Author Topic: The 2020 Election Thread  (Read 8096 times)

Stadler, portnoy311, Chino, El Barto, Nekov, Snow Dog and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #280 on: March 15, 2019, 12:47:28 PM »
While there are certainly those who think "Screw all immigrants," I would guess the vast majority of people for a wall and/or opposed to illegal immigration are not anti-immigrant; they are anti-ILLEGAL immigration, which is an important distinction.

And I roll my eyes every time I hear, "Well, your ancestors came here illegally."  BFD.  We also allowed slavery back then and wouldn't let women vote, so returning to thinking of yesteryear is not something I am ready to roll with.

And not every ancestor DID come illegally.  That's a bold assumption.  (Not suggesting you're making it.)

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #281 on: March 15, 2019, 12:55:32 PM »
Gary, I got a question for you or anyone else that this pertains to.

I believe you've said your main reason for voting for Trump in 2016 was to get the supreme court nomination. Well that's done. I also believe you said you'd vote for him again unless someone REALLY conservative runs from the democrats.

I guess I'm just curious what else you hope Trump will deliver that trumps (sorry) all of the crap he brings with him? Why not vote independent? Or vote for Hef?

Honestly....I'm on board with 'the wall'. The US Governments main obligation is to protect our soil from foreign invasion. I think refreshing and building new physical walls will do that....along with implementing technology and bolstering ICE and the Border Patrol. Every politician from the Dems who is carrying the pitchfork looking to stab trump for his stance has held his stance in quite recent history...because it's the RIGHT stance to take for our Country. But they see a political opportunity and are taking it.

Immigration is now politicized to the point to where if you don't agree with illegal immigration you're some sort of heartless monster. I have compassion for those people's plight and situation....but that doesn't mean that we ignore the law. The argument that this country was built on immigration is fine when you admit that the immigration that built our country was LEGAL and those immigrants were coming here to 'become' American. They didn't forsake their heritage...but they did make it a point to assimilate and become American.

Illegal immigrants are illegal....and for the most part from what I've seen the effort to become American is not there....they're looking to transform rather than conform.

I agree with almost all of this except the very last line.

Conform to what exactly?

'conform' may be a harsh word. I'm speaking to the desire to 'want' to become american and integrate into our culture....rather than just be set on bringing your culture. I'm not saying abandon it....you look back and see that there were tons of neighborhoods like 'little italy' or something like that where these clusters of immigrants would settle....and they'd keep their traditions and what not but still have the desire to 'become' American. I don't know...I'm struggling with how to explain it. It just seems to me that the 'attitude' behind immigrants both legal and illegal has shifted from 'wanting' to be American.

My grandmother's parents were born in Poland, and my grandfather was born in a village which is now about 5km south of the Polish border.  My dad was allowed to speak either English or Polish at the house, but at school, he was expected - by his parents, not the school - to speak English as if they came over on the Mayflower.   My grandma was part of the Polish Falcon's until she died, and was proud of her heritage, but they were in America and were going to live as Americans, whatever that means.  I am by no means a "speak 'murican or get the fuck out" kind of guy - I made sure my daughter was fluent in at least two languages, and she is - but there's an element to which the responsibility for success is on the individual not the system.   At the time, the schools were in English, and my grandparents made sure their kids spoke English to be able to compete at school.   That's but one example, and it's by no means specific to the immigrant community, but that's what we're talking about here, and that's my take on Gary's point.   

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #282 on: March 15, 2019, 01:01:10 PM »
I wonder if the wall, or whatever words you want to use, would be better handled if Trump were gone. Most people want improvements to the situation. Trump has gone full cray on a huge physical barrier without (it seems) understanding the reality of it in any way. Dems are against it for both practical and political reasons. I wonder if a more sane person proposed a more sane proposal, then it would actually happen.

Hence, I wonder if a vote for Trump would be, paradoxically, a vote against border improvements? Because he seems least likely to accomplish much.

I object to the assumption that Trump is "insane" and that his proposal is likewise. 

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28566
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #283 on: March 15, 2019, 01:03:19 PM »
I wonder if the wall, or whatever words you want to use, would be better handled if Trump were gone. Most people want improvements to the situation. Trump has gone full cray on a huge physical barrier without (it seems) understanding the reality of it in any way. Dems are against it for both practical and political reasons. I wonder if a more sane person proposed a more sane proposal, then it would actually happen.

