NATION

PASSWORD

2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Which Candidate do you like most after the debates?(Ranked in order of polling after said debates)

Joe Biden
40
14%
Bernie Sanders
92
32%
Elizabeth Warren
27
9%
Kamala Harris
10
3%
Pete Buttigieg
15
5%
Cory Booker
2
1%
Beto O'Rourke
3
1%
Andrew Yang
38
13%
Other
49
17%
Undecided
11
4%
 
Total votes : 287

User avatar
36 Cameras
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Jun 23, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby 36 Cameras » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:43 pm

36 Cameras wrote:
Kowani wrote:The same reason they don’t get to choose whether or not they can go to school.


And that is?


Let me rephrase: why shouldn’t parents be allowed to decide where their children go to school?
6.54
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

User avatar
Kowani
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24133
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:44 pm

36 Cameras wrote:
36 Cameras wrote:
And that is?


Let me rephrase: why shouldn’t parents be allowed to decide where their children go to school?

It’s not like black parents were protesting the bussing. That would be white racists
Spanish -AmericanAtheist.
“The time has come to call evil out as evil, and we shall not apologize for naming brutality.”
NSG's resident data enthusiast.
Eppur si muove.


Telconi wrote:Every once in a while Kowani does have a decent point.

User avatar
36 Cameras
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Jun 23, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby 36 Cameras » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:47 pm

Kowani wrote:
36 Cameras wrote:
Let me rephrase: why shouldn’t parents be allowed to decide where their children go to school?

It’s not like black parents were protesting the bussing. That would be white racists


Some black parents were afraid that their children would be worse off if they were forcibly bussed to white schools.
6.54
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

User avatar
Shrillland
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13586
Founded: Apr 12, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Shrillland » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:33 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Kowani wrote:It kinda was…


Debatable. Berkeley decided as a whole community to support bussing while in Delaware it was causing mass community conflict. In a twisted way, Harris had a social privilege that Biden did not


That was happening in this area too, actually. My mother was bussed to a school in a predominantly black neighbourhood back in the 70s, and she was beaten up by the other students almost every day just because she was white.
Stand with Content Creators Like Me! Stand With The Union!
Plebiscite Plaza 2020
In 1963, Doctor Who taught us all we need to know about politics when a cave woman said, "Old men see no further than tomorrow's meat".

User avatar
Tmutarakhan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8336
Founded: Dec 06, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tmutarakhan » Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:59 am

Hediacrana wrote:Birtherism is back! The very moment a black candidate takes of, people feel a need to discredit them, using whatever stick they can think of.

We need to start circulating the 100% true fact that Trump was born in Jamaica.
That's the Jamaica in Queens, but we don't have to explain that part.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think, and a musical to those who sing.

I am the very model of a Nation States General,
I am a holy terror to apologists Confederal,
When called upon to source a line, I give citations textual,
And argue about Palestine, and marriage homosexual!


A KNIGHT ON KARINZISTAN'S SPECIAL LIST OF POOPHEADS!

User avatar
Tarsonis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12457
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tarsonis » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:18 am

Kowani wrote:
36 Cameras wrote:
Let me rephrase: why shouldn’t parents be allowed to decide where their children go to school?

It’s not like black parents were protesting the bussing. That would be white racists


I’m not sure that’s accurate.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
South Odreria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 521
Founded: Oct 31, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby South Odreria » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:29 am

Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
South Odreria wrote:Morning consult poll (the kindest to Biden) shows him dropping six points - after the first debate.

Meanwhile, I think Buttigieg did better than Harris. Her attack on Biden came off as cynical to me. Either way, the success of those two will probably mean they steal supporters from Warren.


It's state by state polling that really matters as the nomination will be decided thusly. Buttigieg definitely did himself some real good under great pressure. Agree with assessment of Harris.


State by state is even rougher for Biden. Sanders outperforms in Iowa, and the most recent (pre-debate) poll has him leading in New Hampshire. Biden's buffer state is South Carolina but Harris will play hard for it.
Last edited by South Odreria on Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
pro: bad
anti: good

User avatar
Zurkerx
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 7969
Founded: Jan 20, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Zurkerx » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:03 am

Tarsonis wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Biden should have said that then


He should have, but he was caught flatfooted


Maybe the next debate he could clarify that? Unless he's a sinking ship that we'll be hearing SOS.
A Golden Civic: the New Pragmatic Libertarian.
My Words: Indeed, Indubitably & Malarkey
Retired Admin in NSGS and NS Parliament

Accountant, Author, History Buff, Political Junkie
Biden 2020: Vote for America
"Try not to become a person of success, but rather try to become a person of value." Albert Einstein
"Trust, but verify." Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Sidesh0w B0b
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Feb 22, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Sidesh0w B0b » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:07 am

Zurkerx wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
He should have, but he was caught flatfooted


Maybe the next debate he could clarify that? Unless he's a sinking ship that we'll be hearing SOS.


