DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
STANV said:
The non-candidate.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/biden-dorchester-2020-1282644
I'm suffering from Biden fatigue already and he hasn't even declared.
dave said:
So, cute and a mainstream media darling. But, he's running for president so there should be more than the cult of personality. He should maybe have a real platform, dontchathink?
Pete Buttigieg has everything except positions on major issues
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-buttigieg-campaign-trump-20190417-story.html
There’s only one element missing from Buttigieg’s potentially meteoric campaign: positions on major issues.
That’s not an accident. He says voters aren’t looking for policy papers. They care about values and character, and knowing that a candidate cares about their lives.
Yeah, no. We should know exactly what policies a candidate supports and what they are going to going to do Day 1. No surprises. He's running on "character" and he was just caught on a secret committee plotting against another candidate. The last guy who ran on character promised "Hope & Change" and then let Citigroup pick his cabinet. Buttigeig just enlisted a major Goldman Sachs lobbyist to help him raise money for his "war chest." So we have an idea about his values and can vote accordingly.
BG9 said:
LOST said:Unless you're minimum wage needing two jobs to survive. Where does that person get the time? Be told, don't worry, we entitled who have spare time will decide for you?
basil said:Have you ever watched an actual Iowa caucus on C-Span. I first did so in 1988. It's about the closest thing to pure democracy that I have ever seen. They are self-selecting in terms of who shows up. But so is a primary. Rather than walking into a booth and pushing a button caucus goers actually have to engage with their neighbors in debates over the merits of the candidates. They then have to make compromises, forge alliances, etc.
By the way, these political discussion threads on MOL are a perfect example of why caucuses should be replaced with actual primaries asap. Because like MOL, caucuses are self-selecting and tracts al kinds of extreme fringe opinions (myself included) whereas primaries are much more representative of the actual electorate.
Caucus goers make a decision to be active, rather than passive, citizens. Democracy is messy and it ought to be. Don't take my opinion. Hopefully you will be able to view a caucus on C-Span and judge for yourself.
I wonder if there is an old one on YouTube
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026882179
Exactly. Caucuses are very self selecting. They are also non scalable. They should have no role in any elections. The same is true for super delegates by the way, and for the electoral college.
nan said:
Yeah, no. We should know exactly what policies a candidate supports and what they are going to going to do Day 1. No surprises. He's running on "character" and he was just caught on a secret committee plotting against another candidate. The last guy who ran on character promised "Hope & Change" and then let Citigroup pick his cabinet. Buttigeig just enlisted a major Goldman Sachs lobbyist to help him raise money for his "war chest." So we have an idea about his values and can vote accordingly.
Did you read today's NY Times piece (hit piece?) on Mayor Pete? What do you think?
Anyone?
STANV said:
nan said:Did you read today's NY Times piece (hit piece?) on Mayor Pete? What do you think?
Yeah, no. We should know exactly what policies a candidate supports and what they are going to going to do Day 1. No surprises. He's running on "character" and he was just caught on a secret committee plotting against another candidate. The last guy who ran on character promised "Hope & Change" and then let Citigroup pick his cabinet. Buttigeig just enlisted a major Goldman Sachs lobbyist to help him raise money for his "war chest." So we have an idea about his values and can vote accordingly.
Anyone?
You don't understand, so let me explain nan's logic:
1) if someone somewhere posts a story that seems critical about one of the candidates she supports (Tulsi & Bernie), then, automatically, that qualifies as a hit piece, and the media outlet belongs to the "corporate democratic" deep state
2) on the other hand, if someone somewhere posts a story that seems critical about one of the candidates she is against (which is basically everyone else) then it is automatically true and needs to be re-posted
Capice?
basil said:
Exactly. Caucuses are very self selecting. They are also non scalable. They should have no role in any elections. The same is true for super delegates by the way, and for the electoral college.
I do not understand the term "non scalable". Please explain.
I do understand "self-selecting" but to me it applies to Primaries as well. They generally feature much lower turn-outs than General Elections. Aren't Primary voters "self-selecting"?
