Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 307290 times)

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4189
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1550 on: December 02, 2019, 07:27:14 AM »
I honestly can't stand Pete. He's probably at the bottom of the list for me right next to Biden. Pete won his mayorship with 8500 votes. Not by 8500, but with a total of 8500 votes.

Add to that, he isn't a particularly effective mayor.

Add to that that he doesn't actually say anything of substance in these debates.

If he wants to run for a Senate spot in 2022, God bless him, but he looks like a politician bot to me.

You may not like Bloomberg, but--with him in the race--I don't see how Buttigieg can be surging.

Centrist mayor of a city of 200,000 versus centrist mayor of a city of 7,000,000.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2358
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1551 on: December 02, 2019, 07:44:05 AM »
South Bend is small, more like 100,000.  I don't think Pete has the right experience.  Maybe he will get there in another decade of public service...


Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1552 on: December 02, 2019, 07:59:17 AM »
Sestak and Bullock are gone now, and the field still seems enormous.

If Pete falters, which could happen as seemingly all the other candidates (other than Biden?) and their surrogates, attack him, then what next? Are we really stuck with a 70+year-old as a candidate? (and that includes Bloomberg now, if he actually gets some traction)  (Bernie is 78, Bloomberg 77, Biden 77, Warren 70. So an average of 75.5 years old. Geez.

I think Pete is doing as well as he is, at least in part, is simply because he's young and sharp, and doesn't make you think, "holy shit he/she is old." I still keep wondering why Booker can't fill that slot, but apparently it's not going to happen.

I mean, seriously...this is Biden's bus. ...Malarkey?? What's his stance on tomfoolery? Who on earth sees this and says, "Yes this is my guy?"




« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 08:01:16 AM by Nick_Miller »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1553 on: December 02, 2019, 08:04:18 AM »
Eh, on the "malarkey" thing... Joe is trading on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it is-ness.

Is malarkey a word Gen Z uses? No.

Will the breathless media try to make this into something way more than it is? Yup.

The really ridiculous thing is how much "we" act as though a 2-5 word campaign slogan actually means anything substantive. Sorry, every time someone mocks one of the Democratic candidates, I think, "How does that compare to Trump?"

"No malarkey" is not even half as ridiculous as "Make America Great Again." And yet, the left will fall all over itself laughing about Joe's slogan -- egged on by the mainstream media, which is Trump's greatest propaganda coup.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1554 on: December 02, 2019, 08:08:48 AM »
Eh, on the "malarkey" thing... Joe is trading on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it is-ness.

Is malarkey a word Gen Z uses? No.

Will the breathless media try to make this into something way more than it is? Yup.

The really ridiculous thing is how much "we" act as though a 2-5 word campaign slogan actually means anything substantive. Sorry, every time someone mocks one of the Democratic candidates, I think, "How does that compare to Trump?"

"No malarkey" is not even half as ridiculous as "Make America Great Again." And yet, the left will fall all over itself laughing about Joe's slogan -- egged on by the mainstream media, which is Trump's greatest propaganda coup.

I mean, is 'malarkey' even a word that Gen Xers use? (I'm a Gen Xer, mid-40s, and I don't think I've used that word in my entire life) I just think it makes him seem woefully out of touch. I mean, you're a creative person. I am too. Can you visualize getting together a group of creative people and coming out of the meeting with this as your brand?

And no, it's nowhere near as stupid as MAGA, which has numerous obvious issues, but that's a really low floor.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4280
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1555 on: December 02, 2019, 08:15:06 AM »
Oh wow, that definitely reads like a joke.

I'm a millennial and I routinely use "Malarkey" but only as a bad nickname for my dog named Lark.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1556 on: December 02, 2019, 08:19:03 AM »
Eh, on the "malarkey" thing... Joe is trading on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it is-ness.

Is malarkey a word Gen Z uses? No.

Will the breathless media try to make this into something way more than it is? Yup.