Senator Harris began by praising him for not being a racist and then hit him over the head with the school busing issue from 48 years ago. It's called a planned ambush. Back in the day, the idea was wildly unpopular in both white and black communities. It was an idea that was not one size fits all. Two years after the ruling the OPEC oil embargo struck and some schools were even closed and services curtailed. The matter is NOT relevant to defeating Donald Trump in 2020. It is only relevant to Senator Harris' ambitions for winning the Dem nomination and she scored some points, perhaps temporarily. Now she also has a target on her back in the next debate.

As for the main objective, defeating Donald Trump? No gain on that front and in fact likely a set back. Harris doesn't guarantee her home state of California's EC votes. Any Dem will win the state. I don't see Harris with her own baggage winning enough of the states in the rust belt (racked by the opioid crisis and loss of jobs) back from Trump. Unlikely to win NC or FL either, and the rest of the south she can forget about. However, she could win the popular vote thanks again to a big win in California. She'd likely win the same states HRC won with maybe Michigan but come up short in WI and PA.

User avatar
Sidesh0w B0b
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Feb 22, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Sidesh0w B0b » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:12 am

36 Cameras wrote:
Kowani wrote:It’s not like black parents were protesting the bussing. That would be white racists


Some black parents were afraid that their children would be worse off if they were forcibly bussed to white schools.


Yeah, the issue cut across the racial divide pretty evenly. A lot of people still don't want their kids making long bus rides. Shit happens on buses too. Kamala Harris can sell a few overpriced T-shirts that are unlikely to become collector items. :eyebrow:
Last edited by Sidesh0w B0b on Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12457
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tarsonis » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:34 am

Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Zurkerx wrote:
Maybe the next debate he could clarify that? Unless he's a sinking ship that we'll be hearing SOS.


Senator Harris began by praising him for not being a racist and then hit him over the head with the school busing issue from 48 years ago. It's called a planned ambush. Back in the day, the idea was wildly unpopular in both white and black communities. It was an idea that was not one size fits all. Two years after the ruling the OPEC oil embargo struck and some schools were even closed and services curtailed. The matter is NOT relevant to defeating Donald Trump in 2020. It is only relevant to Senator Harris' ambitions for winning the Dem nomination and she scored some points, perhaps temporarily. Now she also has a target on her back in the next debate.

As for the main objective, defeating Donald Trump? No gain on that front and in fact likely a set back. Harris doesn't guarantee her home state of California's EC votes. Any Dem will win the state. I don't see Harris with her own baggage winning enough of the states in the rust belt (racked by the opioid crisis and loss of jobs) back from Trump. Unlikely to win NC or FL either, and the rest of the south she can forget about. However, she could win the popular vote thanks again to a big win in California. She'd likely win the same states HRC won with maybe Michigan but come up short in WI and PA.


None of the Dems will bring it up, but in the GE she’s gonna get beat round the head with the Willie Brown issue
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Sidesh0w B0b
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Feb 22, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Sidesh0w B0b » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:02 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Senator Harris began by praising him for not being a racist and then hit him over the head with the school busing issue from 48 years ago. It's called a planned ambush. Back in the day, the idea was wildly unpopular in both white and black communities. It was an idea that was not one size fits all. Two years after the ruling the OPEC oil embargo struck and some schools were even closed and services curtailed. The matter is NOT relevant to defeating Donald Trump in 2020. It is only relevant to Senator Harris' ambitions for winning the Dem nomination and she scored some points, perhaps temporarily. Now she also has a target on her back in the next debate.

As for the main objective, defeating Donald Trump? No gain on that front and in fact likely a set back. Harris doesn't guarantee her home state of California's EC votes. Any Dem will win the state. I don't see Harris with her own baggage winning enough of the states in the rust belt (racked by the opioid crisis and loss of jobs) back from Trump. Unlikely to win NC or FL either, and the rest of the south she can forget about. However, she could win the popular vote thanks again to a big win in California. She'd likely win the same states HRC won with maybe Michigan but come up short in WI and PA.


None of the Dems will bring it up, but in the GE she’s gonna get beat round the head with the Willie Brown issue


No doubt ...but I doubt she gets that far. She's only authored three bills in congress which passed into law. She comes across as arrogant more often than not, which wasn't part of Obama's recipe for the nomination. Also arrogance is bigly a Trump trait. This election the Dems need max contrast on the Donald's negative personality but a similar appeal to rust state voters. Biden was born for this role. Then maybe Bernie, both of them represent the Dems best shots. Warren still on the margin of error IMO.

User avatar
Hediacrana
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1211
Founded: Nov 20, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Hediacrana » Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:33 pm

Tmutarakhan wrote:
Hediacrana wrote:Birtherism is back! The very moment a black candidate takes of, people feel a need to discredit them, using whatever stick they can think of.

We need to start circulating the 100% true fact that Trump was born in Jamaica.
That's the Jamaica in Queens, but we don't have to explain that part.

:lol: Now that I think of it, has anyone actually ever seen his birth certificate? No? Highly suspicious indeed.

User avatar
Sybil and the Sybillettes
Attaché
 
Posts: 82
Founded: Jan 21, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sybil and the Sybillettes » Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:38 pm

Hediacrana wrote:
Tmutarakhan wrote:We need to start circulating the 100% true fact that Trump was born in Jamaica.
That's the Jamaica in Queens, but we don't have to explain that part.

:lol: Now that I think of it, has anyone actually ever seen his birth certificate? No? Highly suspicious indeed.

It is being audited by the IRS. 8)

User avatar
Thuzbekistan
Minister
 
Posts: 2185
Founded: Dec 29, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thuzbekistan » Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:46 pm

So I didn't want to watch the first debates because lord almighty, I knew it would be a train wreck. But how on Earth did Biden flounder so hard? Boomers need to get out of politics at this point. Him and Bernie both. When the field narrows, I'll bother watching the debates.
Proud Member of The Western Isles, the Best RP region on NS.
An RP I'm Proud of: Orsandian Civil War
An INTJ, -A/-T

Economic Left/Right: -5.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

User avatar
Hediacrana
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1211
Founded: Nov 20, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Hediacrana » Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:06 pm

Thuzbekistan wrote:So I didn't want to watch the first debates because lord almighty, I knew it would be a train wreck. But how on Earth did Biden flounder so hard? Boomers need to get out of politics at this point. Him and Bernie both. When the field narrows, I'll bother watching the debates.

It was quite astounding; after the spat with Booker right before the debates he (or at least his staff) should have seen coming that someone else would challenge him on his remarks (which were strategically quite dumb to begin with).

User avatar
Thuzbekistan
Minister
 
Posts: 2185
Founded: Dec 29, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thuzbekistan » Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:18 pm

Hediacrana wrote:
Thuzbekistan wrote:So I didn't want to watch the first debates because lord almighty, I knew it would be a train wreck. But how on Earth did Biden flounder so hard? Boomers need to get out of politics at this point. Him and Bernie both. When the field narrows, I'll bother watching the debates.

It was quite astounding; after the spat with Booker right before the debates he (or at least his staff) should have seen coming that someone else would challenge him on his remarks (which were strategically quite dumb to begin with).

I mean, I understand where the man is coming from in justifying his working relationship with segregationists. It was a different time. On any major issue, I would hope that both sides could work together to reach a conclusion. However, it was a different time. The man doesn't need a political career anymore. I'm glad Booker and Harris gave him what he deserved. And I hope it will be the end of the road for him.

He should have run in 2016. He could have beaten Trump, I think.
Proud Member of The Western Isles, the Best RP region on NS.
An RP I'm Proud of: Orsandian Civil War
An INTJ, -A/-T

Economic Left/Right: -5.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

User avatar
Sidesh0w B0b
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Feb 22, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Sidesh0w B0b » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:20 pm

Thuzbekistan wrote:
Hediacrana wrote:It was quite astounding; after the spat with Booker right before the debates he (or at least his staff) should have seen coming that someone else would challenge him on his remarks (which were strategically quite dumb to begin with).

I mean, I understand where the man is coming from in justifying his working relationship with segregationists. It was a different time. On any major issue, I would hope that both sides could work together to reach a conclusion. However, it was a different time. The man doesn't need a political career anymore. I'm glad Booker and Harris gave him what he deserved. And I hope it will be the end of the road for him.