Hence, I wonder if a vote for Trump would be, paradoxically, a vote against border improvements? Because he seems least likely to accomplish much.

I object to the assumption that Trump is "insane" and that his proposal is likewise.

Well, since I'm making it, we can call it a professional opinion.  :biggrin:

I'm using common hyperbolic language to get my point across, which was not lost on anyone to my knowledge.

But if you'd like, I can change it to "practical person" and "practical and rational proposal"

If you don't agree with those, cool. Difference of opinion. But there's a reason this isn't going anywhere, and it's not JUST because "dems hate everything Trump"
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #284 on: March 15, 2019, 01:16:28 PM »
I wonder if the wall, or whatever words you want to use, would be better handled if Trump were gone. Most people want improvements to the situation. Trump has gone full cray on a huge physical barrier without (it seems) understanding the reality of it in any way. Dems are against it for both practical and political reasons. I wonder if a more sane person proposed a more sane proposal, then it would actually happen.

Hence, I wonder if a vote for Trump would be, paradoxically, a vote against border improvements? Because he seems least likely to accomplish much.

I object to the assumption that Trump is "insane" and that his proposal is likewise.

Well, since I'm making it, we can call it a professional opinion.  :biggrin:

I'm using common hyperbolic language to get my point across, which was not lost on anyone to my knowledge.

But if you'd like, I can change it to "practical person" and "practical and rational proposal"

If you don't agree with those, cool. Difference of opinion. But there's a reason this isn't going anywhere, and it's not JUST because "dems hate everything Trump"

Except, and I commend you for getting there so succinctly (seriously), I think that's EXACTLY because "dems hate everything Trump".  "Secure Fence Act of 2006"; the SFA called for something like 700 miles of fence, and Trump called for 1000 miles of wall.  Sure there are differences, but we're not talking about the differences.  We're saying - as Nancy Pelosi did - that a "wall" is immoral (from the morality standpoint there is zero difference between "wall" and "fence", because the "fences" at the retention center were also called "immoral") and that there will be ZERO funding for a wall.  So instead of saying "we're not going to extend funding to continue more barriers", she's saying "zero".         

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28566
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #285 on: March 15, 2019, 02:58:21 PM »
Hence me saying a more practical proposal might have worked. Trump didn't go in there with a practical proposal. He said he wants a huge freaking wall.

You saying that it could be interpreted to be mean XYZ is my point. If he had said the things you believe he may have meant, it would have gone differently. Smoothly? Hell no. Dems hate everything Trump. But it wouldn't have become the complete bomb of crazy that it is right now. It's nuanced, definitely. Dems hating Trump would have been a major obstacle for anything. Hell, he could have said 1000 miles of welcome centers and they'd have said no. But it has become a giant mess, even within the Republican party, and part of that (not all of it, but a good part) is that he demanded 1000 miles (or whatever) of a wall.

Edit: I keep editing this damn thing. Hope you're not replying as I do this.

I also added in sane person. When a crazy person offers a reasonable thing, it's going to be met with skepticism because that person cray and reasonable is out of the ordinary for them. So since DJ Trump is pretty cray (clinically speaking), even if he HAD offered something reasonable, it likely would be met with justifiable skepticism.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 03:11:32 PM by Adami »
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #286 on: March 18, 2019, 09:53:48 AM »
Hence me saying a more practical proposal might have worked. Trump didn't go in there with a practical proposal. He said he wants a huge freaking wall.

You saying that it could be interpreted to be mean XYZ is my point. If he had said the things you believe he may have meant, it would have gone differently. Smoothly? Hell no. Dems hate everything Trump. But it wouldn't have become the complete bomb of crazy that it is right now. It's nuanced, definitely. Dems hating Trump would have been a major obstacle for anything. Hell, he could have said 1000 miles of welcome centers and they'd have said no. But it has become a giant mess, even within the Republican party, and part of that (not all of it, but a good part) is that he demanded 1000 miles (or whatever) of a wall.

Edit: I keep editing this damn thing. Hope you're not replying as I do this.

