U.S. Democratic Primary

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

The thread went into the direction as JC asked why some Dems were running on an extreme left platform.

Sanders aside, I did not. I suggested they were further left than that of their party, and that that would make it more difficult to beat Trump. Sanders was the only one I consider to be "far left", though others seemed pulled in that direction and held some what I would consider far left positions or further left than necessary positions.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

 Some, including myself have explained that many if not most are essentially mainstream positions rather than extreme, which is why they are so common among the candidates.

Which I disagree with. I think they tend to fall somewhere in between, not just left of centre, but left of the average Democrat overall. Biden would be a bit of an exception being left of centre but right of the average Democrat.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

 This was especially puzzling as JC's favourite, Yang, is one of the more progressive candidates (e.g. advocating for MD only decision of abortion, UBI, medicare for all) with clear social democratic messages (and just btw. how the heck did he manage to blow the core question of his central platform on live TV?).

Clearly Yang is left of where I suggest he should be on some issues to beat Trump, but he is well outside the box with regard to thinking and style. Though I have some concerns with UBI, I'm for it. I believe in it as not just a balance to capitalism, but a potentially key component of capitalism that works more fairly for everyone, in a trickle up economy. Yang is for medical care for all, but not against private insurance, so pretty much mainstream on that even if slightly left. His stance on abortion is certainly left of centre like most candidates. He has other left of centre positions, some I am for and some not, and some I would advise and some not. (I wouldn't advise including everything I agree with e.g. allowing those incarcerated to vote)

Probably the things I like most about Yang include his rejection of identity politics, focus on solutions, and he seems to want to include everyone, not just those on the left. He hasn't managed to give up on (almost) half of Americans.

 

5 hours ago, iNow said:

He did pickup twitter followers, but not as mind-blowingly as you’ve suggested. He’s #4 in terms of post-debate gains:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-first-democratic-debate-in-five-charts/

 

 

Your chart is for how much each candidate gain from immediately before each debated, to the following afternoon.

 

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Despite having the least speaking time, Andrew Yang seems to have picked up the most twitter followers since the debates...both in terms of percent and absolute numbers, and by very significant margins.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/29/andrew-yang-scored-over-100k-new-twitter-followers-after-dem-debate/

#LetYangSpeak

This was issued about 2 days after the second debate. If both are correct, Yang must have picked up about 40,000 followers one day and over 60,000 the next.

Edited July 2, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yang must have picked up about 40,000 followers one day and over 60,000 the next.

Sounds about right. As of this post, he’s got just under 510K followers.

Of the 19 people he debated last week, 9 of them have well over a million (several over 3-6 million). Nearly 50% of the field have more than double what he has.

If that’s the metric, then things still look pretty bad based on math for our math loving friend (though, admittedly, I don’t think it matters much how many twitter followers you have since they can be bought and bot-ed so easily anyway)

Edited July 2, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sounds about right. As of this post, he’s got just under 510K followers.

Of the 19 people he debated last week, 9 of them have well over a million (several over 3-6 million). Nearly 50% of the field have more than double what he has.

If that’s the metric, then things still look pretty bad based on math for our math loving friend (though, admittedly, I don’t think it matters much how many twitter followers you have since they can be bought and bot-ed so easily anyway)

Still clearly movement in the right direction, especially given the fact that he had the least speaking time (though that may partially explain the strength of his numbers on the second day after..."who was the guy they wouldn't let speak?")

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

who was the guy they wouldn't let speak?

Look at the link I shared. Even when they gave him time to shine, he uttered very few words and struggled to even credibly convey his core message. I know you like him. I like him, too, but I’m also aware his shot is gone and it’s time to move on. Presidents can’t blame network television debate moderators for their flaws. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Look at the link I shared. Even when they gave him time to shine, he uttered very few words and struggled to even credibly convey his core message. I know you like him. I like him, too, but I’m also aware his shot is gone and it’s time to move on. Presidents can’t blame network television debate moderators for their flaws. 

The first primary vote is seven months away. He's polling around seventh in a field of 25. Any rumours of Yang's demise are premature.

He may have missed an opportunity to get four times the minutes to speak, to maybe suggest Biden or others might be somewhat racist to get a bump in the polls...but he never planned to do that anyway...it's not his style.

It's a marathon not a sprint.

[dimreepr]

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The first primary vote is seven months away. He's polling around seventh in a field of 25. Any rumours of Yang's demise are premature.

He may have missed an opportunity to get four times the minutes to speak, to maybe suggest Biden or others might be somewhat racist to get a bump in the polls...but he never planned to do that anyway...it's not his style.