The really ridiculous thing is how much "we" act as though a 2-5 word campaign slogan actually means anything substantive. Sorry, every time someone mocks one of the Democratic candidates, I think, "How does that compare to Trump?"

"No malarkey" is not even half as ridiculous as "Make America Great Again." And yet, the left will fall all over itself laughing about Joe's slogan -- egged on by the mainstream media, which is Trump's greatest propaganda coup.

I mean, is 'malarkey' even a word that Gen Xers use? (I'm a Gen Xer, mid-40s, and I don't think I've used that word in my entire life) I just think it makes him seem woefully out of touch. I mean, you're a creative person. I am too. Can you visualize getting together a group of creative people and coming out of the meeting with this as your brand?

And no, it's nowhere near as stupid as MAGA, which has numerous obvious issues, but that's a really low floor.

No, it's not a word Gen X'ers use. But it's a word he uses. And he has, for decades. It's definitely a term associated with him.

At least in that way, it's genuine. Unlike most of the slogans.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1557 on: December 02, 2019, 08:26:01 AM »
I'm wondering if the current round of drop outs is a direct consequence of Buttigieg's rise in the polls. I think a lot of candidates have been staying in the race because everyone assumes Biden is going to collapse at some point,* and a lot of folks saw themselves as positioned to be the fallback plan for moderate democratic voters and people prioritizing electability over left wing policy bona fides.

Now now that Buttigieg broke the 10% barrier in national polls (apparently pulling mostly from Warren supporters rather than Biden's at least so far), candidates like Sestak and Bullock may have seen themselves as at least two campaign collapses away from being the new default choice for moderate or establishment democrats instead of just one.
 
*Based on either his debate performances, his age (both chronological and perceived), or his poor fundraising relative to other candidates in the top four. That said, people have been predicting a Biden collapse basically since he's entered the race and so far nothing.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1558 on: December 02, 2019, 08:35:09 AM »
Make Malarkey Great Again

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2358
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1559 on: December 02, 2019, 05:07:35 PM »
Speaking of GenX -- where the hell are the GenX Democrats?  Why do we have this giant age gap with zero representation?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1560 on: December 02, 2019, 05:18:21 PM »
Speaking of GenX -- where the hell are the GenX Democrats?  Why do we have this giant age gap with zero representation?

Booker, Castro, and Yang are Gen X’ers. Actually, the spread is pretty even from old to young.

It is weird that the top 3 candidates by popularity have been old, though.

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1561 on: December 02, 2019, 07:14:20 PM »
Speaking of GenX -- where the hell are the GenX Democrats?  Why do we have this giant age gap with zero representation?

Booker, Castro, and Yang are Gen X’ers. Actually, the spread is pretty even from old to young.

It is weird that the top 3 candidates by popularity have been old, though.

I mean, old people are the most reliable voters and political participants, and people generally like candidates that look like/remind them of themselves, so it doesn't seem too weird to me.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1562 on: December 02, 2019, 07:20:45 PM »
Name recognition.  "The Brand," is certainly not all BS.

Thinking a tiny bit, I'd rather have a coke than a Malarkey.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4858
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1563 on: December 02, 2019, 07:49:38 PM »
Eh, on the "malarkey" thing... Joe is trading on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it is-ness.

Is malarkey a word Gen Z uses? No.

Will the breathless media try to make this into something way more than it is? Yup.

The really ridiculous thing is how much "we" act as though a 2-5 word campaign slogan actually means anything substantive. Sorry, every time someone mocks one of the Democratic candidates, I think, "How does that compare to Trump?"

"No malarkey" is not even half as ridiculous as "Make America Great Again." And yet, the left will fall all over itself laughing about Joe's slogan -- egged on by the mainstream media, which is Trump's greatest propaganda coup.

I mean, is 'malarkey' even a word that Gen Xers use? (I'm a Gen Xer, mid-40s, and I don't think I've used that word in my entire life) I just think it makes him seem woefully out of touch. I mean, you're a creative person. I am too. Can you visualize getting together a group of creative people and coming out of the meeting with this as your brand?

And no, it's nowhere near as stupid as MAGA, which has numerous obvious issues, but that's a really low floor.

No, it's not a word Gen X'ers use. But it's a word he uses. And he has, for decades. It's definitely a term associated with him.

At least in that way, it's genuine. Unlike most of the slogans.
I smiled when I read it, because yep that's Uncle Joe, right there.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1564 on: December 02, 2019, 11:14:19 PM »
Speaking of GenX -- where the hell are the GenX Democrats?  Why do we have this giant age gap with zero representation?

Booker, Castro, and Yang are Gen X’ers. Actually, the spread is pretty even from old to young.

It is weird that the top 3 candidates by popularity have been old, though.

I mean, old people are the most reliable voters and political participants, and people generally like candidates that look like/remind them of themselves, so it doesn't seem too weird to me.

They've also been in the game for a long time. Old age = we know them and vote for what is more familiar.

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3102
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1565 on: December 03, 2019, 04:53:49 AM »
Joe Biden and malarkey is just not good at all. Makes me think of some old goat from the 1920's waving a cane and screaming malarkey. However, if he were to have a 'hip' phrase, it would seem out of order too. I think if his catch phrase had been more thought out they could have come up with something better for sure. Now they are stuck with this ancient word. Unless malarkey makes a comeback now that it is in the public eye. I think there could have been a lot of better choices in his catch phrase. Like, Biden speaks the truth, Biden will fight for you, Biden's American dream, Biden...older, wiser, experienced...

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4189
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1566 on: December 03, 2019, 08:14:27 AM »
Look, the truth is that Biden should have run in 2016. Many, many people who reflexively were going to vote against Clinton would have shown up to vote for him. Of course, at that moment he would have been seventy-four years old, with there never having been a President elected who was over the age of 70.

But Clinton did an effective job behind-the-scenes of locking up the Democratic party behind her because of how she was burned by the emergence of Obama in 2008. A serious part of that was convincing Biden not to challenge her. I could totally see a world in which Biden would have lost a fair primary to Clinton, but beaten Trump once it gets to the general election.

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1567 on: December 03, 2019, 08:53:04 AM »
Look, the truth is that Biden should have run in 2016. Many, many people who reflexively were going to vote against Clinton would have shown up to vote for him. Of course, at that moment he would have been seventy-four years old, with there never having been a President elected who was over the age of 70.

But Clinton did an effective job behind-the-scenes of locking up the Democratic party behind her because of how she was burned by the emergence of Obama in 2008. A serious part of that was convincing Biden not to challenge her. I could totally see a world in which Biden would have lost a fair primary to Clinton, but beaten Trump once it gets to the general election.

I agree. I'm pretty sure that if his son, Beau, hadn't passed away mid 2015 Biden would be president now. He was dealing with grief and tending to his family right when a run would have had to have been launched.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1568 on: December 03, 2019, 08:53:38 AM »
Look, the truth is that Biden should have run in 2016. Many, many people who reflexively were going to vote against Clinton would have shown up to vote for him. Of course, at that moment he would have been seventy-four years old, with there never having been a President elected who was over the age of 70.

But Clinton did an effective job behind-the-scenes of locking up the Democratic party behind her because of how she was burned by the emergence of Obama in 2008. A serious part of that was convincing Biden not to challenge her. I could totally see a world in which Biden would have lost a fair primary to Clinton, but beaten Trump once it gets to the general election.

I very much believe that Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016.

But I haven't seen any evidence anywhere of Clinton/the DNC working to convince Biden not to challenge her. Do you have any proof of this? Or is it just your guess?

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1569 on: December 03, 2019, 09:47:01 AM »
Didn't Biden come on some late night TV show to talk about politics and end up breaking down about the death of his son? I also believe that if he'd run he would have won the general, but it's really hard to blame the guy for needing to mourn and spend time with his family after something like that.