Not a joke, not playing, I disagree with that.   I don't think that, as long as it is Trump proposing, that it WOULD go differently.  EVERYTHING Trump does now is a partisan battle, and a chance to grandstand.   The Dems have it - wrongly, I might add - in their head that to support Trump in ANYTHING will ultimately be a political albatross.  I think that in and of itself is grossly misreading the American public, and ultimately what will be, itself, the albatross.

We're seeing it now in the New Zealand discussion.   Many Dems are calling Trump outright a White Supremacist - not a supporter, not an encourager, not an instigator, but the ACTUAL THING - because he's not come out strongly enough AGAINST white supremacy for their tastes.   Think about that.    That's the very definition of moralizing, isn't it?   Think also of the ramifications of that; there is literally no room for compromise in a structure like that.   Take, for example, my personal position on abortion: I am PERSONALLY against it - I have problems with killing with intent - and yet, I even more strongly believe that every last person on this planet should be able to come to their own conclusion on that, even if that conclusion disagrees with mine.   That's an impossible position to take when "silence is consent" as a de facto proposition.   

Quote
I also added in sane person. When a crazy person offers a reasonable thing, it's going to be met with skepticism because that person cray and reasonable is out of the ordinary for them. So since DJ Trump is pretty cray (clinically speaking), even if he HAD offered something reasonable, it likely would be met with justifiable skepticism.

I know you're the professional here, but how do you come up with that?  Most professionals I know are loathe to use words like "insane" or "crazy", and even more loathe to diagnose someone that they've never spoken with, studied, or done any examination of.    Not busting your balls here, because we're among friends (and the same thing can be said of legal advice, which I have been known to offer), so this isn't personal, but still wondering how you come up with that assessment. 

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28566
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #287 on: March 18, 2019, 10:09:13 AM »
Not gonna address that first part too much because I think weíre both right. Me more than you, as usual.


As to the second half, I was mostly being tongue in cheek, hoping words like cray would give it away. And I am not diagnosing him anything. But I donít need to meet a person to form a tentative impression. I never met Charles Manson, but Iím pretty sure heís got a ton of issues. My use of insane or crazy are hyperbolic and lay-men terms. Iím not speaking professionally. Am I calling him narcissistic? No. Thatís a professional term and Iíve never met the dude. So thatís the difference here. I can speak as a professional, but with stuff like this, Iím choosing not to because thereís little to say.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #288 on: March 18, 2019, 10:17:37 AM »
Not gonna address that first part too much because I think weíre both right. Me more than you, as usual.


As to the second half, I was mostly being tongue in cheek, hoping words like cray would give it away. And I am not diagnosing him anything. But I donít need to meet a person to form a tentative impression. I never met Charles Manson, but Iím pretty sure heís got a ton of issues. My use of insane or crazy are hyperbolic and lay-men terms. Iím not speaking professionally. Am I calling him narcissistic? No. Thatís a professional term and Iíve never met the dude. So thatís the difference here. I can speak as a professional, but with stuff like this, Iím choosing not to because thereís little to say.

Fair enough and I appreciate you answering so candidly.  Again, I'm not trying to poke you with a stick, I just wanted to know where you were coming from here.   

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28566
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #289 on: March 18, 2019, 10:21:30 AM »
Baby, if you poke me with anything, it best not be a stick

 :-*
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #290 on: March 18, 2019, 10:26:34 AM »
Hey now!!! :tup

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7476
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #291 on: March 31, 2019, 09:07:12 PM »
Not sure if Biden officially declared his candidacy for 2020, but regardless it just got #MeToo'ed. Been nice knowing ya, Joe.

Happily WA Gov Inslee is polling terribly. Also found out state funds go to his security detail while campaigning for national office. I guess that's just how it's done, but something seems wrong about that.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21539
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #292 on: April 01, 2019, 02:53:22 PM »
I haven't read the details about BIden's #metoo moment but it seems like it's such a small thing.  Yes, kissing and touching is very awkward and wrong, but this shit coming out later and when it's most important just is getting tiresome.  I'm not sure this should hold him back and honestly, would be a good candidate.  New details might change this, but from the little I know, I don't want this to bury him nor do I think it should.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #293 on: April 01, 2019, 03:07:22 PM »
I haven't read the details about BIden's #metoo moment but it seems like it's such a small thing.  Yes, kissing and touching is very awkward and wrong, but this shit coming out later and when it's most important just is getting tiresome.  I'm not sure this should hold him back and honestly, would be a good candidate.  New details might change this, but from the little I know, I don't want this to bury him nor do I think it should.
It's kind of old news that he's always been a little touchy-feely, but it's never been regarded as anything sexual. He's just kind of weird that way. Like Buster Bluth.

