2020 US Election (Part One)

[Zkribbler]

She told the media to promote Trump and hurt his opponents.

Yes, because reputable news networks take their marching orders from politicians.

 

[Farm Boy]

Primary cause was Hillary wins the popular vote by a comfortable margin and loses anyway.

A decades running social input that's cut the general alliances narrow enough on overweighted interest enough to actually make relevant the margin of power of possessed by the electoral college functioning normally, no particularly mean feat? Much less having made it relevant twice in twenty?

Sounds difficult. Know what sounds easy? Complaining how hard done by one's interests are and saying that the whole thing needs scrapped because widening the umbrella would cost money and interest and we should clamor for a dead on arrival redesign of the mechanisms. But yes you are correct in the essentialism of it , the primary cause is that both Bush III and Clinton Strikes Back/The Deplorer of State lost the election to an Assclown.

 

[Kyriakos]

Time for the nomination to be decided. Bernie 2020

 

[Berzerker]

Yes, because reputable news networks take their marching orders from politicians.

Maybe they're not reputable, but didn't the media give Trump oodles of free air time to attack Bush and Rubio? I'm sure if the DNC told their media to promote Bush the coverage would have been different, but why is a political campaign telling media who to help and who to hurt? Sounds like marching orders.

 

[Ferocitus]

Point of clarification, please.
Are the networks owned by Grima Wormtongue (pictured) reputable?

 

[Estebonrober]

Maybe they're not reputable, but didn't the media give Trump oodles of free air time to attack Bush and Rubio? I'm sure if the DNC told their media to promote Bush the coverage would have been different, but why is a political campaign telling media who to help and who to hurt? Sounds like marching orders.

You want to show your evidence for this conspiracy theory? I see stories talking about the clinton's campaign talking up trump but no stories about sending out marching orders.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Maybe they're not reputable, but didn't the media give Trump oodles of free air time to attack Bush and Rubio? I'm sure if the DNC told their media to promote Bush the coverage would have been different, but why is a political campaign telling media who to help and who to hurt? Sounds like marching orders.

Sounds more like your usual unsubstantiated wild accusations. Are you ever going to accept that no matter how many times you repeat a crazy claim mere repetition isn't going to make it appear true?

 

[Ferocitus]

Sounds more like your usual unsubstantiated wild accusations. Are you ever going to accept that no matter how many times you repeat a crazy claim mere repetition isn't going to make it appear true?

Oh, Tim, when are you ever going to learn that there's no rest for the triggered.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, Tim, when are you ever going to learn that there's no rest for the triggered.

All I can do is my part in keeping him busy and hope he eventually gets exhausted.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm not sure that neoliberalism has been a success even on its own terms. The essence of neoliberalism is using the power of the state to create markets, which the state can then laissez faire. But the core assumption was that these interventions would create competition, and thus efficiency, and this has failed. What it's produced instead is a lot of very profitable tax-farming operations. The mechanisms which were supposed to create competition are ineffective, and the sectors in which these reforms are made are often impossible to authentically marketised, with the outcome that marketised services are notoriously inefficient, and don't consistently result in saved costs for end users. Neoliberalism as an economic project has been a manifest, self-demonstrated failure, and persists largely because those in power don't have anything to replace it.

I was going to post this in the books thread, but I've just finished reading a book based on interviews with Argentina's supposedly leftwing Kirchner maladministration (2003-2015) officials and also their own ruling and statistics, in which basically they go straight for corporatism. Give tax breaks to the rich and subsidise the big players (e.g. Cargill, Bunge) so that they could buy out the smaller ones. Any similarities between that and self-admitted neoliberalism, and the shocking similarities with the subsequent stagflation-ridden crises and upwards net transfer of wealth, are 100% coincidence.

Anyway, as I pointed out in an earlier post, you are arguing in terms of neo-liberalism's own sales talk, but if they were honest they'd admit that they are real-life little Gordon Geckos who belong in gaol because their aim is simply to get rich at the cost of others without giving them anything back; i.e. fraud.

Yeah, well, i can tell that every single person with little enough to do (Edit. and privileged enough) to be posting to a gaming site using advanced technology has somehow benefitted from this completely failed system.....

Everything I said could be very plausibly articulated from a conservative perspective. There's nothing specifically left-wing, let alone "commie", about the sentiment that tax-farming is bad.

