2020 US General Election Thread IV: The Battle Begins

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Sanders did pretty well, except for his denying Nina Turner and kid glove handling Joe Biden. He needs to be more aggressive against his opponents. But his policy positions are still solid and at least he went after Pete.

He's probably conscious of the fact that he's often labeled as mean old man by anti-Bernie democrats, deservedly or not, and trying to mitigate that.

Maybe not wanting to hurt Joe's feelings for personal reasons.
Or it could be chivalry, feeling sorry for Joe
Or not wanting to be the one who fells Joe of a heart attack


EDIT: Top of Page AGAIN. It's not on purpose I swear.

[Cannot think of a name]

He's probably conscious of the fact that he's often labeled as mean old man by anti-Bernie democrats, deservedly or not, and trying to mitigate that.

Maybe not wanting to hurt Joe's feelings for personal reasons.
Or it could be chivalry, feeling sorry for Joe
Or not wanting to be the one who fells Joe of a heart attack


EDIT: Top of Page AGAIN. It's not on purpose I swear.

Or he's cognoscente of the fact that very soon they all go back to being on the same team.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Christie is big mad that Buttigieg for decriminalizing drugs or something.

I looked at Buttigieg's website. "Not imprisoning drug users" is mentioned a few times but not "decriminalization".

I conclude he won't fall foul of the factcheckers but the woman who accused him thus … will.

(Pardon me, I don't know the names of the ABC hosts and aren't even sure there were only 2 of them, question time was when I would look away).


If drugs were completely decriminalized then judges would have no power to require rehab. There's a significant difference.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Maybe not wanting to hurt Joe's feelings for personal reasons.
Or it could be chivalry, feeling sorry for Joe
Or not wanting to be the one who fells Joe of a heart attack


EDIT: Top of Page AGAIN. It's not on purpose I swear.

Or he's cognoscente of the fact that very soon they all go back to being on the same team.

They're still the front runners so I doubt they'll be on the same team, until the Convention. Not that soon.

Maybe it's even simpler: neither of them attacked anyone so they didn't attack each other. And it only seems remarkable because the front runners attacking each other is expected always?

[Alien Space Bats]

Damn, that is actually is a good idea to use his faith, although wouldn't the "gay" part still be tough for them to swallow? I mean, older African Americans and Hispanics tend not to embrace that well. That would be my only concern though I'm surprised he hasn't done this strategy yet. The collapse of Biden and Klobuchar would too though Biden's fall would help Sanders as well; Warren dropping out early would too. Needless to say, it'll be an interesting race and we'll see how the Candidates handle themselves tonight on the debate stage.

Interestingly enough, I heard an African-American commentator on MSNBC (whose name I can't recall) suggest that African-Americans are less concerned about Pete Buttigieg's sexual orientation on the basis of their own feelings about being LGBTQ (and all that implies) than they are about White America's feelings on the matter. He asserted that they want to see Trump beaten (largely because of his acceptance of White Supremacist activism as "O.K."), which has led them into making the "electability" argument foremost in their minds. Thus, if they worry that a gay man can't be elected President, they won't vote for one.

This explains their support for Joe Biden, and it might explain part of their reluctance to support either Sanders or Warren. Consequently, if Buttigieg is able to win big among white voters in spite of being gay, that might well make it possible for African-American Democrats to support him as well.

This fits the way black voters responded to Obama. Before he beat Hillary in Iowa (back in 2008), Obama enjoyed very little support with African-American Democrats. Then, too, Hillary (like Biden) saw South Carolina as her "firewall", largely thanks to her massive support among black voters. But after Obama won in Iowa and did well in New Hampshire (a strong second-place finish behind Clinton), those same black voters flipped over and very quickly came to embrace Obama as a viable candidate.

[South Odreria 2]

Yang is probably my preferred candidate at this point after his answer about human value - it was an important message, a moving one, a neglected one, and a winning one.
Great night for Klobuchar. She would be a very very strong running mate for Sanders.

[San Lumen]

Yang is probably my preferred candidate at this point after his answer about human value - it was an important message, a moving one, a neglected one, and a winning one.
Great night for Klobuchar. She would be a very very strong running mate for Sanders.

she would be a great running mate for any Democrat

[Cannot think of a name]

Great night for Klobuchar. She would be a very very strong running mate for Sanders.

I was wondering if this was the moment that Klobuchar hit a bunch of running mate short lists.

[Albrenia]

Klobuchar sounds like a Pokemon in my head... now I can't get Pokemon Trainer Sanders out of my head...

Damnit.

[Pasong Tirad]

Great night for Klobuchar. She would be a very very strong running mate for Sanders.

I was wondering if this was the moment that Klobuchar hit a bunch of running mate short lists.

She's definitely hit something.

