Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 10362 times)

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1991
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #100 on: February 07, 2019, 09:21:35 AM »
Gabbard started out looking like a good candidate, but the more I find out the worse it gets.  I really hope Clinton just goes away and doesn't try again.  She's an embarrassment to the party and way too dirty to support.  Biden, I don't know.  I did NOT like him as VP.  Some of it's probably just transfer from an ex-Mayor of ours though.  Biden looks and acts like his clone, and he was a terrible Mayor (despite being a good spokesperson for the city).  There's other potential on this side though, time will tell if any of it pans out.

On the other side, I'd love to see someone else unseat Trump somehow.  That's a super hard road to go though...  No clue who it would be.  Having lived under Kasich as Governor and known people that knew him personally, he's a strong no go for me.  Not seeing anyone else even remotely strong enough yet.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #101 on: February 07, 2019, 09:25:19 AM »
For reference, I grew up in a town called Ledyard, CT.  It is (sorta) home to the world's largest Indian casino, and was brought about on extremely sketchy circumstances, as outlined here.

So I may be a little bit more sensitive to falsifying Native American roots and take a dim view of why someone might do that.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #102 on: February 07, 2019, 09:44:21 AM »
I think Bernie is very likable but too old.  If elected in 2020, he would be about 5 years older than President Reagan was when Reagan started his second term.

I don't think Senator Warren is handling the ancestry issue very well.  My gut feel is that her candidacy will not last very long - obviously she has different political views from him, but her candidacy style reminds me of Governor Jeb Bush's candidacy in 2016:  somewhat hapless and fish-out-of-water-ish.

I don't like people who seem angry and raise their voice and interrupt, even if they have reason to do so.  Therefore I don't like Senator Booker.

I think Biden should either run or not run.  At this point he seems indecisive.

I continue to think that Senator Harris is the strongest candidate and I predict she will do well in the race for the Democrat nomination.  I think she'll get one of the two slots on the ticket and will be an asset in the general election.

I like Schultz from what little I've heard but think he could ensure Trump getting reelected.

Anyone mention Bloomberg yet and whether or not he will run?

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #103 on: February 07, 2019, 10:31:56 AM »
But again, that's truly not the issue for me. It's just her handling of the situation that really seemed off. I like Warren fine personally. I disagree with her on some political issues, but not a lot. But will she handle the pressure (i.e., the smear campaigns) that comes with presidential candidacy? I'm unconvinced. Or at least, I'm convinced that there are other candidates who seem better-prepared.

I see what you mean about how she handles attacks and smears, but at what point does it start getting too meta?

Bloomberg I like as a tycoon with heart, but I'm not crazy about him as an executive. He was mayor of NYC when I lived there and his choices for schools chancellor both stunk. His administration also mismanaged major IT projects (CityTime, NYcaps), come on, that should have been a strength! 

I don't care for Gabbard's cozy relationship with Modi and Assad, and she's behind the times on gay marriage, etc.

I've heard from friends who have met/known Cory Booker personally that he is actually the sweetest guy. So I'm inclined to give him another look, though I don't like the rumors about his relationship with pharma companies. But I haven't actually researched him yet so I'm not in any place to weigh in about him.  That's the problem with rumors... one uses them as a shortcut in place of actual knowledge.

I'm still finding out about the candidates; at this point I feel that most of them (except Tulsi Gabbard) would be fine on the issues.  So does it all come down to a beauty contest? Ability to govern is also important.
 

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #104 on: February 07, 2019, 09:48:38 PM »
I'm just looking for a candidate who's not going to jump on the Scandinavian Democratic Socialist bandwagon. I like a strong safety net as much as the next hipster, but that is not going to get the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida excited. Like it or not, they basically decide who is President.

Also, I really don't care what race/ethnicity the person is. I'm Indian, and don't think an Indian candidate would somehow represent me better because our parents came over on the same Air India flight from Delhi via London. 

Of all the Democrat candidates or possible candidates so far, Gabbard is the only no-go. If I had to choose between her and Trump I'd go with her, but seriously? Someone find a picture of her hugging Assad, please. If that's the best we can do this time around, screw us and our dumb party.