Additionally it is my understanding that most Primaries are winner-take-all and do not feature ranked voting. Properly run caucuses could yield results more in keeping with Candidates actual support among voters. In other words if a State holds a winner-take-all Primary among a dozen candidates a candidate who gets only 15% might win all the Delegates. Of course I guess Delegates could be selected proportionally to the % of votes for each candidate. That is the way the Iowa caucuses function. Either way the National Convention would end up as one big Caucus, which it was in the old days.
basil said:
You don't understand, so let me explain nan's logic:
1) if someone somewhere posts a story that seems critical about one of the candidates she supports (Tulsi & Bernie), then, automatically, that qualifies as a hit piece, and the media outlet belongs to the "corporate democratic" deep state
2) on the other hand, if someone somewhere posts a story that seems critical about one of the candidates she is against (which is basically everyone else) then it is automatically true and needs to be re-posted
Capice?
Capice.
STANV said:
Did you read today's NY Times piece (hit piece?) on Mayor Pete? What do you think?
Anyone?
Is this the piece you are referring to? If so, it covers the same as a few articles I have read on him and the criticism of him being tone deaf to POC. He's going to have an uphill battle with blacks given this background. Not sure how it will affect his campaign or if it is unsurmountable. It is not a hit piece, because it is based on important, factual issues he faces, but it is unusual to see the Times expose weakness in non-Progressive candidates so I have to wonder why they did. Maybe they have to bring him down a notch for Biden's entry next week. Biden, I'm thinking, is going to enter and tank, but maybe he will surprise me.
Pete Buttigieg Fired South Bend’s Black Police Chief. It Still Stings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/buttigieg-black-police-chief-fired.html
STANV said:
basil said:I do not understand the term "non scalable". Please explain.
Exactly. Caucuses are very self selecting. They are also non scalable. They should have no role in any elections. The same is true for super delegates by the way, and for the electoral college.
I do understand "self-selecting" but to me it applies to Primaries as well. They generally feature much lower turn-outs than General Elections. Aren't Primary voters "self-selecting"?
Additionally it is my understanding that most Primaries are winner-take-all and do not feature ranked voting. Properly run caucuses could yield results more in keeping with Candidates actual support among voters. In other words if a State holds a winner-take-all Primary among a dozen candidates a candidate who gets only 15% might win all the Delegates. Of course I guess Delegates could be selected proportionally to the % of votes for each candidate. That is the way the Iowa caucuses function. Either way the National Convention would end up as one big Caucus, which it was in the old days.
Because of time commitment and logistics, it is not realistic to do caucuses that include large portions of the electorate. You couldn't do the Presidential election through caucuses for example. So they always only represent the opinions of a small group of people (the caucus goers). That's why I don't think they are scalable.
I agree that winner-takes-all is a terrible and un-democratic mechanism, for primaries as well as for general election. They should all be based on popular vote. Not on something stupid like winner-takes-all or electoral college.
nan said:
STANV said:Is this the piece you are referring to? If so, it covers the same as a few articles I have read on him and the criticism of him being tone deaf to POC. He's going to have an uphill battle with blacks given this background. Not sure how it will affect his campaign or if it is unsurmountable. It is not a hit piece, because it is based on important, factual issues he faces, but it is unusual to see the Times expose weakness in non-Progressive candidates so I have to wonder why they did. Maybe they have to bring him down a notch for Biden's entry next week. Biden, I'm thinking, is going to enter and tank, but maybe he will surprise me.
Did you read today's NY Times piece (hit piece?) on Mayor Pete? What do you think?
Anyone?
Pete Buttigieg Fired South Bend’s Black Police Chief. It Still Stings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/buttigieg-black-police-chief-fired.html
Hahaha! STANV, see?
STANV said:
basil said:Capice.
You don't understand, so let me explain nan's logic:
1) if someone somewhere posts a story that seems critical about one of the candidates she supports (Tulsi & Bernie), then, automatically, that qualifies as a hit piece, and the media outlet belongs to the "corporate democratic" deep state
2) on the other hand, if someone somewhere posts a story that seems critical about one of the candidates she is against (which is basically everyone else) then it is automatically true and needs to be re-posted
Capice?
STANV- you asked if anyone had seen the article and what they thought. I responded, as I did when you asked about Elizabeth Warren (about the only one). I am being part of the conversation here. So, why are you throwing me under the bus when basil accuses me of being divisive? Was this a trap? Not nice.
basil said:
Hahaha! STANV, see?
Your logic does not hold water. I complain that the media does not treat Progressives fairly because they don't and I have provided solid evidence to prove that. Do you think this Pete B. piece is a hit job? Evidently, if I don't agree to what is not obviously a hit job (I did question why they were posting it so I was open to it having a hit job effect), but the New York Times journalists were finally doing their job for a change--you cheered like you caught me in a trap. Did it ever occur to you that I might be right about the way Progressive are treated in the media versus other candidates. The fact that this is a rare piece critical of an establishment loved candidate says a lot.
