2 2
turtlespeed

DNC Hopefuls

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Do you think it was the DNC's bankroll that helped Clinton?

I'm guessing you envision someone peeling hundreds off of a fat roll. Look man, yes. Obviously, and certainly yes. Even if they had spent every penny fairly and equally that would still be the answer. When you ask if the sky is blue the answer will always be yes. Now if you ask why does the sky seem blue, that will get a different range of answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Do you think it was the DNC's bankroll that helped Clinton?

I think it was the fact that despite the accusations from "The Right" that "The Left" is WAY left it's not actually Way left and Bernie doesn't represent the wishes of the majority of "The Left".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I'm not sure that you are aware of this but it is impossible to cut taxes for those who pay no taxes.

Wouldn't life be wonderful if only you had valid reasons for being condescending towards people like kallend, BillVon,  DJL and several others on SC?  Me not included so fire away, I enjoy debating people like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 3:52 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

And that is where the DNC screwed up.  Bernie is & always has been an independent.

They should never have let him on the stage.

I recall saying something similar in 2016, but more generally toward both parties.  The parties should set a standard for who they will allow to put the letter behind their name. If you want to throw your hat in the ring for a certain nomination, the party should stand up and decide whether you qualify in the first place.

Some examples: registered with the  party for X number of years (1? 3?).  Have some of the basics from the party's standard platform in your own goals (R = smaller government, lower taxes; D = social safety net, civil liberties).  If an incumbent has a demonstrated record trend of voting for policies solidly contrary to the standard policies, the party should have the right to refuse the candidate to spend party money on a re-election.  All of the party's decisions on exclusion would have to be made public in a standardized way to justify the decisions, and be open for registered voters to overturn them with a significant share of the members.

Still have the primary process where the registered voters get to choose the party's nominee, but the party gets to have more say in who gets into the race in the first place.  This definitely would have stopped Trump from sucking up all the oxygen in the Republican contest, leaving the more staid party elders to get someone qualified on the ballot.  It would also address the Sanders and Bloomberg conundrums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

The parties should set a standard for who they will allow to put the letter behind their name. If you want to throw your hat in the ring for a certain nomination, the party should stand up and decide whether you qualify in the first place.

Wouldn't that lead to the possibility of successful 3rd party candidacies? You can't be taking a chance on that, now can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 10:39 AM, turtlespeed said:

I'm curious as to whom is thought to be "Hard Right".

Anyone that does not pretend to be in lock step with the hard left.

But this place trips me out.  There are plenty of people here that I perceive as hard left, but have expressed how easily they could've, would've or did've voted for a republican.

But then there are people like you that I perceive as being hard right, but you want to vote for Bernie, and it completely fucking trips me out, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:
2 hours ago, TriGirl said:

The parties should set a standard for who they will allow to put the letter behind their name. If you want to throw your hat in the ring for a certain nomination, the party should stand up and decide whether you qualify in the first place.

Wouldn't that lead to the possibility of successful 3rd party candidacies? You can't be taking a chance on that, now can you?

Yep.  And I'd be good with that.  No one can hijack a party on their own, and bills would actually get negotiated and considered if any presenter had to get a coalition.  

And with my idea, the parties wouldn't be able to vote you out if you supported an issue here or there that might contradict the basic platform.  Just if you had proven yourself to be a RINO/DINO and consistently took the opposite opinion on the majority of issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I see a couple of people as hard left, but a decent number of disaffected republicans and liberal-leaning independents.

That's probably an accurate assessment, which is why my perception is off and trips me out in the first place.  I'm thinking it had something to do with my religious beliefs and assuming that anyone in opposition to them was automatically hard left, or might as well be.

In any event tho, I still haven't figured out Turtle.  If I had to guess, I'd say he's just fucking with us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Coreece said:

In any event tho, I still haven't figured out Turtle.  If I had to guess, I'd say he's just fucking with us.

Well, fucking with us is Turtle’s nature and his great joy :D

That said, I think he leans conservative, but is willing to assess the data and change positions on individual issues based on that. Which means he’s an independent thinker, with a natural leaning. And I’m sure there are issues he’s unlikely to reconsider radically, just as there are issues like that for me. 

Me, I’m a basically-liberal who is willing to reassess based on data. But I don’t enjoy stirring the pot as much as Turtle does :tongue:

In most countries besides the US, our average-left is pretty conservative I think  

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:
15 minutes ago, Coreece said:

In any event tho, I still haven't figured out Turtle.  If I had to guess, I'd say he's just fucking with us.

