You post something that can only go up and ask where it goes down. Very cute, but not very relevant.
Show me the one where it has new hospital cases. That one has been going down all month.
cumulative cases over time would drop if there were less new cases, but it continues on at exactly the same rate ever since mid-March, meaning nothing has slowed down at all.
I can explain these things to you if you're not here in bad faith, but I can't understand them for you.
And when it resurfaces in the fall?
Separate names with a comma.