And your post was a hit job on me, which is disgusting and not nice. You should apologize.
sbenois said:
You should apologize to Basil, not the other way around.
You should be banned for being a troll.
Nan, wow you are seriously threatened by Mayor Pete. Previously you said Pete was mostly a threat to Beto and the centrist Dems rather than Bernie, but judging by your voluminous and repetitive hit posts on Pete, clearly you don’t believe your own words.
sbenois said:
You should be banned for being a Bernie Bot.
Sadly, for Bernie that is, she has done him no service.
Smedley said:
Nan, wow you are seriously threatened by Mayor Pete. Previously you said Pete was mostly a threat to Beto and the centrist Dems rather than Bernie, but judging by your voluminous and repetitive hit posts on Pete, clearly you don’t believe your own words.
I am angry with Pete because he was involved in the secret meetings with Dem leadership and a donor to sabotage Bernie's campaign. So, yes, I perceived him politically taking from the centrist candidates, but I did not know at the time he was actively working to take my candidate down. This changes my view--and wipes out all positive things I have said about him in the past (about his intelligence, speaking ability, etc.).
basil said:
Hahaha! STANV, see?
Precisely.
Nan, They did a front page article on a weakness relating to something that happened 7 years ago.
nan said:
It is not a hit piece, because it is based on important, factual issues he faces, but it is unusual to see the Times expose weakness in non-Progressive candidates so I have to wonder why they did.
Give me an example of a front page NY Times article about a candidate that is, by your definition, a hit piece. That is, not based on "important, factual issues" that the candidate faces.
Has there been an article about your candidate based on non-facts or unimportant issues?
STANV said:
basil said:Precisely.
Hahaha! STANV, see?
Nan, They did a front page article on a weakness relating to something that happened 7 years ago.
nan said:Give me an example of a front page NY Times article about a candidate that is, by your definition, a hit piece. That is, not based on "important, factual issues" that the candidate faces.
It is not a hit piece, because it is based on important, factual issues he faces, but it is unusual to see the Times expose weakness in non-Progressive candidates so I have to wonder why they did.
Has there been an article about your candidate based on non-facts or unimportant issues?
Yes, all the articles going on and on about Bernie's taxes and him begin a millionaire were hit pieces. All the articles about how he did not support Hillary after 2016 are also fiction. I recently found out he did more rallies for her than she did for Obama. All the articles that highlighted issues of sexual harassment at his campaign and failed to mention the same issues at others campaigns--or to acknowledge the policies he put in place because of that. All the articles saying he does not do well with African Americans, even when there was polling data to contradict that (and no one mentions that for Beto and Pete--but every Bernie rally would have people counting black faces and timing his speech to see when he mentioned civil rights). All the articles before he announced saying he was a dud and could not get a campaign off the ground. All the questioners at his CNN Townhall were lobbyist plants. There was at lest one plant at the FOX townhall-and they would not stop drilling him on his taxes there. His Medicare for All plan will never receive a fair vetting in the mainstream news. And of course, now he has the leaders of the Democratic party meeting in secret to sabotage him. So, I think there are at least a few "hits" on Bernie.
As for Pete, first of all, he has very little experience so it is important to examine all of those seven years. Second, that investigation is not over yet. This is from last Wednesday:
Years-old controversy surrounding secret police tapes is newly relevant amid Pete Buttigieg's rise
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z826iAOddINXwVgHygQ7ciB-7CmjFF2wXIEVmXFZ9TI/edit#
The article did not go into how this is still ongoing as it would have in a real hit piece. It also does not mention the many articles about Buttigeig's contraversial "All Lives Mater" comment, adding fuel to the fire, which, had it been Bernie would have been front and center.
It did not mention his poor minority hiring record as a true hit piece would have:
Viewpoint: Diversity has fallen in Mayor Pete Buttigieg's administration
And it did not mention how he might have financially benefited from gentrifying poor neighborhoods:
After City Incentives, South Bend Real Estate Executives Donate to Mayor Pete’s Presidential Campaign
Real estate executives benefited from policies of Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s administration that some criticize as reckless gentrification. Now they’re returning the favor.
