US Politics XIV: Vote for Pedro

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Many of you put way, way too much hope into Mueller from the start - at points even elevating him into some saviour of sorts. Mueller this, Mueller that.
Sure. If only he presented a report filled with actual impeachable offenses that the Democrats could act on.

Oh wait, he did. The Democrats just suck so much that they're incapable of actually acting in it, and the Republicans can just lie and say nothing's in it because they know the overwhelming majority of Americans are either too dumb or too lazy to actually read it.
 
Many of you put way, way too much hope into Mueller from the start - at points even elevating him into some saviour of sorts. Mueller this, Mueller that.


who's "you"?

i mean, Nick kept talking about his friends on Twitter, and he was just doing his honest best to help 'em see that things might not work out they way they were hoping, and he was just coming in here to warn us not to do the same, because he sees things the rest of us often miss and it's good and right of him to come in here and explain things in a way that make sense, and it's also true that people on the Left would rather criticize Democrats for losing the elections since Russian interference distracts from that -- but who in here was doing this?
 
i would like to congratulate the people of the UK for introducing the world to "milkshaking."

long may fascists be mocked. they hate humiliation.
 
i would like to congratulate the people of the UK for introducing the world to "milkshaking."

long may fascists be mocked. they hate humiliation.

Remember a few months ago when some people started to humiliate Republicans in restaurants, like McConnell and Kirstjen Nielson and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. And the almost universal response of punditry and the media was how uncivilized this was. Because THIS is what concerned them, as opposed to the behaviour of these vile individuals.

Milkshakes, pies, eggs, bring it on.
 
Remember a few months ago when some people started to humiliate Republicans in restaurants, like McConnell and Kirstjen Nielson and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. And the almost universal response of punditry and the media was how uncivilized this was. Because THIS is what concerned them, as opposed to the behaviour of these vile individuals.



Milkshakes, pies, eggs, bring it on.
Amen.
 
D7QWhNEW4AAWbgB.jpg:large


Bill de Blasio is exactly where he belongs.
 
meh, i'll just post the entire link that image came from

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...s-running-are-more-popular-with-swing-voters/

Bulletpoint No. 2: High-information voters love Elizabeth Warren — and not Bernie Sanders
In a previous Silver Bulletpoints, I asked whether candidates who are popular among high-education voters, such as Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren, are also popular among high-information voters. There’s no particular advantage to overperforming with college-educated voters; almost 65 percent of voters in the 2016 Democratic primaries did not have a four-year college degree. But doing well with high-information voters is usually a bullish sign. These voters are more likely to judge the candidates on factors beyond name recognition, and so may be leading indicators for how other voters will view the race once they’ve acquired more information. Moreover, high-information voters are more likely to eventually turn out to vote.

Quinnipiac addressed this in their most recent poll, asking Democrats how much attention they’ve been paying to the campaign and breaking out their topline results on that basis. Among voters paying a lot of attention to the campaign, Warren got 15 percent of the vote, and Sanders got just 8 percent. Among voters who are paying little or no attention, however, Warren got just 5 percent of the vote against Sanders’s 28 percent.

Some of this is age-related — younger voters aren’t paying as much attention yet — but It’s hard not to see it as a bearish indicator for Sanders. Voters have a lot more alternatives than four years ago, and former Sanders voters who have started their shopping process already have often come home with candidates like Warren or Buttigieg instead. That includes voters in Sanders’s core constituency, very liberal voters, who preferred Warren over Sanders 30-22 in the Quinnipiac poll.

Does something similar hold for Biden? Actually not. To my surprise, Biden did a little better with high-information voters than with the electorate overall in this poll. Maybe it’s Sanders, and not Biden, whose support has been propped up by name recognition.
 
Ranking by net favorability is kind of an embarrassment. Half of those names only ranked somewhere because people largely don’t know who they are.
 
https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1131528400210935808?s=21


I don’t get what the point of this WaPo story is? Is it a scandal or improper to have multiple jobs or work at the same time ?

Did you read the full article?
She underreported her outside work during her senate campaign, also much of this work is not reported on her tax returns, and it shows she is either disingenuous about being such a strong advocate for the little guy all the time or just plain stupid:

The asbestos cases included work on behalf of travelers insurance. In that case, which the Boston Globe first reported in 2012, Warren helped the company gain immunity from asbestos litigation by forming a $500 million trust fund for current and future victims. But after warren was no longer involved with the litigation, Travelers was able to preserve its immunity but avoid paying the $500 million, an outcome Warren told the Globe she had not foreseen.