He should have run in 2016. He could have beaten Trump, I think.


Yes, his job as a 29 year old senator in 1975 was to listen, speak his mind and help create legislation that moved the ball forward. He did that. His job was not constantly posturing, thinking of raising money for reelection and devising ways of manipulating public opinion with lies, fake drama and misrepresentation. Times were different then to be sure, but no matter how times change people still have the same potential flaws. Joe's small flaws have been over exaggerated while Trump's are extraordinary.

What the man has earned over the years is respect for his ethics and accomplishments from his peers and those across the aisle, and he usually gets it too. Booker and Harris showed themselves as typical political opportunists. Building a mountain out of a molehill for political gain and using the media to amplify it. No doubt that is part and parcel of politics. Their problem is they won't earn any respect for how they've seized on next to nothing to criticize Biden.

Joe hasn't enriched himself using his position over the years as have most politicians. I'm sure he's had plenty of offers to go off lobbying for special interests. But that's not who he is. That what makes him worthy of running for the highest office if he wants and if he feels up to it. Especially against the likes of Trump, who is also in his 70s. As for 2016, Biden didn't feel up to it. Everybody knows why, and yes, he probably would have won.

Most knowledgeable people that wish to support Joe will likely do so. He's not pulling out. He's the front runner by a lot and for good reason. He has the best resume for defeating Trump in a fifty state race, effectively. Booker and Harris do not. The name of the 2020 game is end the Trump presidency. Not lose to him with a candidate with a narrow appeal.

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33550
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:26 pm

Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Thuzbekistan wrote:I mean, I understand where the man is coming from in justifying his working relationship with segregationists. It was a different time. On any major issue, I would hope that both sides could work together to reach a conclusion. However, it was a different time. The man doesn't need a political career anymore. I'm glad Booker and Harris gave him what he deserved. And I hope it will be the end of the road for him.

He should have run in 2016. He could have beaten Trump, I think.


Yes, his job as a 29 year old senator in 1975 was to listen, speak his mind and help create legislation that moved the ball forward. He did that. His job was not constantly posturing, thinking of raising money for reelection and devising ways of manipulating public opinion with lies, fake drama and misrepresentation. Times were different then to be sure, but no matter how times change people still have the same potential flaws. Joe's small flaws have been over exaggerated while Trump's are extraordinary.

What the man has earned over the years is respect for his ethics and accomplishments from his peers and those across the aisle, and he usually gets it too. Booker and Harris showed themselves as typical political opportunists. Building a mountain out of a molehill for political gain and using the media to amplify it. No doubt that is part and parcel of politics. Their problem is they won't earn any respect for how they've seized on next to nothing to criticize Biden.

Joe hasn't enriched himself using his position over the years as have most politicians. I'm sure he's had plenty of offers to go off lobbying for special interests. But that's not who he is. That what makes him worthy of running for the highest office if he wants and if he feels up to it. Especially against the likes of Trump, who is also in his 70s. As for 2016, Biden didn't feel up to it. Everybody knows why, and yes, he probably would have won.

Most knowledgeable people that wish to support Joe will likely do so. He's not pulling out. He's the front runner by a lot and for good reason. He has the best resume for defeating Trump in a fifty state race, effectively. Booker and Harris do not. The name of the 2020 game is end the Trump presidency. Not lose to him with a candidate with a narrow appeal.


Well I guess I better hope the not-so-knowledgable turn out in force.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Sidesh0w B0b
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Feb 22, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Sidesh0w B0b » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:31 pm

Telconi wrote:
Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Yes, his job as a 29 year old senator in 1975 was to listen, speak his mind and help create legislation that moved the ball forward. He did that. His job was not constantly posturing, thinking of raising money for reelection and devising ways of manipulating public opinion with lies, fake drama and misrepresentation. Times were different then to be sure, but no matter how times change people still have the same potential flaws. Joe's small flaws have been over exaggerated while Trump's are extraordinary.

What the man has earned over the years is respect for his ethics and accomplishments from his peers and those across the aisle, and he usually gets it too. Booker and Harris showed themselves as typical political opportunists. Building a mountain out of a molehill for political gain and using the media to amplify it. No doubt that is part and parcel of politics. Their problem is they won't earn any respect for how they've seized on next to nothing to criticize Biden.