[Alien Space Bats]

The wealth tax is another good proposal to raise money and to level the playing field.

You do realize that a wealth tax would be unconstitutional, right?

[Telconi]

Klobuchar sounds like a Pokemon in my head... now I can't get Pokemon Trainer Sanders out of my head...

Damnit.

Crazy Old Commie Sanders wants to fight!

Crazy Old Commie Sanders sent out... KLOBUCHAR!

[Telconi]

The wealth tax is another good proposal to raise money and to level the playing field.

You do realize that a wealth tax would be unconstitutional, right?

Not if your pocket judges say it's not.

[Shofercia]

Klobuchar sounds like a Pokemon in my head... now I can't get Pokemon Trainer Sanders out of my head... Damnit.

I was wondering if this was the moment that Klobuchar hit a bunch of running mate short lists.

Great night for Klobuchar. She would be a very very strong running mate for Sanders.

Great night for Klobuchar...

she would be a great running mate for any Democrat

Whoah, Klobuchar as a good running mate? No way. Who could've seen this coming:

...you're quoting a post that attempts to claim that I'm a "Trump Lover" for bashing Bolton. I'd appreciate a disclaimer that it's total and fucking bullshit. If I was a "Trump Lover" I'd be rooting for Harris or Biden to win the primary, since Trump will eat them for lunch in the general election. Instead I'm pointing out a team that can actually beat Trump: Sanders-Klobuchar. It'd make no sense for me to do that as a Trump Lover.

Oh yeah. Everyone with their partisan blinders off. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are going to be Swing States. Klobuchar appeals to those states. It's really just that simple. But please, continue to ignore what I'm saying, it's not like I constantly get these predictions right... oh wai-

As for your inquiry, CTOAN, if the candidates were paying any reasonable amount of attention, they really should've had her on their short lists. This would be a mere confirmation, rather than an a-ha moment. Only way she can fuck it up, is have a terrible Super Tuesday, (where she doesn't make top four in the Rust Belt States) or if she stays in the race past Super Tuesday, (provided that she's not in the top three for all of the Super Tuesday states,) hence diluting the vote and being presented as a Super Delegate Slut. Again, she hasn't done this yet, since Super Tuesday hasn't yet occurred, so no, I'm not calling her a slut.

[Alien Space Bats]

OK, humor me: What is Sanders planning on doing to help deindustrialized cities and towns in the Rust Belt?

I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I imagine it to be some combination of promising better trade deals, the federal jobs guarantee included in the Green New Deal, and infrastructure spending. Hang on, someone posted something earlier
*checks thread*
Here it is:

Workplace Democracy
- Double union membership within Bernie’s first term.
- Establish federal protections against the firing of workers for any reason other than “just cause.”
- Provide unions the ability to organize through a majority sign up process and enact “first contract” provisions to ensure companies cannot prevent a union from forming by denying a first contract.
- Deny federal contracts to companies that pay poverty wages, outsource jobs overseas, engage in union busting, deny good benefits, and pay CEOs outrageous compensation packages
- Eliminate “Right to Work for Less” laws and guarantees the right to unionize for workers historically excluded from labor protections, like farm workers and domestic workers.

There are definitely more I can point out, but the workplace democracy part will appeal to white working class voters. Other issues like the GND and college for all will appeal to young voters. It's about turning out the base, but Bernie will also convert some white working class voters.

None of which would actually serve to bring jobs back to the deindustrialized towns and cities of the Rust Belt.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The wealth tax is another good proposal to raise money and to level the playing field.

You do realize that a wealth tax would be unconstitutional, right?

I've heard that, but the claim didn't come with details of why. Can only tax transfers of money or something.

[Alien Space Bats]

Husband, not partner. He and Chas are married, with a one-eyed rescue dog at home to boot.

Psst, husbands are partners...

No, a "partner" is an unmarried "other". Being married is considerably more attached than being "partners".

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Klobuchar sounds like a Pokemon in my head... now I can't get Pokemon Trainer Sanders out of my head... Damnit.

I was wondering if this was the moment that Klobuchar hit a bunch of running mate short lists.

Great night for Klobuchar. She would be a very very strong running mate for Sanders.

she would be a great running mate for any Democrat

Whoah, Klobuchar as a good running mate? No way. Who could've seen this coming:

...you're quoting a post that attempts to claim that I'm a "Trump Lover" for bashing Bolton. I'd appreciate a disclaimer that it's total and fucking bullshit. If I was a "Trump Lover" I'd be rooting for Harris or Biden to win the primary, since Trump will eat them for lunch in the general election. Instead I'm pointing out a team that can actually beat Trump: Sanders-Klobuchar. It'd make no sense for me to do that as a Trump Lover.