I once had an oddly androgynous waitperson surprise me with a shoulder massage while eating Mexican food. It was funny when it happened to the first person at our table. A little awkward when it came to me. That said, I wasn't offended. I didn't view it as sexual in any way. I didn't scream out terror. I wouldn't use that as a reason why this individual shouldn't be president. I chalk it up to "life is strange sometimes."
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7476
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #294 on: April 01, 2019, 03:07:28 PM »
In a climate where a white guy (O'Rourke) has to apologize for being a white guy as part of his campaign, do you really feel an old white guy now facing a #MeToo issue stands a chance of getting the D nomination?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28566
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #295 on: April 01, 2019, 03:10:21 PM »
In a climate where a white guy (O'Rourke) has to apologize for being a white guy as part of his campaign, do you really feel an old white guy stands a chance of getting the D nomination?

Yes.


I dunno much about O'Rourke but he didn't have to do any of that. He chose to. Why? Might be a dumb guy.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #296 on: April 01, 2019, 03:13:05 PM »
In a climate where a white guy (O'Rourke) has to apologize for being a white guy as part of his campaign, do you really feel an old white guy stands a chance of getting the D nomination?
Absolutely. The Democratic National Committee is rigged.

Whether or not he'll get elected is a different story. It'll come down to whether the people who bought into Trump's bullshit and are now pissed off at him will make up for the people on the far left who will only vote for a joke candidate.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 1053
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #297 on: April 01, 2019, 06:23:05 PM »
A lot of the outrage you'll find online isn't actually from real people. Or should I say, Americans, or people acting in good faith. How quickly we seem to forget there were 3 other conclusions of the Mueller report.

He's just had a reverse MeToo moment, where the women involved came out and said there was nothing creepy about what happened, and others were speaking for her:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/woman-pic-biden-shoots-down-insinuation-inappropriate


Expect this to happen to anyone who is deemed a front runner. And expect it to work, most of the time.

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34997
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #298 on: April 02, 2019, 08:57:59 AM »
I haven't read the details about BIden's #metoo moment but it seems like it's such a small thing.  Yes, kissing and touching is very awkward and wrong, but this shit coming out later and when it's most important just is getting tiresome.  I'm not sure this should hold him back and honestly, would be a good candidate.  New details might change this, but from the little I know, I don't want this to bury him nor do I think it should.
It's kind of old news that he's always been a little touchy-feely, but it's never been regarded as anything sexual. He's just kind of weird that way. Like Buster Bluth.

I once had an oddly androgynous waitperson surprise me with a shoulder massage while eating Mexican food. It was funny when it happened to the first person at our table. A little awkward when it came to me. That said, I wasn't offended. I didn't view it as sexual in any way. I didn't scream out terror. I wouldn't use that as a reason why this individual shouldn't be president. I chalk it up to "life is strange sometimes."

How does Hillary feel about Biden? Is Hillary backing Warren? Warren was pretty outraged it seemed. This all felt very orchestrated.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #299 on: April 02, 2019, 11:52:31 AM »
In a climate where a white guy (O'Rourke) has to apologize for being a white guy as part of his campaign, do you really feel an old white guy stands a chance of getting the D nomination?

Yes.


I dunno much about O'Rourke but he didn't have to do any of that. He chose to. Why? Might be a dumb guy.

O'Rourke is a lot of things, not all of them good, but "dumb" isn't one of them.  We haven't even scratched the tip of the iceberg in terms of the "identity politics" angle in this run-up to the Democratic primary.   He's getting ahead of it in the same way that Uncle Joe is getting ahead of the "grabby", even though he's not even officially in the race at this point. 