So, in short, being a Bernie supporter means you are an expert on hit pieces and this one in the Times was kinda mild as far as hit pieces go. The fact that they published anything negative about Boy Wonder does make me pause, but I don't know why. It did not mention poor stats on diversity, recent developments with the tapes, or possible real estate payoffs for gentrification. And these are just a few examples--I could post more, that would have been included in strong hit piece. But, anyway, I don't see how you could expect the public to proceed with Buttigeig as a candidate and not tell them something about his history of dealing with African Americans, because that is huge part of his relevant experience he is using to claim that he has more experience than others to prepare him to be president.
CNN doing townhallapalooza tomorrow (mon) night. Klobuchar, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, each 1 hour starting at 7 pm.
Who’s political junkie enough to watch them all?
Shall we have a viewing party w discussion afterwards?
What’s the over/under on # of Nan posts afterwards on how Bernie was mistreated?
Smedley said:
What’s the over/under on Nan posts afterwards on how Bernie was mistreated?
Atta' boy - argument-you-can't-refute alert. Time to toss an ad hominem you can be sure the group will cheer, and scurry off.
Smedley said:
CNN doing townhallapalooza tomorrow (mon) night. Klobuchar, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, each 1 hour starting at 7 pm.
Who’s political junkie enough to watch them all?
Shall we have a viewing party w discussion afterwards?
What’s the over/under on Nan posts afterwards on how Bernie was mistreated?
Right, nan is making it all up in her head, even though CNN admitted they had plants with framed questions in the audience. nan is also making up the NYTs story about how the highest Dem leadership has been meeting with Neera Tanden, a big donor and Pete Buttigeig to come up with a plan on how to "Stop Sanders." This morning I saw a clip of Buttigieg talking to a group and he was comparing Sanders to Trump. The Dems are instructing us to not form a "circular firing squad" but it's clear it only goes one way -- if you are firing at Sanders than go right ahead. Don't let anyone know that Buttigeg has Goldman Sachs building his war chest though - cause that helps Trump. Unity!!!!!
So, yes Bernie is mistreated and it is documented with facts that are even on mainstream news sites. If you think it is fine that the Democratic party is trying to openly sabotage the front-runner than you must not care about Democracy. You might not support Sanders, but this sets a bad precedent for all elections. Next time it might be someone you like. Also, it is helping Trump get re-elected.
gvico said:
Atta' boy - argument-you-can't-refute alert. Time to toss an ad hominem you can be sure the group will cheer, and scurry off.
Thank you gvico! They need to stop and think about what they are cheering for here--corrupt elections.
gvico said:
Smedley said:
What’s the over/under on Nan posts afterwards on how Bernie was mistreated?
Atta' boy - argument-you-can't-refute alert. Time to toss an ad hominem you can be sure the group will cheer, and scurry off.
I was going to say 5, but I just saw her reaction and I think she is already over. How about an over/under on the number of alter ego they are using?
Oh and gvico, bugger off yourself
As someone who doesn't particularly have a horse in the race, I think it is a little amusing that Nan cares enough about Mayor Pete to spend so much time attacking him. To be honest, I just don't get it. Buttigieg isn't fishing in Bernie's pool. At this point, their interests don't really seem to conflict. If anything, he's just weakening Great Uncle Grabby (a noble cause if ever there was one).
Klinker said:
As someone who doesn't particularly have a horse in the race, I think it is a little amusing that Nan cares enough about Mayor Pete to spend so much time attacking him. To be honest, I just don't get it. Buttigieg isn't fishing in Bernie's pool. At this point, their interests don't really seem to conflict. If anything, he's just weakening Great Uncle Grabby (a noble cause if ever there was one).
You are right, as Buttigeig is a corporate dem with a centrist-right position. BUT, I will explain again what I just explained a few posts ago--Buttigeig was found to be on a secret committee formed to sabotage Sanders' candidacy:
‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html
The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.
So, if this was your candidate being attacked, you would probably be mad too. I saw a video of Buttigeig today talking to a group and saying that he understood people were hurting and that they might turn to Sanders or Trump. The big headline below said "Pete Buttigeig Compares Sanders to Trump" So, I guess that is at least one of the tactics he is using--smearing another candidate while while pretending to be about "values." and unity (and not a circular firing squad).
Comedian wins Ukraine presidential election against the incumbent who said "I'm running against Putin."
Looking forward to Jimmy Dore's reaction.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
He's hanging out with unions. I guess he found one that does not remember how Obama abandoned them and how Joe was a cheerleader for NAFTA and the TPP. It will be interesting to see who they endorse.