It's a marathon not a sprint.

All marathons end in a sprint. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

All marathons end in a sprint. 

Even if you could assume that incorrect statement was true, why would one start sprinting mid race?

[iNow]

It doesn't matter. It's OT.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/politics/2020-democratic-candidates-poll/index.html

Quote

Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have made steep gains after the first Democratic presidential debate, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. shows, with former Vice President Joe Biden's lead over the field shrinking to a narrow 5 points. 

<snip>

The poll finds most Americans in favor of a national health insurance plan, even if that means taxes go up (56% favor that), and support for such a plan skyrockets among potential Democratic voters (85% back it).

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It doesn't matter. It's OT.

It's an analogy. It might not be a great one...but it's certainly not OT.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's an analogy. It might not be a great one...but it's certainly not OT.

It was a joke (on your posting style); it might not be a great one... but it certainly is OT.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Kind of feel bad for you Americans...or is candidate Castro going overboard?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/castro-says-he-was-glad-to-see-nike-pull-betsy-ross-flag-shoes/

Heres one that also served during times where slavery was legal...

It also served during the war that lead to ending slavery in America...so maybe it gets a pass? How about the current flag, unchanged since July 4 1960? Any hint of racism during that time?

On topic, does Castro (not the only candidate espousing this view) get a passing grade on this? Or is he shooting himself in the foot...and worse potentially dragging any Democrats that agree with him down with him? (not to mention loading Trumps gun and handing it to him...)

Should they not just stick to graciously accepting the Whitehouse in 2021, rather than insisting Trump stays in the game? The Betsy Ross Flag could become the next MAGA hat...hopefully it represents anti-identity politics and not anti-minority or anti immigration...but I would be very surprised, shocked in fact, if the GOP doesn't take advantage of this.

 

[rangerx]

51 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Kind of feel bad for you Americans...or is candidate Castro going overboard?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/castro-says-he-was-glad-to-see-nike-pull-betsy-ross-flag-shoes/

Heres one that also served during times where slavery was legal...

It also served during the war that lead to ending slavery in America...so maybe it gets a pass? How about the current flag, unchanged since July 4 1960? Any hint of racism during that time?

On topic, does Castro (not the only candidate espousing this view) get a passing grade on this? Or is he shooting himself in the foot...and worse potentially dragging any Democrats that agree with him down with him? (not to mention loading Trumps gun and handing it to him...)

Should they not just stick to graciously accepting the Whitehouse in 2021, rather than insisting Trump stays in the game? The Betsy Ross Flag could become the next MAGA hat...hopefully it represents anti-identity politics and not anti-minority or anti immigration...but I would be very surprised, shocked in fact, if the GOP doesn't take advantage of this.

 

Republicans love to co-opt the flag as a political symbol. If a stars and bars emoticon follows a comment, one pretty much gathers it's an elitist attitude under the guise of patriotism. Wrapping one's self in the flag, if you will.

You and I are a undoubtedly patriotic Canadians, yet we don't feel the need to plaster a hundred Chinese made flags on our homes, yards and shoes to demonstrate that. A simple flag on a backpack or a sticker on a bumper is about as far as we go. Even when we do, it's not to imply I am a patriot are you are not, sort of thing.

Other than Canada Day, we generally do no carry a flag at events unless asked, which is a great honor. It's about respect, not political messaging or jingoism.

It's a little off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Other than Canada Day, we generally do no carry a flag at events unless asked, which is a great honor. It's about respect, not political messaging or jingoism.

Inexplicably I have actually seen the US confederate flag in Alberta, which is odd to say the least.

However with regard to the flag in question, there are some links to the identarian movement and some white supremacists group, mostly to signal a link to the good old days of American history. It is much more obscure than the confederate flag and with less symbolism, but outside of that context the flag is pretty much not in use, which makes it as a sticker on a mass product a but iffy. Now whether this controversy actually elevates it as a symbol to those folks is a different story.

[MigL]

Read this posting on another forum I belong to ( Airliners.net ), that I thought was hilarious.

"My liver hurts, haha...
* Cory Booker's Spanish sucks. Robert Francis O'Rourke's isn't all that good either. But the pandering was in full bloom and it was hilarious. I was disappointed there was no Yiddish. Just a friendly reminder that Beto eats tacos with a fork, which is a deportable offense in Texas.
* Pete Buttigieg is going to hurt himself if he falls off that high horse. Anyone else get the irony in him defending "all" religions (which would include Islam) even though he'd be fucking thrown off a roof in an Islamic country for being gay?
* Marianne Williamsonoma is all kind of cuckoo. She made a few good points though, before going total batshit cray cray.
* Kamala Harris is a fraud. Even beyond Willie Brown, she has no merit, talks a great game. She's not even "African-American" she's freaking Jamaican and Indian. And her family were slaveowners. GTFO with that. 
* Biden looks like he should just cash his chips and go to the titty bar. 
* Warren dominates the stage with her faux emotion. It was the best comedy I've seen in ages. SNL should hire her as a writer. 
* All 10 last night promised free health care for illegals. And Santa Claus is clearly on the ballot once again. 
Bottom line: we're probably fucked. 