In fact, in advance of the first debate, I think we should establish "over/unders" for each candidate.   There are too many candidates to do this for every one, but I can say that I'm interested in the O/U for the number of times:
- Bernie says "Beeyonaires"
- Cory Booker says "As a black man..."
- Any of the three main female candidates - Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillebrand - clarify for us that they are, in fact, female

I don't say this mockingly of the issues, I say it mockingly of the naked ambition of this crop of candidates.  We are LONG overdue for a female President, and I have zero doubt that if we elected a capable and qualified President who oh-by-the-way happened to be female, we'd benefit handsomely from the change in perspective.  But having said that, the last thing we should do is elect someone for the sole reason that they are female. 

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2788
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #300 on: April 12, 2019, 06:52:16 PM »
Not sure if Biden officially declared his candidacy for 2020, but regardless it just got #MeToo'ed. Been nice knowing ya, Joe.

I will say, as a lefty leftist mclefterson, who likes Joe and thinks he's probably a swell guy ...

He shouldn't run. I think a lot of the support for him at the moment is because he was Obama-adjacent for eight years. If he actually ran, that would eventually wear off, and I would prefer to remember him as fun uncle Joe.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #301 on: April 13, 2019, 09:59:33 AM »
Not sure if Biden officially declared his candidacy for 2020, but regardless it just got #MeToo'ed. Been nice knowing ya, Joe.

I will say, as a lefty leftist mclefterson, who likes Joe and thinks he's probably a swell guy ...

He shouldn't run. I think a lot of the support for him at the moment is because he was Obama-adjacent for eight years. If he actually ran, that would eventually wear off, and I would prefer to remember him as fun uncle Joe.
I still maintain that the bulk of his appeal is because he's a sensible candidate in a sea of silly ones.

He's also the only one of the bunch, from either party, who knows a damn thing bout foreign policy, where he's actually quite knowledgeable. That's important right now.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #302 on: April 15, 2019, 08:13:34 AM »
In any other universe, Joe Biden would announce on Monday, and the country would unilaterally cancel the election and just give him the seal on Wednesday, but in this toxic (to the extreme) environment that is American politics, he will likely be shamed out of the process BY HIS OWN TEAM.    I have my doubts about the veracity of the claims - not that they didn't happen, they are on film - but on the motivations of the claimants, but beyond that, most of the criticisms are from his own side, who are so invested in the semantics of identity politics that they can't seem to make pragmatic decisions.  This is important, because it's relevant to the OTHER decisions they are making.

Criticize this all you want, but I see zero difference in a person voting for Trump for no other reason than a big 'ole FUCK YOU to the Establishment, and a person voting for [Candidate Z] because they make the appropriate identity politics statement (i.e. is of a certain race, gender or sexual orientation).   

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7476
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #303 on: April 15, 2019, 10:20:42 PM »
Bill Weld declares bid for Republican nomination for president in 2020. According to wikipedia:

Quote
Abortion
Weld has been strongly pro-choice for the entirety of his career.[8]

LGBT rights
Weld has been a consistent supporter of LGBT rights, and the right of same-sex marriage. He believes that this is a fundamental human right.[9]

Good luck with that.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #304 on: April 16, 2019, 07:15:37 AM »
Bill Weld declares bid for Republican nomination for president in 2020. According to wikipedia:

Quote
Abortion
Weld has been strongly pro-choice for the entirety of his career.[8]

LGBT rights
Weld has been a consistent supporter of LGBT rights, and the right of same-sex marriage. He believes that this is a fundamental human right.[9]

Good luck with that.

I'm curious about that; I'm curious as to how he goes about those positions.  I don't mean to be obstinate, but I don't see those as dealbreakers, frankly.   If I recall correctly, Trump never really put a line in the sand with respect to those issues.  He's not pure on the subject, but I always sort of internally scoffed at the LGBT crowd for their vociferous opposition of Trump, becasue other than the transgender in the military debacle, he's not been the "homophobe" that the narrative suggests/requires.   

