DNC Hopefuls

[gowlerk 1,912]

10 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

So Clearly Sanders is behind."

Clearly Sanders is ahead, at this point. But there is a strong possibility that is his ceiling, or near his ceiling. If that turns out to be the case and someone else gets the nomination will you say that the DNC "screwed the people"? Or will you be willing to accept that he did not have enough of the the people?

[turtlespeed 212]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

Because Bloomberg gave them a lot of money?

To paraphrase a famous guy - that doesn't make them unethical, that makes them smart.

It's smart to have the DNC steer the election because they were given money to do so?

Hmmmmm - 

ol·i·garch

/ˈäləˌɡärk/

Learn to pronounce

noun

 

1. 1.

   a ruler in an oligarchy.

    
2. 2.

   (especially in Russia) a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence.

    

It's smart to go against the voters?

So - you are actually OK with Hillary not getting the electoral votes, even though she received the popular vote.

 

Is this a case of "The DNC knows what's best for you?" - Again?

[turtlespeed 212]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Clearly Sanders is ahead, at this point. But there is a strong possibility that is his ceiling, or near his ceiling. If that turns out to be the case and someone else gets the nomination will you say that the DNC "screwed the people"? Or will you be willing to accept that he did not have enough of the the people?

I can accept the numbers.

Will you?

Edited February 16, 2020 by turtlespeed

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I can accept the numbers.

Will you?

Yes, but I don't have to live with the results in my country. Bernie was beaten last time by possibly the most unpopular D nominee ever. He will probably not get the nomination this time either. And that may make his supporters disappointed enough to stay home. I'm not concerned that Bernie would be a bad POTUS. I am a little doubtful that he can be elected though. But like I already said, my track record of prediction is poor.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, but I don't have to live with the results in my country.

Oh, yes, you do. It won't be long before we tell you and your dirty oil to go frack yourselves.

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Oh, yes, you do. It won't be long before we tell you and your dirty oil to go frack yourselves.

We'll ship it to China if we have to. Pipeline to a west coast port will get built one way or another.

Edited February 16, 2020 by gowlerk

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

It's smart to have the DNC steer the election because they were given money to do so?

It's smart for them to choose a candidate with a good chance of winning the election.  That's one of their jobs.

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

It's smart for them to choose a candidate with a good chance of winning the election.  That's one of their jobs.

Nothing succeeds like success. If Bernie were to become POTUS he would become as popular with Ds as Trump is with Rs. And just as likely to be able to push his agenda through.

[jakee 1,254]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The voters are speaking loudly, and the DNC is ignoring the voters, and steering to what they want.(Read: pays the most money)

All they've done is allow Bloomberg into the conversation. It does sound ike a bit of a procedural fuckup, but if you decide to use fundraising as a metric and are then faced with a potentially popular candidate who is committed to not fundraising then it might be prudent to reconsider.

 

Anyway, now that Bloomberg is in the conversation, if the voters like what he has to say more than Bernie then he will get the nomination - because of the will of the voters. If you're trying to say that allowing Bloomberg onto the stage is the same as stealing the nom from Bernie, then you're surely saying that you don't think Bernie can beat Bloomberg on merit when voters have heard what they both have to say. In which case why have a problem with Bloomberg potentially winning?

 

on the flip side, I absolutely don't think anyone else should drop out now that Bloomberg is in, especially not Bernie or Buttegieg. And I think it would be good for Bloomberg to pledge a lot more money to support whoever gets the nom if it isn't him. That would then be definitely not slimy.

[turtlespeed 212]

40 minutes ago, jakee said:

All they've done is allow Bloomberg into the conversation. It does sound ike a bit of a procedural fuckup, but if you decide to use fundraising as a metric and are then faced with a potentially popular candidate who is committed to not fundraising then it might be prudent to reconsider.

 

Anyway, now that Bloomberg is in the conversation, if the voters like what he has to say more than Bernie then he will get the nomination - because of the will of the voters. If you're trying to say that allowing Bloomberg onto the stage is the same as stealing the nom from Bernie, then you're surely saying that you don't think Bernie can beat Bloomberg on merit when voters have heard what they both have to say. In which case why have a problem with Bloomberg potentially winning?

 

on the flip side, I absolutely don't think anyone else should drop out now that Bloomberg is in, especially not Bernie or Buttegieg. And I think it would be good for Bloomberg to pledge a lot more money to support whoever gets the nom if it isn't him. That would then be definitely not slimy.

In the simplest answer - Because buying an election is bad.

That is all the B-berg is doing.

Sanders has been campaigning, and has captured a large section of voters to his side.

It is very unfair to allow a guy to buy in half way through the game.