There are potential non-idiots who could run against Trump from the Republican side, but I would doubt their judgement just for trying. Not even this guy is unpopular enough in his own party to lose an incumbency.


MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7727
  • Location: Couchsurfin USA
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #105 on: February 08, 2019, 04:03:11 AM »
I'm just looking for a candidate who's not going to jump on the Scandinavian Democratic Socialist bandwagon. I like a strong safety net as much as the next hipster, but that is not going to get the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida excited. Like it or not, they basically decide who is President.

Also, I really don't care what race/ethnicity the person is. I'm Indian, and don't think an Indian candidate would somehow represent me better because our parents came over on the same Air India flight from Delhi via London. 

Of all the Democrat candidates or possible candidates so far, Gabbard is the only no-go. If I had to choose between her and Trump I'd go with her, but seriously? Someone find a picture of her hugging Assad, please. If that's the best we can do this time around, screw us and our dumb party.

There are potential non-idiots who could run against Trump from the Republican side, but I would doubt their judgement just for trying. Not even this guy is unpopular enough in his own party to lose an incumbency.

PA and Ohio have higher union membership than the national average, and campaigning on protecting unions and the social safety net is how Conor Lamb flipped his congressional seat. Wanting to afford healthcare and have some semblance of social security are things that cross party lines.

Also not sure why you're already jumping to shitting on Democrats for hypothetically nominating Gabbard. She has basically no chance.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #106 on: February 08, 2019, 09:16:29 AM »
I just can't get over how ahead of the times Bernie was. This is only a 3 minute clip, but I think it tells you all you need to know about what kind of person Mr. Sanders is.       

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Kn9DLN51Y

Damn, I wish he was 10 years younger.

But Harris does seem VERY strong. I like her a lot. I could get very excited about backing her. She seems almost unflappable. I think Trump would have a hard time handling her.


anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #107 on: February 08, 2019, 04:16:06 PM »
At this point, I would actively vote against any candidate that supports the newly unveiled GND. I read through not just the ridiculous "fact sheet" but also the actual resolution itself and nope.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3739
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #108 on: February 08, 2019, 04:19:13 PM »
At this point, I would actively vote against any candidate that supports the newly unveiled GND. I read through not just the ridiculous "fact sheet" but also the actual resolution itself and nope.

On a related note, I'm curious what you think our government should be doing to combat global warming. Since you don't like their ideas, I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on addressing the problem.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #109 on: February 08, 2019, 05:20:37 PM »
Climate change is real and at this point we should all understand that the likelihood of less than 2C change in average temperature in the next 50 or so years is pretty much nil.

Most people simply do not understand devouring nature is a price we must pay for technological/human progress. The very electronic device we use to post here consume more energy than our fridges in a year and pollute in its lifecycle.

Everything we do pollute and there is no way out of it. Yet the most effective individual action one can take to tackle climate change is at the same time incredibly simple: have less children.

The very act of having one less child reduces our contribution to the climate change more than all of our other actions combined (by a factor of 6). Put it another way, once a person has a child, he/she is a hypocrite for calling childless people (especially the ones by choice) "unenvironmental".

I am not saying everyone should stop having kids, it is a personal choice. Just know there are other individual acts we can do outside of that ridiculous GNP resolution that are more effective. If one is such a environmental warrior and prioritize combating climate change, then do all you can, instead of just pretending you care to look good. From a quick glance of the resolution's "sponsor" list, they are almost all hypocrites.

Secondly, the GNP resolution is about more than combating global warming. I absolutely detest all the identitarian bs that's in the resolution under the guise of Trojan-horse word "equity".
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 05:24:40 PM by anisotropy »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3739
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #110 on: February 08, 2019, 05:25:53 PM »
Climate change is real and at this point we should all understand that the likelihood of less than 2C change in average temperature in the next 50 or so years is pretty much nil.

Most people simply do not understand devouring nature is a price we must pay for technological/human progress. The very electronic device we use to post here consume more energy than our fridges in a year and pollute in its lifecycle.

Everything we do pollute and there is no way out of it. Yet the most effective individual action one can take to tackle climate change is at the same time incredibly simple: have less children.

The very act of having one less child reduces our contribution to the climate change more than all of our other actions combined (by a factor of 6). Put it another way, once a person has a child, he/she is a hypocrite for calling childless people (especially the ones by choice) "unenvironmental".

I am not saying everyone should stop having kids, it is a personal choice. Just know there are other individual acts we can do outside of that ridiculous GNP resolution, which are much more effective. If one is such a environmental warrior and prioritize combating climate change, then do all you can, instead of just pretending you care to look good. From a quick glance of the resolution's "sponsor" list, they are almost all hypocrites.

Secondly, the GNP resolution is about more than combating global warming. I absolutely detest all the identitarian bs that's in the resolution under the guise of Trojan-horse word "equity".

Sure. But... first, uh, that cat is kind of out of the bag (and you're also preaching to the choir, as I have chosen not to procreate). But seriously? Not having children is... not a particularly useful suggestion. Because people will have sex. And given that the very climate change deniers are also trying as hard as they can to outlaw abortion and birth control...

Meanwhile, our fossil fuel consumption is out of control... Just based on the number of people we already have...

And the ruling party in the US is literally trying to INCREASE fossil fuel consumption...

But you think halting births is the solution?

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #111 on: February 08, 2019, 06:13:21 PM »
Because people will have sex. And given that the very climate change deniers are also trying as hard as they can to outlaw abortion and birth control...

I am not sure that's entirely accurate, they are trying to limit late-term abortion, which is quite rare, but that's another topic altogether. Also I am not sure if republicans is indeed the ruling party, despite it holding the presidency.

Before we continue, I would like express my respect and gratitude regarding your personal choice, most people just don't get it when I bring up the issue. As I said, I am not advocating it being the solution for everyone, but anyone should be able to appreciate the irony and hypocrisy when someone that objectively "pollutes" more calls others unenvironmental.

It should be noted the role of nuclear is ambiguous under the GND resolution, although it's being excluded as part of the proposed mix. This renders the proposed plan almost cartoonish let alone unrealistic. So called renewables all have their unique environmental drawbacks, wind for example, have just been discovered they actually alter air flow and cause significant local climate change, and high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming.

Given the state of current technology, nat gas and nuclear are perhaps the least of many evils, all things considered. The root cause of environmental issues is population, and to fix the problem at its core we either need to halt population growth (which btw, is already happening globally) or have some sort of magic (I wouldn't even call it a tech) that provides and transmits limitless useable energy free of pollution.

Given the technological constraint, we are left with behavioral solutions. But these behavioral solutions must be realistic, the GND proposes to render air-travel unnecessary among many other things, lol I mean seriously? wtf? This is just as unattainable as "have less kids", and isn't even a tenth effective.

For a person who chooses to procreate, the onus is then on them to "make up" for the extra footprint. I would like to see some sort of tax-cut/rebate based on number of kids (but in reverse). I think the results would be a lot more environmental than conventional carbon taxes.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #112 on: February 10, 2019, 01:25:31 PM »
Isn't the most effective thing someone could do to mitigate climate change is die before having children? The not having children argument is logical if one looks at a society-level change. Yes, if we instituted a 1 child policy (or 0 child policy for undesirables...) then we would dramatically decrease pollution levels. So would a giant plague that wipes out half of humanity. Definitely would decrease pollution levels. Obviously that has to be balanced against other considerations such as having a long-term functional society (look at Japan and China's accidental and planned 1-child policies).

On an individual basis, saying that not having a kid reduces your environmental impact doesn't make sense, as it is really the kid's environmental impact. Unless we decide our impact doesn't start until we're 18. Otherwise we end up double-counting everyone's childhood. At any rate, I find the individual-level counting a bit nit-picky without wide-scale policy changes. I think it is possible, since almost all other developed countries are starting to make progress in that direction. Even in the US, most of the larger states are shifting towards renewable (even Texas!) It's just the US Federal government and Russia that don't care. 

I agree the Green New Deal is a bit over-zealous in its timeline, harms the environmental movement's attempts at shedding the hippy tree-hugger image that people detest so much, and throws in a giant casserole of left-wing social plans that aren't strongly related to environmental change. However, just telling people to not have kids is in theory the best way, but clearly won't work in the US. It's the same thing as saying "everyone stop driving cars and using hot water". Thanks, great idea, but we're looking for practical solutions.



Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #113 on: February 10, 2019, 01:32:59 PM »
I'm just looking for a candidate who's not going to jump on the Scandinavian Democratic Socialist bandwagon. I like a strong safety net as much as the next hipster, but that is not going to get the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida excited. Like it or not, they basically decide who is President.

Also, I really don't care what race/ethnicity the person is. I'm Indian, and don't think an Indian candidate would somehow represent me better because our parents came over on the same Air India flight from Delhi via London. 

Of all the Democrat candidates or possible candidates so far, Gabbard is the only no-go. If I had to choose between her and Trump I'd go with her, but seriously? Someone find a picture of her hugging Assad, please. If that's the best we can do this time around, screw us and our dumb party.

There are potential non-idiots who could run against Trump from the Republican side, but I would doubt their judgement just for trying. Not even this guy is unpopular enough in his own party to lose an incumbency.

PA and Ohio have higher union membership than the national average, and campaigning on protecting unions and the social safety net is how Conor Lamb flipped his congressional seat. Wanting to afford healthcare and have some semblance of social security are things that cross party lines.

Also not sure why you're already jumping to shitting on Democrats for hypothetically nominating Gabbard. She has basically no chance.

Because
1. this is a discussion thread of 2020 POTUS candidates. She is one, thus potentially can be nominated. I'm not shitting on anyone, much less my own party.
2. Many people thought Trump couldn't get nominated but here we are!

Enough

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 138
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #114 on: February 10, 2019, 01:45:09 PM »
For all those saying they support or want Biden to run, tell me if you can make it through watching this video.  Its unedited and the optics are horrible.

https://youtu.be/DwXweiRjckI

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #115 on: February 10, 2019, 03:21:04 PM »
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1048
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #116 on: February 10, 2019, 04:25:21 PM »
Surprised more people aren't talking up Sherrod  Brown. Bernie, Warren, Clinton, and Biden have too much baggage in one way or the other.

Spiritual_Lobotomy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #117 on: February 10, 2019, 05:49:56 PM »
Climate change is real and at this point we should all understand that the likelihood of less than 2C change in average temperature in the next 50 or so years is pretty much nil.

Most people simply do not understand devouring nature is a price we must pay for technological/human progress. The very electronic device we use to post here consume more energy than our fridges in a year and pollute in its lifecycle.

Everything we do pollute and there is no way out of it. Yet the most effective individual action one can take to tackle climate change is at the same time incredibly simple: have less children.

The very act of having one less child reduces our contribution to the climate change more than all of our other actions combined (by a factor of 6). Put it another way, once a person has a child, he/she is a hypocrite for calling childless people (especially the ones by choice) "unenvironmental".

I am not saying everyone should stop having kids, it is a personal choice. Just know there are other individual acts we can do outside of that ridiculous GNP resolution, which are much more effective. If one is such a environmental warrior and prioritize combating climate change, then do all you can, instead of just pretending you care to look good. From a quick glance of the resolution's "sponsor" list, they are almost all hypocrites.

Secondly, the GNP resolution is about more than combating global warming. I absolutely detest all the identitarian bs that's in the resolution under the guise of Trojan-horse word "equity".

Sure. But... first, uh, that cat is kind of out of the bag (and you're also preaching to the choir, as I have chosen not to procreate). But seriously? Not having children is... not a particularly useful suggestion. Because people will have sex. And given that the very climate change deniers are also trying as hard as they can to outlaw abortion and birth control...

Meanwhile, our fossil fuel consumption is out of control... Just based on the number of people we already have...

And the ruling party in the US is literally trying to INCREASE fossil fuel consumption...

But you think halting births is the solution?


I agree.  I cried tears of joy when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled the details of the GND.  This was clearly the turning point that is beginning to take hold to raise greater awareness.  Women like her will most certainly develop into the competent leadership we need over the next 30 years to combat and successfully eliminate climate change.  Woo-hoo I am hopeful! 