Joe hasn't enriched himself using his position over the years as have most politicians. I'm sure he's had plenty of offers to go off lobbying for special interests. But that's not who he is. That what makes him worthy of running for the highest office if he wants and if he feels up to it. Especially against the likes of Trump, who is also in his 70s. As for 2016, Biden didn't feel up to it. Everybody knows why, and yes, he probably would have won.

Most knowledgeable people that wish to support Joe will likely do so. He's not pulling out. He's the front runner by a lot and for good reason. He has the best resume for defeating Trump in a fifty state race, effectively. Booker and Harris do not. The name of the 2020 game is end the Trump presidency. Not lose to him with a candidate with a narrow appeal.


Well I guess I better hope the not-so-knowledgable turn out in force.


I guess there's always been people hoping against hope.

User avatar
Thuzbekistan
Minister
 
Posts: 2185
Founded: Dec 29, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thuzbekistan » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:39 pm

Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Thuzbekistan wrote:I mean, I understand where the man is coming from in justifying his working relationship with segregationists. It was a different time. On any major issue, I would hope that both sides could work together to reach a conclusion. However, it was a different time. The man doesn't need a political career anymore. I'm glad Booker and Harris gave him what he deserved. And I hope it will be the end of the road for him.

He should have run in 2016. He could have beaten Trump, I think.


Yes, his job as a 29 year old senator in 1975 was to listen, speak his mind and help create legislation that moved the ball forward. He did that. His job was not constantly posturing, thinking of raising money for reelection and devising ways of manipulating public opinion with lies, fake drama and misrepresentation. Times were different then to be sure, but no matter how times change people still have the same potential flaws. Joe's small flaws have been over exaggerated while Trump's are extraordinary.

What the man has earned over the years is respect for his ethics and accomplishments from his peers and those across the aisle, and he usually gets it too. Booker and Harris showed themselves as typical political opportunists. Building a mountain out of a molehill for political gain and using the media to amplify it. No doubt that is part and parcel of politics. Their problem is they won't earn any respect for how they've seized on next to nothing to criticize Biden.

Joe hasn't enriched himself using his position over the years as have most politicians. I'm sure he's had plenty of offers to go off lobbying for special interests. But that's not who he is. That what makes him worthy of running for the highest office if he wants and if he feels up to it. Especially against the likes of Trump, who is also in his 70s. As for 2016, Biden didn't feel up to it. Everybody knows why, and yes, he probably would have won.

Most knowledgeable people that wish to support Joe will likely do so. He's not pulling out. He's the front runner by a lot and for good reason. He has the best resume for defeating Trump in a fifty state race, effectively. Booker and Harris do not. The name of the 2020 game is end the Trump presidency. Not lose to him with a candidate with a narrow appeal.

These candidates are not to be compared to trump. If we are ever to move past this trump era of infantile behavior, we need to be selecting candidates that are worthy on their own rather than compared to literally the worst example in our political system.
Proud Member of The Western Isles, the Best RP region on NS.
An RP I'm Proud of: Orsandian Civil War
An INTJ, -A/-T

Economic Left/Right: -5.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33550
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:42 pm

Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Well I guess I better hope the not-so-knowledgable turn out in force.


I guess there's always been people hoping against hope.


Of course there has, people want different things, and hope is universal.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Tarsonis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12457
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tarsonis » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:50 pm

Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Thuzbekistan wrote:I mean, I understand where the man is coming from in justifying his working relationship with segregationists. It was a different time. On any major issue, I would hope that both sides could work together to reach a conclusion. However, it was a different time. The man doesn't need a political career anymore. I'm glad Booker and Harris gave him what he deserved. And I hope it will be the end of the road for him.

He should have run in 2016. He could have beaten Trump, I think.


Yes, his job as a 29 year old senator in 1975 was to listen, speak his mind and help create legislation that moved the ball forward. He did that. His job was not constantly posturing, thinking of raising money for reelection and devising ways of manipulating public opinion with lies, fake drama and misrepresentation. Times were different then to be sure, but no matter how times change people still have the same potential flaws. Joe's small flaws have been over exaggerated while Trump's are extraordinary.

What the man has earned over the years is respect for his ethics and accomplishments from his peers and those across the aisle, and he usually gets it too. Booker and Harris showed themselves as typical political opportunists. Building a mountain out of a molehill for political gain and using the media to amplify it. No doubt that is part and parcel of politics. Their problem is they won't earn any respect for how they've seized on next to nothing to criticize Biden.