I'm not sure what would have happened in the democratic primary is Beau hadn't passed. From 2020, it seems like Sanders has about 16-18% of the electorate who would have backed him now matter what. The other 32-34 percent of the democratic electorate who backed Sanders in 2016 but aren't in 2020 would have almost certainly switched to Biden* given the choice of another viable alternative to Clinton.

Were there enough people who voted for Clinton in 2016 because they disliked her less (or thought she was less unelectable) than Sanders for Biden to get a majority of delegates on the first ballot? Or would Biden running have meant we'd have ended up with a brokered convention or even worse a "the super delegates decide" scenario in 2016?

*This is the category I'm in myself.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2279
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1570 on: December 03, 2019, 09:54:57 AM »
What I like about Buttigieg is that he sounds very natural and spontaneous when he is speaking to the media.
When Clinton used to talk to the media or make speeches she sounded very rehearsed.

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3102
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1571 on: December 03, 2019, 10:49:33 AM »
DavidAnnArbor, I agree with you! Pete is my choice if I could vote for him. He is well educated, speaks well, can put an intelligent sentence together, unlike our president. We need some young blood to run our country. I would also like to see an vice president that was older with worldly experience. Young and old working together.


Secret Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1573 on: December 03, 2019, 11:28:28 AM »
Yikes, that was fast. Thank you for posting the news Secret Stashe.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1574 on: December 03, 2019, 11:41:00 AM »
Ohh I was thinking she was going to stick it out through the debate. I saw in a poll that the majority of Kamala supporters' second choice is Warren, So maybe we'll see Warren get a small bump from this.

Secret Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1575 on: December 03, 2019, 11:46:42 AM »
Ohh I was thinking she was going to stick it out through the debate. I saw in a poll that the majority of Kamala supporters' second choice is Warren, So maybe we'll see Warren get a small bump from this.

I expected her to endorse someone else in an effort to secure cabinet position or VP spot with how quick this feels.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1576 on: December 03, 2019, 11:51:12 AM »
I'd like to see Bernie, Pete, Warren, etc., focus on the billionaires in the next debate.

It's bad enough that less well-off candidates have to spend so much energy and time fundraising, but Steyer (and probably Bloomberg soon) essentially buying their way on stage with ridiculous amounts of their own money is like next level nauseating to me.

Even Bernie's and Warren's and Pete's impressive hauls thus far are going to pale in comparison to what Steyer and Bloomberg might be getting ready to spend. I mean, there's no way they can keep up $ to $.


secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3463
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1577 on: December 03, 2019, 12:23:09 PM »
It's bad enough that less well-off candidates have to spend so much energy and time fundraising, but Steyer (and probably Bloomberg soon) essentially buying their way on stage with ridiculous amounts of their own money is like next level nauseating to me.

Even Bernie's and Warren's and Pete's impressive hauls thus far are going to pale in comparison to what Steyer and Bloomberg might be getting ready to spend. I mean, there's no way they can keep up $ to $.

I probably rely on history too much, but I'm reminded of Jeb Bush in 2016.  IIRC he spent a lot of money but didn't really ever get very much support among the primary voters and dropped out relatively early in the process.  And in his case he also had the support of much of the party elite.

So my conclusion is that having the backing of the party elite and a lot of money to spend are nice things to have but won't actually work unless the candidate themselves is good.  I'm not sure if Steyer or Bloomberg are good candidates.

I do note that Steyer is running ads in my state.  This is none too bright because my state last went Democratic in 1964 and we're irrelevant even in the Democratic primary - too few delegates (4) too late (the week after Super Tuesday).  He's entitled to waste his money, of course, but it does reflect poorly on his campaign's decision making IMHO.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1257
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1578 on: December 03, 2019, 12:45:18 PM »
Kamala Harris has dropped out.  That's too bad because she is smart and capable, she has a solid background as a state attorney general and US senator, and she could speak to a variety of demographics.  I could be wrong, but I think we are going to get Joe Biden. 