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #118 on: February 10, 2019, 09:02:23 PM »
On an individual basis, saying that not having a kid reduces your environmental impact doesn't make sense, as it is really the kid's environmental impact. Unless we decide our impact doesn't start until we're 18. Otherwise we end up double-counting everyone's childhood. At any rate, I find the individual-level counting a bit nit-picky without wide-scale policy changes. I think it is possible, since almost all other developed countries are starting to make progress in that direction. Even in the US, most of the larger states are shifting towards renewable (even Texas!) It's just the US Federal government and Russia that don't care. 


On most issues I would definitely agree with you. After all, blaming parents for kids' actions is clearly absurd (and vice versa) using modern standards. There is however, a key difference in this instance.

Nature does not care about the double counting argument. Whether we attribute the footprint to the parents or the children, as long as the emission continues nature/climate simply reacts accordingly. There is a "The End" total accumulation threshold for us, every action we take either speeds it up or slows it down, so we could rationalize our personal choices all we want, nature does not care. ;)

Quote
we're looking for practical solutions

My practical solution was to incentivize people to have less kids by offering tax-breaks and credits.  Granted most of the emissions are being generated by emerging countries now, so the "practical solutions" would need to get them involved as well. Having looked through the effectiveness of various environmental policies, I am quite underwhelmed, they have been more of a money grab than anything else, but i suppose it's better than nothing.

One thing I've noticed about our consumption pattern is that as we make things more "efficient", we simply consume more of it. Call me pessimistic and simple-minded, I just don't see a way out, but hey, what do I care, I would be long dead then with no descendants alive to face it.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 09:04:11 PM by anisotropy »

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #119 on: February 11, 2019, 12:17:38 AM »
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #120 on: February 11, 2019, 04:15:30 AM »
For all those saying they support or want Biden to run, tell me if you can make it through watching this video.  Its unedited and the optics are horrible.

https://youtu.be/DwXweiRjckI

Yeah that was very tough to watch.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #121 on: February 11, 2019, 08:36:50 AM »
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3739
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #122 on: February 11, 2019, 08:51:49 AM »
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her. Especially when the opposition is a pussy-grabbing, racist, misogynist serial cheater buffoon who lies like he breathes and is completely incompetent at his job, when he's not actively trying to destroy the pillars of the country.

"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me. Especially when as a woman, I've been chastised to be "nice" countless times in my life, merely for being assertive in a leadership role.


Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #123 on: February 11, 2019, 09:16:33 AM »
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her. Especially when the opposition is a pussy-grabbing, racist, misogynist serial cheater buffoon who lies like he breathes and is completely incompetent at his job, when he's not actively trying to destroy the pillars of the country.

"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me. Especially when as a woman, I've been chastised to be "nice" countless times in my life, merely for being assertive in a leadership role.

I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I still like Klobuchar as a candidate, and I agree that she would have wide appeal in a general election, especially in the critical Midwestern states. I remain skeptical that she could claim the nomination, though, simply because she may be viewed as "too moderate" for Democratic voters on the coasts and "too white" for the Democratic voters in the South. It's hard for me to see Klobuchar outperforming Kamala Harris in those regions. It'll be an interesting primary season for sure.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #124 on: February 11, 2019, 09:17:36 AM »
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

I'm glad she just owned it. I don't see friendly as exclusive of being driven. I work with lots of people that blend those. Sadly, yes, as a female in the world this may work against her due to double standards and easy narratives.

But, as Winston Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." People are not elected based on a measured view of their qualifications and competence (obviously).

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #125 on: February 11, 2019, 09:46:18 AM »
Surprised more people aren't talking up Sherrod  Brown. Bernie, Warren, Clinton, and Biden have too much baggage in one way or the other.

I haven't heard much about him but what little I have I would put him at the top of the list of candidates to beat Trump. He's from Ohio and I think he would appeal to a lot of the swing state voters from that region who voted Trump with hopes that he would save their jobs. I don't know anything about his charisma or how he would fare in a debate but what I've seen on paper is very appealing. And a bonus, haven't heard of any political baggage.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #126 on: February 11, 2019, 10:33:46 AM »
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.




Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #127 on: February 11, 2019, 11:17:44 AM »
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1123
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #128 on: February 11, 2019, 11:30:51 AM »
My prediction for whatever Democrat wins the party nomination is that they must not match at least one of these 3 attributes:

Straight
White
Male

That helps narrow things down.... Bernie, Biden and others will not be the party nominee, even if they turn out to be the most qualified.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3739
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #129 on: February 11, 2019, 11:34:39 AM »
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

Here's the thing.

First, this is Buzzfeed. I mean, it's not as though this couldn't be true. But their record of factual reporting is mixed, at best, based on poor sourcing and failed fact checks. No emails themselves have been released. No names have been released.

I think it is awfully, awfully premature to pronounce that report credible. Especially given she is the most centrist of the Democratic candidates to announce. And that there are reasons for both the far left and the right to want to torpedo her candidacy as a result.

I'm really past the point of being comfortable with letting rumor and innuendo influence my opinions of candidates at this point. If she really is some sort of abusive monster, then more credible information will eventually come out.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #130 on: February 11, 2019, 11:45:11 AM »
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

I don't think this mistreatment of staff is much of a dealbreaker in terms of how good of a president she'd be - there's definitely stories out there suggesting this hard-nosed approach can really push people to do their best work.

But I do think it undercuts the way that she's marketed herself to voters.

And I think the high turnover rate suggests her approach might not even be very effective, and simply is a means for her to release frustration. I imagine it might be learned behavior from her high powered law background. I remember my impressionable and high achieving oldest brother came home for a visit after his time as a junior level analyst investment banker... he berated my other brother for simply getting lost as they drove to whatever bar it was they were going to. It was very jarring to hear about, our family culture is the furthest thing from this type of behavior.


Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #131 on: February 11, 2019, 11:58:29 AM »
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor. 



J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #132 on: February 11, 2019, 12:11:47 PM »
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

Here's the thing.

First, this is Buzzfeed. I mean, it's not as though this couldn't be true. But their record of factual reporting is mixed, at best, based on poor sourcing and failed fact checks. No emails themselves have been released. No names have been released.

I think it is awfully, awfully premature to pronounce that report credible. Especially given she is the most centrist of the Democratic candidates to announce. And that there are reasons for both the far left and the right to want to torpedo her candidacy as a result.

I'm really past the point of being comfortable with letting rumor and innuendo influence my opinions of candidates at this point. If she really is some sort of abusive monster, then more credible information will eventually come out.

Yeah, I get that Buzzfeed (and HuffPo with the subsequent write ups) don't have a great reputation for accuracy. But she responded to this and didn't deny or claim any type of misrepresentation. The other established facts (her employee union president's statements in 2006, her turnover stats) are in keeping with this narrative. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for names, as most of these former staffers probably still want their careers. But I understand the reticence to accept the veracity of stories from journalistic bottom feeders in this current rapid-pace news cycle environment.


Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #133 on: February 11, 2019, 12:23:45 PM »
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

Here's the thing.

First, this is Buzzfeed. I mean, it's not as though this couldn't be true. But their record of factual reporting is mixed, at best, based on poor sourcing and failed fact checks. No emails themselves have been released. No names have been released.

I think it is awfully, awfully premature to pronounce that report credible. Especially given she is the most centrist of the Democratic candidates to announce. And that there are reasons for both the far left and the right to want to torpedo her candidacy as a result.

I'm really past the point of being comfortable with letting rumor and innuendo influence my opinions of candidates at this point. If she really is some sort of abusive monster, then more credible information will eventually come out.

She did not contradict anything that was reported in her response, so I don't have much reason to doubt their credibility, but let me ask you this: If she actually felt that the reporting was unfair or inaccurate, do you think she should have said so? Or do you think that the correct political calculation was to accept the criticism and spin it as being "tough", even if she felt that the reporting was inaccurate? I think the latter approach was probably the correct one, regardless of whether or not the reporting was 100% accurate. People are sick of politicians who dodge and shift blame. Klobuchar didn't exactly apologize, but I bet she's more aware of this issue moving forward.

Frankly, I think this is less of a long-term issue for Klobuchar than say, Elizabeth Warren and her Native American heritage. Trump will milk his "Pocahontas" and "Trail of Tears" references for years (which will inevitably lead to the media to keep reporting on it, which will keep it in the public psyche), but do you really see him trying to criticize Klobuchar for being hard on her subordinates?