Joe hasn't enriched himself using his position over the years as have most politicians. I'm sure he's had plenty of offers to go off lobbying for special interests. But that's not who he is. That what makes him worthy of running for the highest office if he wants and if he feels up to it. Especially against the likes of Trump, who is also in his 70s. As for 2016, Biden didn't feel up to it. Everybody knows why, and yes, he probably would have won.

Most knowledgeable people that wish to support Joe will likely do so. He's not pulling out. He's the front runner by a lot and for good reason. He has the best resume for defeating Trump in a fifty state race, effectively. Booker and Harris do not. The name of the 2020 game is end the Trump presidency. Not lose to him with a candidate with a narrow appeal.


Guess I better vote in Mass’s primary then
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31499
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:01 pm

The money metric for the debate is coming in, though gets official on Sunday when quarterly fundraising is reported.
California Sen. Kamala Harris' presidential campaign announced Saturday that it raised $2 million in 24 hours following her breakout moment in Thursday's 2020 Democratic debate.

The donations came from more than 63,000 people -- over half of those, 58%, were first time donors, according to the campaign.
The average contribution was $30, the campaign said.

The campaign said it was its single best fundraising day since Harris launched her bid in January.
...
The campaign said it also quadrupled its share of donations from the first four voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
...
The spike in donations comes just ahead of Sunday's fundraising deadline for the second quarter -- a key test for the crowded field of the two dozen candidates vying for their party's nomination.

Julián Castro's breakout performance in Wednesday night's debate helped drive nearly three times the number of donations than the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, had previously collected on his best fundraising day, his campaign announced this week.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker's campaign said it saw a surge in online fundraising fueled largely by first-time donors after the debate.
The campaign for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee also touted a jump in fundraising post-debate, saying that it saw its best day since he announced his climate-focused 2020 bid.

Other candidates are using the final push to the fundraising deadline to inundate their supporters with emails and texts, asking for contributions.

Another Texan in the race, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, sent an email Saturday, imploring his supporters to help him reach a $600,000 goal before Sunday's end-of-quarter deadline.

The Harris campaign said Saturday that fundraising has continued to be strong -- at higher levels than before Thursday's debate.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Sidesh0w B0b
Diplomat
 
Posts: 747
Founded: Feb 22, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Sidesh0w B0b » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:18 pm

Thuzbekistan wrote:
Sidesh0w B0b wrote:
Yes, his job as a 29 year old senator in 1975 was to listen, speak his mind and help create legislation that moved the ball forward. He did that. His job was not constantly posturing, thinking of raising money for reelection and devising ways of manipulating public opinion with lies, fake drama and misrepresentation. Times were different then to be sure, but no matter how times change people still have the same potential flaws. Joe's small flaws have been over exaggerated while Trump's are extraordinary.

What the man has earned over the years is respect for his ethics and accomplishments from his peers and those across the aisle, and he usually gets it too. Booker and Harris showed themselves as typical political opportunists. Building a mountain out of a molehill for political gain and using the media to amplify it. No doubt that is part and parcel of politics. Their problem is they won't earn any respect for how they've seized on next to nothing to criticize Biden.

Joe hasn't enriched himself using his position over the years as have most politicians. I'm sure he's had plenty of offers to go off lobbying for special interests. But that's not who he is. That what makes him worthy of running for the highest office if he wants and if he feels up to it. Especially against the likes of Trump, who is also in his 70s. As for 2016, Biden didn't feel up to it. Everybody knows why, and yes, he probably would have won.

Most knowledgeable people that wish to support Joe will likely do so. He's not pulling out. He's the front runner by a lot and for good reason. He has the best resume for defeating Trump in a fifty state race, effectively. Booker and Harris do not. The name of the 2020 game is end the Trump presidency. Not lose to him with a candidate with a narrow appeal.

These candidates are not to be compared to trump. If we are ever to move past this trump era of infantile behavior, we need to be selecting candidates that are worthy on their own rather than compared to literally the worst example in our political system.



They aren't comparable to Biden, which was the point I was making. Booker and Harris have none of Biden's upside for winning a 50 state election.

Everybody knows Trump is in a league all his own.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dumb Ideologies, Free Las Pinas, Google [Bot], Greed and Death, Kyldellian Halon, Nova Vandalia, Outer Bratorke, RiderSyl, The Alma Mater, The Emerald Legion, The Hindustani State, Thermodolia

Advertisement

Remove ads