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1579 on: December 03, 2019, 01:01:14 PM »
It's bad enough that less well-off candidates have to spend so much energy and time fundraising, but Steyer (and probably Bloomberg soon) essentially buying their way on stage with ridiculous amounts of their own money is like next level nauseating to me.

Even Bernie's and Warren's and Pete's impressive hauls thus far are going to pale in comparison to what Steyer and Bloomberg might be getting ready to spend. I mean, there's no way they can keep up $ to $.

I probably rely on history too much, but I'm reminded of Jeb Bush in 2016.  IIRC he spent a lot of money but didn't really ever get very much support among the primary voters and dropped out relatively early in the process.  And in his case he also had the support of much of the party elite.

So my conclusion is that having the backing of the party elite and a lot of money to spend are nice things to have but won't actually work unless the candidate themselves is good.  I'm not sure if Steyer or Bloomberg are good candidates.

I do note that Steyer is running ads in my state.  This is none too bright because my state last went Democratic in 1964 and we're irrelevant even in the Democratic primary - too few delegates (4) too late (the week after Super Tuesday).  He's entitled to waste his money, of course, but it does reflect poorly on his campaign's decision making IMHO.

Well, I didn't say they could had bought their way to the nomination itself, just the debate stage. Which Steyer has, and which I think Bloomberg will, although he has limited time and he can't control how many polls come out between now and the cut-off.

Can they essentially buy their way to the nomination? I don't know.

What if Bloomberg says, "Nominate me, and I will spend $1B in the general, blanketing the country with every sort of anti-Trump ad you can possibly imagine! Money will be no object! The Democrats won't be fighting out of hole against some huge GOP $ advantage. I'll make the GOP war chest look impotent and puny."?

I mean, that would probably be his only real appeal.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3463
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1580 on: December 03, 2019, 01:49:50 PM »
Well, I didn't say they could had bought their way to the nomination itself, just the debate stage. Which Steyer has, and which I think Bloomberg will, although he has limited time and he can't control how many polls come out between now and the cut-off.

Can they essentially buy their way to the nomination? I don't know.

What if Bloomberg says, "Nominate me, and I will spend $1B in the general, blanketing the country with every sort of anti-Trump ad you can possibly imagine! Money will be no object! The Democrats won't be fighting out of hole against some huge GOP $ advantage. I'll make the GOP war chest look impotent and puny."?

I mean, that would probably be his only real appeal.

Yes, you did.  I went ahead and assumed that Steyer and Bloomberg are trying to get on the stage to try to win the nomination, thus my general comments about that.

I don't think either of them can buy their way to a win of the nomination or the general election.  But that's just my opinion.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4280
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1581 on: December 03, 2019, 03:06:59 PM »
And then there were... fifteen?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1583 on: December 04, 2019, 08:26:21 AM »
Kamala Harris has dropped out.  That's too bad because she is smart and capable, she has a solid background as a state attorney general and US senator, and she could speak to a variety of demographics.  I could be wrong, but I think we are going to get Joe Biden.

Thank god for that. Last thing I want is a horrible aggressive prosecutor who impressions innocent people for fun and profit, and protects crooked cops
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xwkab/jamal-trulove-wants-kamala-harris-to-talk-about-his-wrongful-conviction
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1584 on: December 04, 2019, 08:46:59 AM »
What I like about Buttigieg is that he sounds very natural and spontaneous when he is speaking to the media.
When Clinton used to talk to the media or make speeches she sounded very rehearsed.