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #134 on: February 11, 2019, 12:38:42 PM »
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor.

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

That's just a "hell no" zone that infuriates people of all political stripes.

And that video of Biden grabbing the girls' arms, pulling them right next to him, whispering to them, jokes about posing alone with them, stroking their hair, etc etc etc man that just made my Creep Factor alarm go off. I mean, in virtually every pic session, he makes sure the girl(s) are as close to him as humanly possible, and he pretty much ignores the boys.

I try to be objective about things and call them like I see them. It's not like I WANT to view Biden as creepy. But I have a 13-year-old and if some dude, politician or not, stroked her hair and pulled her next to him, we would have words.

I'm not saying that he's necessarily anything beyond a handsy old man, but that's bad enough.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 12:42:55 PM by Nick_Miller »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3739
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #135 on: February 11, 2019, 12:42:35 PM »
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor.

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

That's just a "hell no" zone that infuriates people of all political stripes.

And that video of Biden grabbing the girls' arms, pulling them right next to him, whispering to them, jokes about posing alone with them, stroking their hair, etc etc etc man that just made my Creep Factor alarm go off. I mean, in virtually every pic session, he makes sure the girl(s) are as close to him as humanly possible, and he pretty much ignores the boys.

I have a 13-year-old and if some dude, politician or not, stroked her hair and pulled her next to him, we would have words.

I'm not saying that he's necessarily anything beyond a handsy old man, but that's bad enough.

Except how Trump used to walk into the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen USA pageant.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #136 on: February 11, 2019, 12:45:41 PM »
Kris, I despise Trump possibly as much as you do. You don't have to convince me he's a creep.

But didn't the Biden video bother you? I felt icky after it.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #137 on: February 11, 2019, 12:47:40 PM »
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor.

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

That's just a "hell no" zone that infuriates people of all political stripes.

And that video of Biden grabbing the girls' arms, pulling them right next to him, whispering to them, jokes about posing alone with them, stroking their hair, etc etc etc man that just made my Creep Factor alarm go off. I mean, in virtually every pic session, he makes sure the girl(s) are as close to him as humanly possible, and he pretty much ignores the boys.

I have a 13-year-old and if some dude, politician or not, stroked her hair and pulled her next to him, we would have words.

I'm not saying that he's necessarily anything beyond a handsy old man, but that's bad enough.

Except how Trump used to walk into the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen USA pageant.

Exactly. Trump is as creepy as it gets. But frankly, I'm pretty much done with Biden too. I'd be kind of shocked if he doesn't have some inappropriate conduct "skeletons" in his closet, and frankly, Democrats have been hammering on that shit for too long to ignore it now. I really don't care to be around for the shitshow that would ensue if Biden becomes the nominee and some "Me Too" allegations come to light. Next, please.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3739
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #138 on: February 11, 2019, 01:11:25 PM »
Kris, I despise Trump possibly as much as you do. You don't have to convince me he's a creep.

But didn't the Biden video bother you? I felt icky after it.

I haven't watched it yet. I clicked on it this morning right before I started working, but then saw how long it was and clicked back out because I didn't have time for a twelve-minute video. I saw about thirty seconds of it. So I don't have enough info to judge yet.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #139 on: February 11, 2019, 01:15:09 PM »
You can fast forward through some of it. But let's just say that you will notice a pattern.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3739
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #140 on: February 11, 2019, 01:27:07 PM »
You can fast forward through some of it. But let's just say that you will notice a pattern.

Okay, gross, no. I watched up to the 45 second mark and had to click out. That girl was really uncomfortable. Very not okay.

I doubt that Biden thinks he was doing anything wrong. But that's part of the problem, isn't it?

Spiritual_Lobotomy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #141 on: February 11, 2019, 01:39:20 PM »
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her. Especially when the opposition is a pussy-grabbing, racist, misogynist serial cheater buffoon who lies like he breathes and is completely incompetent at his job, when he's not actively trying to destroy the pillars of the country.

"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me. Especially when as a woman, I've been chastised to be "nice" countless times in my life, merely for being assertive in a leadership role.