I think that if it's not a flagship issue, if it's handled in a non-exploitive way, if it's not packaged in with other, bigger issues (like Buttigieg has done with his attacks on Pence), and if it's not weaponized (if you're not "deplorable" for thinking differently about the subject) it will be an election non-issue, the same way that Trump's foibles were a non-issue when compared to the upside of sticking a finger in the eye of the moralizing from many prominent Democrat candidates. 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #305 on: April 16, 2019, 08:09:56 AM »
Bill Weld declares bid for Republican nomination for president in 2020. According to wikipedia:

Quote
Abortion
Weld has been strongly pro-choice for the entirety of his career.[8]

LGBT rights
Weld has been a consistent supporter of LGBT rights, and the right of same-sex marriage. He believes that this is a fundamental human right.[9]

Good luck with that.

I'm curious about that; I'm curious as to how he goes about those positions.  I don't mean to be obstinate, but I don't see those as dealbreakers, frankly.   If I recall correctly, Trump never really put a line in the sand with respect to those issues.  He's not pure on the subject, but I always sort of internally scoffed at the LGBT crowd for their vociferous opposition of Trump, becasue other than the transgender in the military debacle, he's not been the "homophobe" that the narrative suggests/requires.   

I think that if it's not a flagship issue, if it's handled in a non-exploitive way, if it's not packaged in with other, bigger issues (like Buttigieg has done with his attacks on Pence), and if it's not weaponized (if you're not "deplorable" for thinking differently about the subject) it will be an election non-issue, the same way that Trump's foibles were a non-issue when compared to the upside of sticking a finger in the eye of the moralizing from many prominent Democrat candidates.
First off, it probably is a dealbreaker. Hell, in this relatively small sub-forum with an even smaller number of republicans there's at least one that wouldn't vote for him because of that. Second, it will be weaponized by Trump and his party.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #306 on: April 16, 2019, 09:22:01 AM »
I go both ways - no pun intended - on your first point.  I think to some there are more important issues; I generally agree with guys like Sanders on identity politics issues - I rail against the USE of identity politics, but I'm rather liberal when it comes to the actual ideological position - but I would never vote for him because of his reckless and careless economic positions.  Likewise, I think a fair number - a significant number, a determinative number - looked past Trump's cultural insensitivity to "take advantage" of his economic/geopolitical positioning.   I think things like immigration, Supreme Court justices, Establishment cronyism, might outweigh a specific LGBT point.


Here's something else that I thought of after responding to Dave, and it doesn't really fit here, except tangentially, but... in this day and age of "extreme this" and "ultimate that", and Twitter/social media hyperbole, and what not... has that superficiality leaked into our political process enough that it's ultimately the charisma (or as David Lee Roth would say, "Cha-RAS-ma!") that gets the vote?   Meaning, is Weld dead in the water for the same reason that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are never ever going to be President? 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #307 on: April 16, 2019, 09:33:57 AM »
I go both ways - no pun intended - on your first point.  I think to some there are more important issues; I generally agree with guys like Sanders on identity politics issues - I rail against the USE of identity politics, but I'm rather liberal when it comes to the actual ideological position - but I would never vote for him because of his reckless and careless economic positions.  Likewise, I think a fair number - a significant number, a determinative number - looked past Trump's cultural insensitivity to "take advantage" of his economic/geopolitical positioning.   I think things like immigration, Supreme Court justices, Establishment cronyism, might outweigh a specific LGBT point.
Economic policies you know he'll never be able to implement. We've been over this.

And the SCOTUS thing isn't particularly relevant now. The right has its ideologue court for decades to come. However, if Bernie decides to adopt Schultz's 2/3 policy you'd pretty much have to side with him over his nominations.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #308 on: April 16, 2019, 09:52:09 AM »
I go both ways - no pun intended - on your first point.  I think to some there are more important issues; I generally agree with guys like Sanders on identity politics issues - I rail against the USE of identity politics, but I'm rather liberal when it comes to the actual ideological position - but I would never vote for him because of his reckless and careless economic positions.  Likewise, I think a fair number - a significant number, a determinative number - looked past Trump's cultural insensitivity to "take advantage" of his economic/geopolitical positioning.   I think things like immigration, Supreme Court justices, Establishment cronyism, might outweigh a specific LGBT point.
Economic policies you know he'll never be able to implement. We've been over this.