I'm curious what you Buttigieg "fans" think if his (shady) past in McKinsey? Ruhtless layoffs, supporting authoritarian state companies, war-profitering etc?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a35m58/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

I really don't care what he sounds like when he talks, I have deep concerns what his past says about him.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17411
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1585 on: December 04, 2019, 08:49:05 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1586 on: December 04, 2019, 09:02:47 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

No, not really surprised I suppose. I kept saying Obama was a  lying POS the whole time for refusing to do anything about gitmo, and war on "terror" in general (and spare me the "Gop wouldn't let us!" crap). But those were foreigners, and not even liberals give a crap about what happens to them. Kamala were going after US citizens, often poor and/or POC. So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters. This goes for the  Buttigieg support too really, his past is super shady.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 09:13:23 AM by Scandium »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1587 on: December 04, 2019, 09:16:59 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

No, not really surprised I suppose. I kept saying Obama was a  lying POS the whole time for refusing to do anything about gitmo, and war on "terror" in general (and spare me the "Gop wouldn't let us!" crap). But those were foreigners, and not even liberals give a crap about what happens to them. Kamala were going after US citizens, often poor and/or POC. So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters. This goes for the  Buttigieg support too really, his past is super shady.

Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo on his second day in office.

Congress stopped him from doing it.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5456
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1588 on: December 04, 2019, 09:22:27 AM »
So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters.

?? She dropped out because of poor funding and poor polling. Obviously, a lot of progressives didn't care enough about her candidacy.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1589 on: December 04, 2019, 09:31:56 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

No, not really surprised I suppose. I kept saying Obama was a  lying POS the whole time for refusing to do anything about gitmo, and war on "terror" in general (and spare me the "Gop wouldn't let us!" crap). But those were foreigners, and not even liberals give a crap about what happens to them. Kamala were going after US citizens, often poor and/or POC. So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters. This goes for the  Buttigieg support too really, his past is super shady.

Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17411
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1590 on: December 04, 2019, 09:33:07 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

No, not really surprised I suppose. I kept saying Obama was a  lying POS the whole time for refusing to do anything about gitmo, and war on "terror" in general (and spare me the "Gop wouldn't let us!" crap). But those were foreigners, and not even liberals give a crap about what happens to them. Kamala were going after US citizens, often poor and/or POC. So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters. This goes for the  Buttigieg support too really, his past is super shady.

Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo on his second day in office.

Congress stopped him from doing it.

While I do consider failing to close Gitmo a failing of Obamas, I agree . . . it wasn't entirely his fault.  Republicans wanted to keep their extra-judicial torture facility open and got what they wanted.  But they wouldn't have been able to without a large chunk of support from the American people.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1591 on: December 04, 2019, 09:40:26 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts, executive orders, and their control of the state houses!

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2639
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1592 on: December 04, 2019, 09:48:56 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts and executive orders!

So who do you support for the Democratic candidate?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1593 on: December 04, 2019, 09:51:38 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts, executive orders, and their control of the state houses!

I'm not sure what you're complaining about then. So it is congress' fault because they're spineless, but also Obama because.... congress?

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1594 on: December 04, 2019, 10:02:05 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts and executive orders!

So who do you support for the Democratic candidate?

Curious why that matters? I can't criticize obama or any dem candidates unless I support a perfect candidate?

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1595 on: December 04, 2019, 10:06:24 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts, executive orders, and their control of the state houses!

I'm not sure what you're complaining about then. So it is congress' fault because they're spineless, but also Obama because.... congress?

Yes, both. Obama, and especially Rahm, tried to work with GOP, or he was afraid they'd vilify him, obamacare etc. Shocker; they did anyway! House dems are just to fractured and self-serving, and leadership don't have enough control to get anything serious done. Only thing close for GOP is teaparty/freedom caucus, but even they will eventually get on board if they tack on something psychotic enough

JetBlast

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1596 on: December 04, 2019, 10:09:11 AM »


I'm curious what you Buttigieg "fans" think if his (shady) past in McKinsey? Ruhtless layoffs, supporting authoritarian state companies, war-profitering etc?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a35m58/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

I really don't care what he sounds like when he talks, I have deep concerns what his past says about him.