Leaving aside the not-insignificant comment that ‘little enough to do’ can also result from unemployment, tax-farming is an inefficiency and a corruption of the proclaimedly free market.

 

[Berzerker]

Point of clarification, please.
Are the networks owned by Grima Wormtongue (pictured) reputable?

No, he's a propagandist for the other party.

You want to show your evidence for this conspiracy theory? I see stories talking about the clinton's campaign talking up trump but no stories about sending out marching orders.

I already did once but it may have been in the dunce thread because its so dunceworthy, check below

Sounds more like your usual unsubstantiated wild accusations. Are you ever going to accept that no matter how many times you repeat a crazy claim mere repetition isn't going to make it appear true?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428

So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.

“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

The Democrats think having more Republicans in the race was a positive for them. Does that mean the Democrats also think a variety of views and lesser known candidates are bad for their elections? That is the implication, hardly democratic.

All I can do is my part in keeping him busy and hope he eventually gets exhausted.

Looking down my nose at you cleaning up Democrap isn't tiring... you missed a spot

For someone who complains about sniping at people without notifications you sure do it a lot.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hurd stepping down in Texas has said Texas is now purple.

I doubt the Dems can win there but this is 8-12 years earlier than forecast.

Trump MAGA lol he might be driving his party to electoral wipeout.

 

[Takhisis]

Trump MAGA lol he might be driving his party to electoral wipeout.

The spirit of his election in 2016 was very much YOLO. Many of his campaign speeches consisted of him standing in front of a crowd spluttering red-faced making disconnected partial statements and unfinished sentences (a lot like Mijnheer Pieter Peeperkorn if you know the reference) linked by instances of ANTHONY GOLDSTEIN ‘HILLARY CLINTON’ to fan the hate.

 

[Dekker]

Nah America is stupid Trump wins 2020.

 

[Estebonrober]

No, he's a propagandist for the other party.



I already did once but it may have been in the dunce thread because its so dunceworthy, check below



https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428



The Democrats think having more Republicans in the race was a positive for them. Does that mean the Democrats also think a variety of views and lesser known candidates are bad for their elections? That is the implication, hardly democratic.



Looking down my nose at you cleaning up Democrap isn't tiring... you missed a spot

For someone who complains about sniping at people without notifications you sure do it a lot.

Yea they can talk to the press and act like the press should take them seriously. This is the scale of your fudging conspiracy? Your mind has been destroyed by stupidity (GoP conspiracies). ./dumpster fire emoji

EDIT: Also you keep on acting like most of us are arguing with you are democrats but I would be surprised to see one card carrying one and most likely nothing but general disdain for the party apparatchiks. They are just a step better than the party you spend 24/7 on here defending.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nah America is stupid Trump wins 2020.

Yep, I'll give them a pass for 2016 as a part of it was a protest vote and Clinton had a lot of baggage. Trump didn't in a political sense.

 

[caketastydelish]

I am unfamiliar with the politics of other countries, but in America the incumbent wins the vast majority of the time. Trump being incredibly bad is far from a guarantee that he will lose in 2020. I hope he does, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am unfamiliar with the politics of other countries, but in America the incumbent wins the vast majority of the time. Trump being incredibly bad is far from a guarantee that he will lose in 2020. I hope he does, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it.

Incumbant advantage is everywhere. I expect Trump will lose won't be massively surprised if he wins.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm not paying close attention to any of the democrats right now, but considering who they're up against, being charismatic matters FAR more than experience. They learned that the hard way when Hillary lost.

It's also worth noting that some of Hillary's attack ads were garbage. She made ads attacking Trumps character, saying he's racist, sexist, etc. And while those things are true, that is a waste of campaign money because everyone already knew those things. Trump made ads showing what his actual policy would be and why it was better than Hillary's, while did not retaliate with that, almost exclusively attacking Trump's obnoxious character and remarks. The people who are turned off from Trump because of those things already felt that way, and already were well aware of it before seeing the ads on TV.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not paying close attention right now because I will support anyone the Democrats nominate. My position is summed up by a bumper sticker I saw recently. It was the really official looking campaign style, red lettering on a blue background with a sort of border of white stars running lengthwise across the middle. Below the line it said "President, 2020," but above the line where I expected to see a candidate's name it said "Any Responsible Adult."