Well, fucking with us is Turtle’s nature and his great joy :D

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with that to a certain extent.  For the most part I think he tries to be fair - well except when comparing Pelosi to Trump.  I mean, I'm no Pelosi fan, but wtf?:p

 

15 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

our average-left is pretty conservative I think

I can agree with that, especially when considering that most dems don't consider themselves to be liberal.

But this brings up another issue.  Is the idea of having a popular vote as beneficial to democrats as they might think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:
53 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Is the idea of having a popular vote as beneficial to democrats as they might think? 

Hi Coreece,

The issue, for me, is that I want my vote to count.

Ya, I can understand why it pisses you off that my vote here in the midwest is more valuable than yours, but it's only because we're more responsible and fair.

Do you really want a system where the white conservative majority can rule forever with their popular vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think they’re still the majority in actual numbers? Or does it only seem that way because they’re the default authority from 250 years of socialization?

If they were really in the majority, why all the need to gerrymander changing states like Texas?

Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I watched the drive-by media's show on the debate and this is my take.

I chuckled to hear the candidates attacking eachother as "rich" people.  The only ones who can do that with any legitimacy are Pete and Amy.

I'll say it again...Bloomberg is not the guy you want to put up against Trump.  He's just Trump 2.0 with a little of NYC Hillary.

Biden looks confused.  I think his days are numbered.  I like that Pete's only tack at this point seems to be "I'm not them".  He's probably the guy who could do the best if only because he's from the outside.  Think BHO people. 

I thought Warren was strong.  I need to research more of her actual positions.  Still feels like I'm being talked down to.  It's too bad they spent more time attacking eachother and not the issues.

Although I liked Bernie 4 years ago this time I'm not so sure.

Just my opinions.  Don't spend those 2 pennies foolishly.

Edited by airdvr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Wouldn't life be wonderful if only you had valid reasons for being condescending towards people like kallend, BillVon,  DJL and several others on SC?  Me not included so fire away, I enjoy debating people like you.

I'm assuming the punchline is that you picked three people who can be pretty damn condescending.  I'm a straight up asshole, I just like sarcasm too much so I lay it on thick.  It's part of why I really try to keep my mouth shut when I meet people.  I got a safety award once and the text of the announcement read, "...first you need to wade through the sarcasm but there's a message in there."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I'll say it again...Bloomberg is not the guy you want to put up against Trump.  He's just Trump 2.0 with a little of NYC Hillary.

I think that's why TRUMP doesn't want him to be the candidate and why conservative news stations are falling all over themselves to tell Dems that he's a lot like Trump.  If he makes it through the Primaries he'll not only have the D vote but will score with many centrists too.  I think it's funny to see Fox News barking about things Bloomberg did that they've long since said were Ok when Trump did them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DJL said:

I'm assuming the punchline is that you picked three people who can be pretty damn condescending.  I'm a straight up asshole, I just like sarcasm too much so I lay it on thick.  It's part of why I really try to keep my mouth shut when I meet people.  I got a safety award once and the text of the announcement read, "...first you need to wade through the sarcasm but there's a message in there."

I won't argue your self analysis, but no, you are all damn smart people; there was nothing more to it. There are more here of the same caliber I just needed to stop somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DJL said:

I think that's why TRUMP doesn't want him to be the candidate and why conservative news stations are falling all over themselves to tell Dems that he's a lot like Trump.  If he makes it through the Primaries he'll not only have the D vote but will score with many centrists too.  I think it's funny to see Fox News barking about things Bloomberg did that they've long since said were Ok when Trump did them.

What is the over/under on Hillary jumping in the mix somewhere?

I actually think if she were to declare as VP for Bernie - it would squash a lot of back and forth, and maybe give the left a chance at beating Trump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

What is the over/under on Hillary jumping in the mix somewhere?

I actually think if she were to declare as VP for Bernie - it would squash a lot of back and forth, and maybe give the left a chance at beating Trump.

 

I'd like to think all candidates know she's politically toxic but Trump and Russia would save a lot of money, they could just dust off their material from 2016.  Look at how quickly the machine turned on Bloomberg at the very hint of a rumor he was considering her.

I don't think Bernie and HRC would get along.  They both want things their own way.  She's gotten a taste of retirement and I'll bet she likes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I won't argue your self analysis, but no, you are all damn smart people; there was nothing more to it. There are more here of the same caliber I just needed to stop somewhere.

There are certainly a lot of smart guys on here but I'm nowhere in the league of academics as Kallend or BillVon.  I professionally tell people how much construction stuff costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DJL said:

I don't think Bernie and HRC would get along.  They both want things their own way.  She's gotten a taste of retirement and I'll bet she likes it.

I could be wrong, but people like her want attention, (Read: Need attention)

People of power crave power.

She's not done yet, me thinks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2