 

Question - If you were a Holdem player, would you allow someone to buy into the final table after it's down to 4 or 5 people, just because they can?  Would you allow that because they offered the judges money?  Would you allow the judges to decide who they want to win, and rig the game thus?

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

In the simplest answer - Because buying an election is bad.

That is all the B-berg is doing.

I don’t see how. 
 

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Sanders has been campaigning, and has captured a large section of voters to his side.

It is very unfair to allow a guy to buy in half way through the game.

And if they continue to prefer what he has to say they’ll continue to be his voters and he’ll be the right choice. If they prefer what Bloomberg has to say then he’ll be the right choice. Doesn’t matter when he started.

 

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Question - If you were a Holdem player, would you allow someone to buy into the final table after it's down to 4 or 5 people, just because they can?  Would you allow that because they offered the judges money?  Would you allow the judges to decide who they want to win, and rig the game thus?

I don’t believe any of those questions are analogous to the current situation.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

In the simplest answer - Because buying an election is bad.

That is all the B-berg is doing.

 

Nope.  If he was unelectable they wouldn't be considering his candidacy.

Quote

Question - If you were a Holdem player, would you allow someone to buy into the final table after it's down to 4 or 5 people, just because they can?  Would you allow that because they offered the judges money?  Would you allow the judges to decide who they want to win, and rig the game thus?

In some cases.

Let's say you were playing a huge, publicized game.  The pot is enormous.  Then, on the final table, the organizer comes and says "sorry guys, we can't afford to finish the game.  That money in the pot is going to pay the hotel and the crews.  Oh, there's a guy over there who's a decent player and wants to buy in, and his money will allow the game to continue with the pot intact.  But we all know that's unfair.  Right?"

Would you rather lose the pot, or finish the game with a good chance of winning?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

In the simplest answer - Because buying an election is bad.

That is all the B-berg is doing.

Sanders has been campaigning, and has captured a large section of voters to his side.

It is very unfair to allow a guy to buy in half way through the game.

 

Question - If you were a Holdem player, would you allow someone to buy into the final table after it's down to 4 or 5 people, just because they can?  Would you allow that because they offered the judges money?  Would you allow the judges to decide who they want to win, and rig the game thus?

We're not playing Hold 'em. We're playing get rid of 'im. Different game with different rules.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

In the simplest answer - Because buying an election is bad.

That is all the B-berg is doing.

Sanders has been campaigning, and has captured a large section of voters to his side.

It is very unfair to allow a guy to buy in half way through the game.

 

Question - If you were a Holdem player, would you allow someone to buy into the final table after it's down to 4 or 5 people, just because they can?  Would you allow that because they offered the judges money?  Would you allow the judges to decide who they want to win, and rig the game thus?

Turtle, let me help you out. Put your left or right index finger and thumb together. Roll the remaining three fingers (if you still have them) into your palm. Now touch the end of your nose with the index finger and thumb. Now open the two just slightly more than the width of your nose and move both closer to your face 1". Now press together the thumb and index finger until your nose hurts and welcome to the new Democratic Party.

[gowlerk 1,912]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

In the simplest answer - Because buying an election is bad.

Tell that to the SC. Using money is free speech. No one will spend as much money as Trump will be spending this time around. You can claim buying an election is wrong, but unless it is equally wrong for all your argument is pointless.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Tell that to the SC. Using money is free speech. No one will spend as much money as Trump will be spending this time around. You can claim buying an election is wrong, but unless it is equally wrong for all your argument is pointless.

Oh please.

You forgot about the false equivalence that all the Rs and Trumpettes need in order to argue.

Trump buying the election was fine. He was an 'outsider'.
Bloomberg doing it is wrong.

Trump's long record of racism is fine. That's 'just who he is'.
Bloomberg's support of 'stop & frisk' is wrong. 

I don't like Bloomberg and I hope he isn't the nominee.

But I'll hold my nose and vote for him if he is because Trump is simply evil.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

32 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

But I'll hold my nose and vote for him if he is because Trump is simply evil.

Hi Joe,

I may have to 'hold my nose' but I will vote for any D to get rid of Trump.

Bernie has little support from the DNC; and he should not since he is & has been an Indie for his entire political life.  I have yet to understand why the D's let him onto the debate stage.

I would like to see Pete B become the next POTUS; but, I do have concerns on whether or not he can beat Trump.  

I also doubt that Amy K can beat anyone in a pres. race.

Jerry Baumchen

Edited February 16, 2020 by JerryBaumchen

[turtlespeed 212]

20 hours ago, billvon said:

Nope.  If he was unelectable they wouldn't be considering his candidacy.