By Slider

Keep in mind I didn't actually see the debates, just some highlights, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of the above descriptions, but even if true, they are all head and shoulders above the current occupant of the White House.

[CharonY]

The Spanish was indeed cringe-worthy. I feel that the post is unfortunately not really an attempt to be funny (other than the Taco bit) but rather trying to propagate a number of right wing talking  points. Especially the bit about Harrris (which was apparently further spread by a network of bot accounts) insinuating that she is not black enough enough and the bit about Muslims. A number of outlets have mentioned that this reeks of another constructed birtherism moment (i.e. when originally they asserted that Obama was not American).

TBF the rest seem just regular cheap shots by someone who is not a good comedy writer (I mean, other folks made plenty of fun about the debate, but then those were professionals).

 

 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Read this posting on another forum I belong to ( Airliners.net ), that I thought was hilarious.

"My liver hurts, haha...
* Cory Booker's Spanish sucks. Robert Francis O'Rourke's isn't all that good either. But the pandering was in full bloom and it was hilarious. I was disappointed there was no Yiddish. Just a friendly reminder that Beto eats tacos with a fork, which is a deportable offense in Texas.
* Pete Buttigieg is going to hurt himself if he falls off that high horse. Anyone else get the irony in him defending "all" religions (which would include Islam) even though he'd be fucking thrown off a roof in an Islamic country for being gay?
* Marianne Williamsonoma is all kind of cuckoo. She made a few good points though, before going total batshit cray cray.
* Kamala Harris is a fraud. Even beyond Willie Brown, she has no merit, talks a great game. She's not even "African-American" she's freaking Jamaican and Indian. And her family were slaveowners. GTFO with that. 
* Biden looks like he should just cash his chips and go to the titty bar. 
* Warren dominates the stage with her faux emotion. It was the best comedy I've seen in ages. SNL should hire her as a writer. 
* All 10 last night promised free health care for illegals. And Santa Claus is clearly on the ballot once again. 
Bottom line: we're probably fucked. 

That is SO ugly. Thanks for the heads up about Airliners.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The Spanish was indeed cringe-worthy. I feel that the post is unfortunately not really an attempt to be funny (other than the Taco bit) but rather trying to propagate a number of right wing talking  points. Especially the bit about Harrris (which was apparently further spread by a network of bot accounts) insinuating that she is not black enough enough and the bit about Muslims. A number of outlets have mentioned that this reeks of another constructed birtherism moment (i.e. when originally they asserted that Obama was not American).

TBF the rest seem just regular cheap shots by someone who is not a good comedy writer (I mean, other folks made plenty of fun about the debate, but then those were professionals).

 

 

I have no idea what was intended...but what I think is funny is that it really shouldn't matter...though the way some talk it probably does.

Maybe Harris can take a page out of the Warren playbook...get herself a DNA test and go from there...

Edited July 4, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I have no idea what was intended...but what I think is funny is that it really shouldn't matter...though the way some talk it probably does.

Maybe Harris can take a page out of the Warren playbook...get herself a DNA test and go from there...

Why should she? After all, it is a right-wing talking point that:

Quote

Kamala Harris is a fraud. Even beyond Willie Brown, she has no merit, talks a great game. She's not even "African-American" 

After she shared her story regarding busing in Berkeley. It is a clear attempt to discredit her. If that was only a comment on a random forum it would not matter, but it has become part of a twitter campaign. 

[koti]

I wonder if the psychotic obsession with race on both sides in the US is going to ever end. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by koti

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, koti said:

I wonder if the psychotic obsession with race on both sides in the US is going to ever end. 

Here is the thing, as long as the experiences can be delineated that harshly along racial lines, it will matter. There are differences in the experience between new African immigrants (who have much better jobs and experiences) than old African American families.

Historically that was attributed due to their failings or race. It has become apparent however, that there are a lot of mechanisms that specifically kept them in poverty. Even worse, even seemingly race-free legislation resulted in African American communities being targeted more harshly. So the worry is that if one continues without taking these things into account, certain rules, regulations and laws may further result in systemic inequality among racial lines.