Kris,  what are your thoughts on Keith Ellison and Al Franken?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4658
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #142 on: February 11, 2019, 01:40:35 PM »
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor.

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

That's just a "hell no" zone that infuriates people of all political stripes.

And that video of Biden grabbing the girls' arms, pulling them right next to him, whispering to them, jokes about posing alone with them, stroking their hair, etc etc etc man that just made my Creep Factor alarm go off. I mean, in virtually every pic session, he makes sure the girl(s) are as close to him as humanly possible, and he pretty much ignores the boys.

I have a 13-year-old and if some dude, politician or not, stroked her hair and pulled her next to him, we would have words.

I'm not saying that he's necessarily anything beyond a handsy old man, but that's bad enough.

Except how Trump used to walk into the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen USA pageant.
And the accusation of raping a 13 year old girl....

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3739
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #143 on: February 11, 2019, 01:41:10 PM »
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her. Especially when the opposition is a pussy-grabbing, racist, misogynist serial cheater buffoon who lies like he breathes and is completely incompetent at his job, when he's not actively trying to destroy the pillars of the country.

"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me. Especially when as a woman, I've been chastised to be "nice" countless times in my life, merely for being assertive in a leadership role.

Kris,  what are your thoughts on Keith Ellison and Al Franken?

I'm not looking to derail this thread. I got accused of doing that yesterday in another one. This thread is about 2020 POTUS candidates.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1048
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #144 on: February 11, 2019, 02:45:45 PM »
You can fast forward through some of it. But let's just say that you will notice a pattern.

Okay, gross, no. I watched up to the 45 second mark and had to click out. That girl was really uncomfortable. Very not okay.

I doubt that Biden thinks he was doing anything wrong. But that's part of the problem, isn't it?

That is the problem, IMO. It's fricken weird and hard to address. I've seen this exact behavior (and worse!) in families out in public. Creepy old uncle is a real thing.

I wouldn't say it's a disqualifier, but definitely gives pause and deserves scrutiny.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #145 on: February 11, 2019, 04:13:28 PM »
She did claim Native American heritage twice as far as we know, on  internal records only. And two other major groups of Cherokees don't seem to mind her claim of kinship.

Internal...  Sure...


Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
  • Age: 90
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #146 on: February 11, 2019, 04:18:06 PM »
She did claim Native American heritage twice as far as we know, on  internal records only. And two other major groups of Cherokees don't seem to mind her claim of kinship.

Internal...  Sure...



Probably just an honest mistake? Right? Shouldn't we just give her the benefit of the doubt?

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #147 on: February 11, 2019, 06:33:24 PM »
Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her...
"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me.

Quote
Especially given she is the most centrist of the Democratic candidates to announce. And that there are reasons for both the far left and the right to want to torpedo her candidacy as a result.

Really hate to admit it, but looks like I am in agreement with you again. Should I be concerned?

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #148 on: February 12, 2019, 07:37:05 AM »
She did claim Native American heritage twice as far as we know, on  internal records only. And two other major groups of Cherokees don't seem to mind her claim of kinship.

Internal...  Sure...



"The following is for statistical purposes only..." (read the small print on the yellow card over the area where Warren writes "American Indian")

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #149 on: February 13, 2019, 08:48:08 AM »
At this point, I would actively vote against any candidate that supports the newly unveiled GND. I read through not just the ridiculous "fact sheet" but also the actual resolution itself and nope.

The resolution is almost childish in it's naivete.

While I agree with many of the goals, the resolution reads like it was written by some  idealistic/clueless, wide-eyed school kid with no experience and no grip on reality.

I know some of the more radical "progressive" Dems (Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, have come out in favor of it (did they actually read it?).  Others have dodged it.  And a couple (smartly) said they agreed with the ideals, but not the resolution as written.

I'm generally not a fan of Bloomberg (that "soda ban" thing in NYC was ridiculous), and he's "green," but I thought he had the best answer of any Dem (or potential Dem) candidate so far.  Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D) stressed that a Green New Deal should offer realistic solutions and not "things that are pie in the sky." 

If this thing does pass, though, it's only a matter of time before Nanny Bloomberg announces a ban on large slices "pie in the sky."