And the SCOTUS thing isn't particularly relevant now. The right has its ideologue court for decades to come. However, if Bernie decides to adopt Schultz's 2/3 policy you'd pretty much have to side with him over his nominations.
On the first point, you're right, and I agree with you; he won't. I don't mean to reopen that.  But I don't feel strongly enough about the other points to take the chance of legitimizing them.   The Clinton's wanted to overhaul healthcare and "they weren't going anywhere", yet a scant eight years later, we had "Change you can believe in!" and America got hit in the back of the head with the boomerang that Bill threw in '93. What comes around goes around.

Why am I blanking on "Schultz's 2/3 policy"? 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22109
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #309 on: April 16, 2019, 10:01:32 AM »
I go both ways - no pun intended - on your first point.  I think to some there are more important issues; I generally agree with guys like Sanders on identity politics issues - I rail against the USE of identity politics, but I'm rather liberal when it comes to the actual ideological position - but I would never vote for him because of his reckless and careless economic positions.  Likewise, I think a fair number - a significant number, a determinative number - looked past Trump's cultural insensitivity to "take advantage" of his economic/geopolitical positioning.   I think things like immigration, Supreme Court justices, Establishment cronyism, might outweigh a specific LGBT point.
Economic policies you know he'll never be able to implement. We've been over this.

And the SCOTUS thing isn't particularly relevant now. The right has its ideologue court for decades to come. However, if Bernie decides to adopt Schultz's 2/3 policy you'd pretty much have to side with him over his nominations.
On the first point, you're right, and I agree with you; he won't. I don't mean to reopen that.  But I don't feel strongly enough about the other points to take the chance of legitimizing them.   The Clinton's wanted to overhaul healthcare and "they weren't going anywhere", yet a scant eight years later, we had "Change you can believe in!" and America got hit in the back of the head with the boomerang that Bill threw in '93. What comes around goes around.
Eight years later we still would have had a healthcare overhaul even if Mungo the demented dwarf had taken Clinton's place. What subsequent presidents might do is hardly a reason to maintain the lunatic status quo.

And Schultz pledged to nominate only justices that could get a 2/3 vote in the senate. I suspect a sensible candidate might opt to do the same. Whether or not the opposition party would allow that is anybody's guess, but I think you have to give him the chance.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #310 on: April 16, 2019, 10:11:40 AM »
And Schultz pledged to nominate only justices that could get a 2/3 vote in the senate. I suspect a sensible candidate might opt to do the same. Whether or not the opposition party would allow that is anybody's guess, but I think you have to give him the chance.

I remember that, now that you say it.  Do you think it's possible?  Meaning, is there such a nominee?  I get that it was the wake of Merrick Garland, but that should have been Neil Gorsuch.  I acknowledge that Kavanaugh was not ideal, but he wasn't so bad that we should have gotten what we saw a couple month ago.


By the way, Buttigieg is the darling of CNN.  Katie Bolduan can barely control herself when talking about him. 

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 1053
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #311 on: April 16, 2019, 03:34:59 PM »
It should have been Garland.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #312 on: April 17, 2019, 07:20:34 AM »
It should have been Garland.

But it wasn't. 

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16542
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #313 on: April 17, 2019, 07:31:34 AM »
https://twitter.com/ananavarro/status/1117971744923504640

From a CNN correspondent of all things (so no bias, no opinionating), and I ended up punching my dog in the face and kicking a hole in the wall of my office.  Not because of the first tweet - it is what it is, media circa 2019 - but the replies.

There are no less than 96 "don't insult the root vegetable jokes" - don't you people READ!? - which was bad enough (though I was impressed that there was a reply from "Turnip" FROM AN ACCOUNT THAT ALREADY EXISTED) but it's the total lack of awareness and understanding.  As if speaking Spanish - a good thing, mind you; one of the few things I ever forced on my kid was learning a second language - is a qualification to be President?  As if voting for the "cool guy" isn't why we are where we are today?    I know, I know, it's TWITTER, it's the ID, but isn't that the problem with Trump?  Why is it okay when it's YOUR guy - or your thought, or your opinion - but not when it's the other guy?  Isn't this the root (see what I did there?) of the partisan problem?   

We Americans.  We never seem to learn our lessons.   

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 1053
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #314 on: April 17, 2019, 07:53:59 AM »