He would have been very junior at McKinsey, as it was his first job after finishing school, and would have had zero direct influence on picking clients the firm works for, and likely little choice in assignments within McKinsey. He was almost certainly a mid-20s, fresh out of school, nobody at McKinsey. Just like all the other newbies they grind into the ground for a few years with the lure of a big payday down the road.  A payday he walked away from to enter public service.
 
Further, there are likely a ton of Mustachians that work for companies that could be accused of similar.  I'd bet we have some engineers at companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin, which sell weapons to not always the nicest governments.  Or how about anyone working for an large integrated oil company like Exxon or BP?  Should they too be under scrutiny because their companies work with the Saudi or Russian governments?  Because oil prices tend to spike with Middle-East uncertainty, could those companies be accused of war-profiteering?  What about all of us that own index funds and therefore are owners of all the companies I named above?

I don't think working for McKinsey is inherently shady.



Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2639
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1597 on: December 04, 2019, 10:16:00 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts and executive orders!

So who do you support for the Democratic candidate?

Curious why that matters? I can't criticize obama or any dem candidates unless I support a perfect candidate?

Of course you can. I was just curious if you actually supported anyone or if you were here to tell us how terrible every potential candidate is and how foolish we are for supporting them. Seems it's the latter.

Unfortunately you're not going to get a candidate who has never been linked to something questionable in their past, who holds all the same positions that you do, and will effectively implement them as policy in 4-8 years. It feels like that's what you want and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements is a POS.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2639
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1598 on: December 04, 2019, 10:18:18 AM »


I'm curious what you Buttigieg "fans" think if his (shady) past in McKinsey? Ruhtless layoffs, supporting authoritarian state companies, war-profitering etc?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a35m58/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

I really don't care what he sounds like when he talks, I have deep concerns what his past says about him.

He would have been very junior at McKinsey, as it was his first job after finishing school, and would have had zero direct influence on picking clients the firm works for, and likely little choice in assignments within McKinsey. He was almost certainly a mid-20s, fresh out of school, nobody at McKinsey. Just like all the other newbies they grind into the ground for a few years with the lure of a big payday down the road.  A payday he walked away from to enter public service.
 
Further, there are likely a ton of Mustachians that work for companies that could be accused of similar.  I'd bet we have some engineers at companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin, which sell weapons to not always the nicest governments.  Or how about anyone working for an large integrated oil company like Exxon or BP?  Should they too be under scrutiny because their companies work with the Saudi or Russian governments?  Because oil prices tend to spike with Middle-East uncertainty, could those companies be accused of war-profiteering?  What about all of us that own index funds and therefore are owners of all the companies I named above?

I don't think working for McKinsey is inherently shady.

Agreed. I'll read more on the issue later but if that vice article is the extent of his "shady" past then this has no effect on my opinion of Pete. Feels like grasping at straws.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1599 on: December 04, 2019, 10:41:17 AM »
Of course you can. I was just curious if you actually supported anyone or if you were here to tell us how terrible every potential candidate is and how foolish we are for supporting them. Seems it's the latter.

Unfortunately you're not going to get a candidate who has never been linked to something questionable in their past, who holds all the same positions that you do, and will effectively implement them as policy in 4-8 years. It feels like that's what you want and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements is a POS.

I can't vote, so doesn't matter.
No I'm not looking for someone to be perfect, but I would expect some sliver of principles, rather than being opportunistic leeches who will do anything for power. Rather I feel it's the opposite here; people think all of them have awful pasts so might as well pick the one with the best hair.. Or who speaks the most "authentic", or reminds them of their kind grandpa, or is the most gay (all of these have been mentioned here as reasons for liking someone, except the hair). 

I'm not particularly on board with all their policies, but at least bernie and warren have slightly less awful histories of wall-st selling out and corporate psychopathy. Or fully rotting brain in the case of Biden.
edit: from what I know actually Obama too had a pretty decent past, not involving much wallst hitjob work or similar
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 11:07:45 AM by Scandium »