It is really only recently where this information has seeped from academic studies into political reality indicating that policy needs to have more fine grained approach. Ideally, it would go deeper than just race but that is generally down to the municipal level. For many the idea to create an even playground for everyone and pulling out folks from systemic poverty should not be controversial. However, the big pushback is the assumption is that if black folks are lifted, it ignores white folks. At the same time it has been shown that measures to address poverty so far have disproportionately helped white folks (as even poor white folks generally have access to more support or live in areas where more social mobility is more likely).

So we have country where certain group of people have health outcomes and other objective measures that approach those of certain developing countries, which in turn is a negative for the whole society (in terms of public health, crime rates etc.). So even from an egoistic viewpoint it does make sense to address the issues. That being said, it is of course never quite clear what works and what does not. And some measures (again) have resulted in devastating effects (such as the response to the crack epidemic). The idea to take race into account is effectively short hand for recognizing these disparities which cannot effectively be targeted by a "neutral" approach.

But since that is very controversial in a certain crowd, it results in massive (and in my mind disproportionate) backlash. 

To answer your question, I think most of the issues would end once folks get on even footings. There will always be something, but it would fade more into the background and mesh with other "standard" animosities.

[koti]

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

...For many the idea to create an even playground for everyone...

Race aside, I think the above is the crux of the matter. In my opinion it is utopia and a complete surreality to expect to legislate to achieve a goal of creating an even playground for everyone. Its never happening unless we alter our DNA as a species and that would be even more surreal and dangerous than trying to achieve an unachievable goal. What we should do is educate our children who from my observation are never born with any trace of racism or other prejudice, however they are born with various character and drive for different areas of life. My 3 year old is a very empathetic and emotional individual but he is capable of taking charge of a group of 5 year olds in kindergarden to lead them. I find it hard to believe you would really want to make the playground perfectly even for everyone from day 1 untill death, you must know that implications of this approach would be many times over more severe than leaving it alone.

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, koti said:

 I find it hard to believe you would really want to make the playground perfectly even for everyone from day 1 untill death, you must know that implications of this approach would be many times over more severe than leaving it alone.

Whoa, choking on all that STRAW!

[MigL]

Oh its even worse than that regarding K Harris.
After reading that, I had a look at her Wiki page.
Apparently she also spent some of her formative years, after her parents divorced and she moved away with her mother, in Montreal.
Oh the horror !
She must be a separatist.

Seriously though, 'race' is a two sided door.
If you open the door to let your opinion out, you'll be letting in a whole lot of other's opinions; some not so nice.
And I still think the posting was funny.
It makes fun of the way politicians try to 'connect' with regular folks, when they are usually far removed.
Like speaking Spanish to relate to Latinos; that you have little dealings with.
Or relating your 'black' experience when your family was very affluent.

And I'm sure we've all heard of the Republicans against gay rights, who are secretly 'experimenting'.
Or ones claiming to be religious, who are ruthless businessmen, or are OK with gun violence.

edit:
If you don't find humor in this sort of thing, you're liable to snap, get a gun, and try to assassinate the President.
 

Edited July 4, 2019 by MigL

[koti]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Whoa, choking on all that STRAW!

I agree I might have added some additional flavour to CharonY’s statement. I know how to give the Heimlich Maneuver so don’t you worry about a thing. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Oh its even worse than that regarding K Harris.
After reading that, I had a look at her Wiki page.
Apparently she also spent some of her formative years, after her parents divorced and she moved away with her mother, in Montreal.
Oh the horror !
She must be a separatist.

Seriously though, 'race' is a two sided door.
If you open the door to let your opinion out, you'll be letting in a whole lot of other's opinions; some not so nice.
And I still think the posting was funny.
It makes fun of the way politicians try to 'connect' with regular folks, when they are usually far removed.
Like speaking Spanish to relate to Latinos; that you have little dealings with.
Or relating your 'black' experience when your family was very affluent.

And I'm sure we've all heard of the Republicans against gay rights, who are secretly 'experimenting'.
Or ones claiming to be religious, who are ruthless businessmen, or are OK with gun violence.

edit:
If you don't find humor in this sort of thing, you're liable to snap, get a gun, and try to assassinate the President.
 

Exacty.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Why should she? After all, it is a right-wing talking point that:

After she shared her story regarding busing in Berkeley. It is a clear attempt to discredit her. If that was only a comment on a random forum it would not matter, but it has become part of a twitter campaign. 

Some of it is, without a doubt, and for good reason (she's playing identity politics)...and some of it is no doubt for bad reason (straight up racism)

I like to think the former vastly exceeds the latter...