In some cases.

Let's say you were playing a huge, publicized game.  The pot is enormous.  Then, on the final table, the organizer comes and says "sorry guys, we can't afford to finish the game.  That money in the pot is going to pay the hotel and the crews.  Oh, there's a guy over there who's a decent player and wants to buy in, and his money will allow the game to continue with the pot intact.  But we all know that's unfair.  Right?"

Would you rather lose the pot, or finish the game with a good chance of winning?

Its along the lines of "You had ONE job!" and you couldn't even do that.

That scenario would make it pretty obvious that whole process is completely mismanaged and shouldn't even exist in the first place. 

As a player, I'd sue. 

As a manager of the "enormiss pot", I'd simply explain to the players that there was mismanagement, and enormiss errors in the accounting department, and we will either have to reduce the salaries of the people running the Game, (which won't happen), or we will simply have to reduce the "enormiss pot" by a small percentage.  Either way - It would be fairly dealt with, considering the other players efforts, without introducing the someone that comes in late to undermine them.

Simply put, I'd be honest about it.

 

OK - So if I'm hearing you correctly:  The DNC doesn't have enough money to continue its election strategy, and NEEDS B-Bergs money to continue?  Where are all the contributors?  Where are all the wealthy up and comers?  Why aren't they donating?  Don't they care?

 

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

20 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Tell that to the SC. Using money is free speech. No one will spend as much money as Trump will be spending this time around. You can claim buying an election is wrong, but unless it is equally wrong for all your argument is pointless.

 I'm talking about the bullshit injustice it represents for Sanders.

Equally wrong? 

[turtlespeed 212]

20 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Turtle, let me help you out. Put your left or right index finger and thumb together. Roll the remaining three fingers (if you still have them) into your palm. Now touch the end of your nose with the index finger and thumb. Now open the two just slightly more than the width of your nose and move both closer to your face 1". Now press together the thumb and index finger until your nose hurts and welcome to the new Democratic Party.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that the DNC sucks, and you have to hold your nose to help get through the smell?

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

 I'm talking about the bullshit injustice it represents for Sanders.

Equally wrong? 

Yes, you are wrong with that statement. Here's the problem - the nomination process isn't a game. Unlike Poker, its purpose isn't simply to reward the person who's best at playing by a certain set of rigid procedural rules. Its purpose is to find the person who will be the best candidate for the election. 

 

So once again, if you've set certain criteria to identify realistic candidates for debate participation, then someone comes along whose method of campaigning means they won't meet those criteria but may well still be strong overall candidates then it can make sense to change the rules in order to achieve your original goal.

 

This is why the poker analogy simply doesn't work, and why you'll never understand the situation if you keep thinking in those terms.

[brenthutch 383]

On 2/15/2020 at 7:05 PM, gowlerk said:

 

Sanders appears to have the support of about 25 to 30 percent of the D primary voters at this point. If he does get nominated I don't think he can win.

The same guys that say Sanders can't win said the same thing about Trump.  

[JoeWeber 2,299]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The same guys that say Sanders can't win said the same thing about Trump.  

But they weren't counting the same voters. And, BTW, do you have time for this with all the reading BIGUN provided for your education? And what about proving me wrong that you are being subsidized at SDHV? You could start by showing how the 2019 $200,000 AIP grant to rehabilitate existing Hangars and another $30,000 for designing a new aviation fuel system doesn't benefit you.

Edited February 17, 2020 by JoeWeber

[turtlespeed 212]

11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But they weren't counting the same voters. And, BTW, do you have time for this with all the reading BIGUN provided for your education? And what about proving me wrong that you are being subsidized at SDHV? You could start by showing how the 2019 $200,000 AIP grant to rehabilitate existing Hangars and another $30,000 for designing a new aviation fuel system doesn't benefit you.

Wrong thread Joe.

This is about the DNC - not AGW or NGD.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Yes, you are wrong with that statement. Here's the problem - the nomination process isn't a game. Unlike Poker, its purpose isn't simply to reward the person who's best at playing by a certain set of rigid procedural rules. Its purpose is to find the person who will be the best candidate for the election. 

 

So once again, if you've set certain criteria to identify realistic candidates for debate participation, then someone comes along whose method of campaigning means they won't meet those criteria but may well still be strong overall candidates then it can make sense to change the rules in order to achieve your original goal.

 

This is why the poker analogy simply doesn't work, and why you'll never understand the situation if you keep thinking in those terms.

So, what you are saying is that the hard work that some have put into the nomination process can be trumped by just throwing money at it.  Also, the left is perfectly OK with that line of thinking.

Understood.

Maybe you guys should form a politicians Union.