Another case, this one on behalf of LTV Steel, put Warren at odds with Richard Trumka, who was then the president of the United Mine Workers and is now president of the AFL-CIO.
In that instance, Warren argued in a document to the Supreme Court to help LTV battle a new law that required it to put aside millions of dollars to fund health care for retired coal miners, according to the Globe. Warren maintained that she was supporting an important legal principle that would help workers receive needed aid sooner.
In testimony before Congress, Trumka argued that there shouldn’t be an exception to the rule. “When it unravels, you will have roughly 200,000 miners and beneficiaries out there that will lose their health care,” he told Congress.
 
I can't fault someone who worked as a lawyer for, ya know, lawyering. Same thing was tried on Clinton for defending people accused of violent crimes as a public defender. That's sorta her job.

Underreporting ? Sure, fine. Fair game. But being a corporate lawyer 20+ years ago doesn't minimize anything she's done since.
 
i look forward to seeing the similar hit pieces exhaustive research articles about past career improprieties that the washington post and new york times are surely going to publish about the male candidates any day now...
 
D7QWhNEW4AAWbgB.jpg:large


Bill de Blasio is exactly where he belongs.


eeeeshh.. Pretty ugly for Warren on that poll too. She is a political conundrum to me. The debates will really be where she could shine. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Another interesting source to keep your eye on is the Morning Consult tracking poll.

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

I find the Second Choice polls are interesting. Lots more Biden/Sanders crossover than I would have imagined. But then you kind of see why, when you go down and see Sanders decline at the precise time Biden announced and rose in the polls, so there definitely were defections. Although i think that Warren has been slowly chipping away at Bernie as well.
 
it's colossally stupid that California gets as many Senators as North Dakota. but does anyone see this changing any time soon? even if super-left President Leftist McJacobin Scahill Tiabbi, Jr. wins the presidency, do we see him/her passing anything through the Senate that Joe Manchin won't vote for? do we see Senate candidates in Florida or Ohio or Arizona riding those coattails to victory? for that matter, do we see said President Leftist McJacobin Scahill Tiabbi, Jr. winning the electoral college even if they win California by 6m votes this time?
Joe Manchin confirmed Brett Kavanaugh. Joe Lieberman killed the original Obamacare bill.
 
I can't fault someone who worked as a lawyer for, ya know, lawyering. Same thing was tried on Clinton for defending people accused of violent crimes as a public defender. That's sorta her job.

Underreporting ? Sure, fine. Fair game. But being a corporate lawyer 20+ years ago doesn't minimize anything she's done since.
I mean, you kind of can? It's one of the main reasons why the only district attorney worth respecting even a little bit in the US right now is Larry Krasner. He went straight from public defending to the DA's office and has implemented radical reform. Prosecutors are worth being wary of. So are corporate lawyers.
 
She thinks if she doesn't impeach she can make the 2020 election the "Impeachment Election." Yet another in a long list of dereliction of her duties.
 
I don’t think it’s a big deal that they haven’t started impeachment yet. I think it’s a big deal that they keep saying they won’t.

And I don’t like the idea of having an election mid-hearing. That’d be pelosi challenging America to do another “hold my beer” election.
 
There's also the issue of the fact that they know the Senate wouldn't follow through and convict. The House could do all they need to do in regards to impeachment, go through the whole process and all that good stuff, but if the Senate doesn't do their part...then what? It's going to feel like a futile gesture, especially if it doesn't actually lead to Trump being convicted and kicked out of office as a result.

That's not to say they shouldn't try, of course, but it's a valid issue to consider.

Honestly, I'm wondering if this whole thing isn't an attempt to force Trump into resigning.
 
There's also the issue of the fact that they know the Senate wouldn't follow through and convict. The House could do all they need to do in regards to impeachment, go through the whole process and all that good stuff, but if the Senate doesn't do their part...then what? It's going to feel like a futile gesture, especially if it doesn't actually lead to Trump being convicted and kicked out of office as a result.



That's not to say they shouldn't try, of course, but it's a valid issue to consider.



Honestly, I'm wondering if this whole thing isn't an attempt to force Trump into resigning.
It's not an issue to consider.

It's horse shit.

Present the case, a really really good case, and if the GOP decides to let him off the hook? Sure, fine. Let them hang themselves on his crimes.

It's, as Jerry Peef said, dereliction of duty.
 
Ill third that. It’s OK to impeach and “lose” to the senate. If the evidence is there, the Republican senators and probably Munchkin and Jones own that shit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom