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

[Gormwood]

Ah ok, thank you.

I also want to take stuff from how Jesus acted. Not all of it, I'm no Jesus figure, I'm also not nearly good enough to try to be a flawed but genuinely faithful/loyal/christian imitation of him, but I think politically I'll take some cues from him, but in a non preachy way.

I would say that Jesus is good for domestic policy, at least to some degree.

The "Christians" who voted for Trump will denounce Jesus as a bleeding heart socialist.

[Uiiop]

I mean be cynical about the media as you want. That doesn't make any opinion a direct order from up high.

Never said it was. Everyone here has apparently missed the point, and with the level of fartsniffing going on, I’m not inclined to try and correct it.

Fart-sniffing over credentials is dumb.
Hence why we should discuss the point at hand rather than focusing on it. Even in reaction.

The question should've been asked to prove how what a parent company does inherently counts as direct proof of anything the child company. One can't just assert that(as much i find it believable mind) that CNN takes it's cues like that.

[Cannot think of a name]

I mean be cynical about the media as you want. That doesn't make any opinion a direct order from up high.

Never said it was. Everyone here has apparently missed the point, and with the level of fartsniffing going on, I’m not inclined to try and correct it.

Now that we can move on to actual election discussion, say what you want about gaffs, if you have a lot you know how to recover.

"I heard and I listened to and I respect Sen. Harris," Biden said at a Rainbow PUSH Coalition event on the west side of Chicago. "But, you know, we all know that 30 seconds to 60 seconds in a campaign debate exchange can't do justice to a lifetime committed to civil rights."
Biden went on to deliver a lengthy defense of his civil rights record, reading from a Teleprompter as he sought to limit the damage of Thursday night's debate. He sought to draw a distinction between federally mandated busing, which he opposed, and states or municipalities ordering busing. He also insisted he "did support federal action to address the root causes of segregation," pointing to his opposition to racial discrimination in mortgage lending and votes he cast that drew the ire of his white constituents.

[Kowani]

I would say that Jesus is good for domestic policy, at least to some degree.

I very much agree, just gotta not be a preacher.

Foreign Policy, I'll be a weird mixture of Bismarck and Jesus.

…You’re running for City Council. There’s no foreign policy unless you’re right on the border.

I would say that Jesus is good for domestic policy, at least to some degree.

The "Christians" who voted for Trump will denounce Jesus as a bleeding heart socialist.

He’s a brown middle easterner. He’d be lucky if that’s all they called him.

[Tarsonis]

Never said it was. Everyone here has apparently missed the point, and with the level of fartsniffing going on, I’m not inclined to try and correct it.

Fart-sniffing over credentials is dumb.
Hence why we should discuss the point at hand rather than focusing on it. Even in reaction.

The question should've been asked to prove how what a parent company does inherently counts as direct proof of anything the child company. One can't just assert that(as much i find it believable mind) that CNN takes it's cues like that.

Sure, but when someone makes the argument and tries to assert they’re correct based on their credentials, or in this case, lack there of, then it becomes an issue.

[Kowani]

…You’re running for City Council. There’s no foreign policy unless you’re right on the border.


He’s a brown middle easterner. He’d be lucky if that’s all they called him.

1: In the future I mean.

Don’t be Bismarck. Be Robert Schumann.

2: I know right?

I'm closer biologically to Jesus than most White People.

...And I act white as hell!

You’re Latino, right?

[Tarsonis]

Never said it was. Everyone here has apparently missed the point, and with the level of fartsniffing going on, I’m not inclined to try and correct it.

No, just not gonna wade through this

[Uiiop]

Fart-sniffing over credentials is dumb.
Hence why we should discuss the point at hand rather than focusing on it. Even in reaction.

The question should've been asked to prove how what a parent company does inherently counts as direct proof of anything the child company. One can't just assert that(as much i find it believable mind) that CNN takes it's cues like that.

Sure, but when someone makes the argument and tries to assert their correct based on their credentials, or in this case, lack there of, then it becomes an issue.

I'll grant that.

It's just isn't effective to say "You don't have credentials" or only eye-roll when someone new does.

Why do they matter by themselves? Tell em to actually give us data or make an actual rebuttal.

[Cannot think of a name]

And now for the most useless metric for the debates...what the director of debate (show of hands, who knew that was a position?) at Southern Illinois University would give the participants for a grade. Because content.

The raw grades are:
Pete Buttegieg A-
Kamala Harris A-
John Hickenlooper (which one was he?) B
Andrew Yang C+
Marriane Williamson C (seriously)
Bernie Sanders C-
Michael Bennet D
Eric Swalwell D
Kristen Gillibrand D
Joe Biden D-

Only graded Thursday, apparently.

For the Williamson grade this is what he said:

This grade surprises me, too. But I'm not changing my mind. I liked her entire first half of the debate. Sure, she's odd, but I found it refreshing (odd doesn't mean stupid). And her closing was true to herself as she directed her words at President Trump: "Mr. President, if you're listening, I want you to hear me, please... I have a feeling you know what you're doing. I'm going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field. And, sir, love will win."

[Tarsonis]

Sure, but when someone makes the argument and tries to assert their correct based on their credentials, or in this case, lack there of, then it becomes an issue.

I'll grant that.

It's just isn't effective to say "You don't have credentials" or only eye-roll when someone new does.

Why do they matter by themselves? Tell em to actually give us data or make an actual rebuttal.

Oh I wasn’t eye rolling at Ctoan for that, it was for everything else

[Uiiop]

That means less not more.

Jesus christ. I took it in college, including a degree that focused on media from the University of California and a career that has revolved around making content for national networks and providers including news programing and he's not wrong. Does that satisfy your dick measuring? Is that sufficient enough for your little fucking standards or do we have to drag this personal bullshit out for more pages because the thread wasn't about you for half a damn second?

As much and as i find his argumentation flawed along with the fact however flawed this credential waving bit on y'all is; it isn't right to call it "Fart-sniffing" now that i think about.

That in no way makes your armchair mind-reading accurate.

Attacking ones credentials in an argument (however flawed it is in this case) is in no indicative of an ego-boosting intent.

[Kowani]

Don’t be Bismarck. Be Robert Schumann.

You’re Latino, right?

1: I'm pragmatic, willing to engage in foreign conflict as I've studied foreign policy and have a solid grasp that foreign policy isn't as all happy and nice as everyone would like and requires a strategic mindset willing to fight war and contain geopolitical threats whilst bending over backwards to help people wherever they can via a variety of methods.

Lemme give you a tip. War isn’t popular. Don’t do it.

I feel people try to frame it as one of those 3 mutually exclusive approaches and also act too recklessly, I myself have taken to a more traditional strategic approach with a modern, compassionate mindset, who would not rush recklessly into war. Case in point: I hate Iran, but War with Iran would be a disaster. It's reckless, not strategic, and only harms our people and others.

Fair.

[Uiiop]

I'll grant that.

It's just isn't effective to say "You don't have credentials" or only eye-roll when someone new does.

Why do they matter by themselves? Tell em to actually give us data or make an actual rebuttal.

Oh I wasn’t eye rolling at Ctoan for that, it was for everything else

Fair enough. Though i would.

Credentials by themselves mean jack.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'll grant that.

It's just isn't effective to say "You don't have credentials" or only eye-roll when someone new does.

Why do they matter by themselves? Tell em to actually give us data or make an actual rebuttal.

Oh I wasn’t eye rolling at Ctoan for that, it was for everything else

Cool. Let's drag this out for three more pages. That's super productive and will make all involved seem super sophisticated.


Or, we could discuss the candidates instead of ourselves. Like Harris has her own post debate damage control to do.

Kamala Harris was one of two candidates who raised their hands when asked at Thursday night's debate if they would get rid of private health insurance, but the California senator said Friday she'd misunderstood the question.

"No," Harris told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" when asked if she'd work to abolish private health insurance in favor of "Medicare for All" if elected president.

But in her subsequent answers, she struggled to clarify her position about the role of private insurance under her plan, something that has become a pattern in recent months as Democratic candidates look to navigate politically charged questions about Medicare for All's policy implications.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Never said it was. Everyone here has apparently missed the point, and with the level of fartsniffing going on, I’m not inclined to try and correct it.

Now that we can move on to actual election discussion, say what you want about gaffs, if you have a lot you know how to recover.

"I heard and I listened to and I respect Sen. Harris," Biden said at a Rainbow PUSH Coalition event on the west side of Chicago. "But, you know, we all know that 30 seconds to 60 seconds in a campaign debate exchange can't do justice to a lifetime committed to civil rights."
Biden went on to deliver a lengthy defense of his civil rights record, reading from a Teleprompter as he sought to limit the damage of Thursday night's debate. He sought to draw a distinction between federally mandated busing, which he opposed, and states or municipalities ordering busing. He also insisted he "did support federal action to address the root causes of segregation," pointing to his opposition to racial discrimination in mortgage lending and votes he cast that drew the ire of his white constituents.

Biden's veracity is solid. He's no elitist either. He's always been an accessible human being, accountable for any faults.

Joe's personality is diametrically opposed to the Donald. Mr. Trump is a shameless self promoting liar. Never able to own up to his most minor foibles, much less his many great lapses in judgement.

[Loben The 2nd]

Cool. Let's drag this out for three more pages. That's super productive and will make all involved seem super sophisticated.


Or, we could discuss the candidates instead of ourselves. Like Harris has her own post debate damage control to do.

This will make her seem dishonest and weak.

>implying she isn’t dishonest

[Gormwood]

This will make her seem dishonest and weak.

>implying she isn’t dishonest

>but Trump is honest somehow

[Sidesh0w B0b]

And now for the most useless metric for the debates...what the director of debate (show of hands, who knew that was a position?) at Southern Illinois University would give the participants for a grade. Because content.

The raw grades are:
Pete Buttegieg A-
Kamala Harris A-
John Hickenlooper (which one was he?) B
Andrew Yang C+
Marriane Williamson C (seriously)
Bernie Sanders C-
Michael Bennet D
Eric Swalwell D
Kristen Gillibrand D
Joe Biden D-

Only graded Thursday, apparently.

For the Williamson grade this is what he said:

Am I the only one who thought Bennet did well by focusing on policy?

Honestly, he managed a decent accounting of himself. Some of the more pedantic posters here were busy making fun of his looks and pointing out his name as commonplace. Weird.

[Loben The 2nd]

>implying she isn’t dishonest

>but Trump is honest somehow

Trump is a liar, a crook, a raving lunatic and most likely does rails in the Oval Office.

Yet somehow I find him more appealing then a Californian who supports everything I can barely tolerate.

[Uiiop]

Oh I wasn’t eye rolling at Ctoan for that, it was for everything else

Cool. Let's drag this out for three more pages. That's super productive and will make all involved seem super sophisticated.


Or, we could discuss the candidates instead of ourselves. Like Harris has her own post debate damage control to do.

Kamala Harris was one of two candidates who raised their hands when asked at Thursday night's debate if they would get rid of private health insurance, but the California senator said Friday she'd misunderstood the question.

"No," Harris told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" when asked if she'd work to abolish private health insurance in favor of "Medicare for All" if elected president.

But in her subsequent answers, she struggled to clarify her position about the role of private insurance under her plan, something that has become a pattern in recent months as Democratic candidates look to navigate politically charged questions about Medicare for All's policy implications.

Like y'know having your only critique being character attacks? doing and getting stingy with how people respond isn't going to help no matter how many stories they link.

We'll see if her polling can cushion that slip-up. Can't really say anything other than anecdotals.

[Tarsonis]

Oh I wasn’t eye rolling at Ctoan for that, it was for everything else

Cool. Let's drag this out for three more pages. That's super productive and will make all involved seem super sophisticated.


Or, we could discuss the candidates instead of ourselves. Like Harris has her own post debate damage control to do.

Kamala Harris was one of two candidates who raised their hands when asked at Thursday night's debate if they would get rid of private health insurance, but the California senator said Friday she'd misunderstood the question.

"No," Harris told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" when asked if she'd work to abolish private health insurance in favor of "Medicare for All" if elected president.

But in her subsequent answers, she struggled to clarify her position about the role of private insurance under her plan, something that has become a pattern in recent months as Democratic candidates look to navigate politically charged questions about Medicare for All's policy implications.

Whatever.

I don’t know why she should be doing damage control. The insurance industry needs to be shot in face.

[Fartsniffage]

I mean be cynical about the media as you want. That doesn't make any opinion a direct order from up high.

Never said it was. Everyone here has apparently missed the point, and with the level of fartsniffing going on, I’m not inclined to try and correct it.

I'm a verb now? What did I do?

[Sidesh0w B0b]

>but Trump is honest somehow

Trump is a liar, a crook, a raving lunatic and most likely does rails in the Oval Office.

Yet somehow I find him more appealing then a Californian who supports everything I can barely tolerate.

Not cynical enough. Moving on.

[Kowani]

Yang’s saying that NBC kept cutting off his mic.

[Loben The 2nd]

Yang’s saying that NBC kept cutting off his mic.

Probably a technical issue.

Doubt