Oh yeah. Everyone with their partisan blinders off. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are going to be Swing States. Klobuchar appeals to those states. It's really just that simple. But please, continue to ignore what I'm saying, it's not like I constantly get these predictions right... oh wai-

As for your inquiry, CTOAN, if the candidates were paying any reasonable amount of attention, they really should've had her on their short lists. This would be a mere confirmation, rather than an a-ha moment. Only way she can fuck it up, is have a terrible Super Tuesday, (where she doesn't make top four in the Rust Belt States) or if she stays in the race past Super Tuesday, (provided that she's not in the top three for all of the Super Tuesday states,) hence diluting the vote and being presented as a Super Delegate Slut. Again, she hasn't done this yet, since Super Tuesday hasn't yet occurred, so no, I'm not calling her a slut.

Then one of the other candidates should make her an offer now, before she has any delegates at all. (Or 1, I'm not sure).

The problem with having a swag of delegates is it would give her power (kingmaker) and then anyone who picks her as VP looks like they were forced to.

[Telconi]

Psst, husbands are partners...

No, a "partner" is an unmarried "other". Being married is considerably more attached than being "partners".

Depends on who you ask I suppose.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Psst, husbands are partners...

No, a "partner" is an unmarried "other". Being married is considerably more attached than being "partners".

I didn't know they were married so I erred on the side of not claiming something I didn't know. It would be more offensive to say "married" if they are not, than to say "partner" if they were married. Or at least I thought.

Another thing, I do not regard a married state as necessarily more attached than an unmarried one. Some people choose not to marry, it's their right.

[USS Monitor]

Klobuchar sounds like a Pokemon in my head... now I can't get Pokemon Trainer Sanders out of my head...

Damnit.

Clearly a fire pokemon.

Damn, that is actually is a good idea to use his faith, although wouldn't the "gay" part still be tough for them to swallow? I mean, older African Americans and Hispanics tend not to embrace that well. That would be my only concern though I'm surprised he hasn't done this strategy yet. The collapse of Biden and Klobuchar would too though Biden's fall would help Sanders as well; Warren dropping out early would too. Needless to say, it'll be an interesting race and we'll see how the Candidates handle themselves tonight on the debate stage.

Interestingly enough, I heard an African-American commentator on MSNBC (whose name I can't recall) suggest that African-Americans are less concerned about Pete Buttigieg's sexual orientation on the basis of their own feelings about being LGBTQ (and all that implies) than they are about White America's feelings on the matter. He asserted that they want to see Trump beaten (largely because of his acceptance of White Supremacist activism as "O.K."), which has led them into making the "electability" argument foremost in their minds. Thus, if they worry that a gay man can't be elected President, they won't vote for one.

This explains their support for Joe Biden, and it might explain part of their reluctance to support either Sanders or Warren. Consequently, if Buttigieg is able to win big among white voters in spite of being gay, that might well make it possible for African-American Democrats to support him as well.

This fits the way black voters responded to Obama. Before he beat Hillary in Iowa (back in 2008), Obama enjoyed very little support with African-American Democrats. Then, too, Hillary (like Biden) saw South Carolina as her "firewall", largely thanks to her massive support among black voters. But after Obama won in Iowa and did well in New Hampshire (a strong second-place finish behind Clinton), those same black voters flipped over and very quickly came to embrace Obama as a viable candidate.

I wouldn't be floored if Buttigieg started making in roads with black voters if they start to see him as more electable.

Anecdotally, my current roommate is a black guy that admires Buttigieg's intelligence. People in this thread talk a lot about his snafu with that list of "black supporters" in SC, but that story isn't at the front of everyone's minds when you get out into the wider voting public.

[Alien Space Bats]

I've heard that, but the claim didn't come with details of why. Can only tax transfers of money or something.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

IOW, with the exception of the Income Tax (an exception established by the 16th Amendment), Congress can only assess direct taxes against the inhabitants of a State in direct proportion to the population of said State, as established by the most recent census.

Since different States have different levels of wealth (eg., Californians are richer than Mississippians), any attempt to establish a wealth tax would necessarily fail the test imposed by this clause. This actually happened with the first attempts to impose an income tax, resulting in a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), in which the income tax was declared unconstitutional. The ruling of the Court in Pollock lead directly to the passage of the 16th Amendment, making it lawful for Congress to reestablish the income tax as a means of funding the Federal Government.

The thing is, the 16th Amendment's wording isn't flexible enough to cover wealth taxes, too: The exception that it establishes only works to legalize income taxes:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The key word is "incomes", not "property" or "wealth". Thus a wealth tax would fail to meet constitutional muster under the Pollock precedent, requiring a whole new constitutional amendment to make such a tax legal.

And the odds of that happening within the next 20 years are pretty much nonexistant.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I've heard that, but the claim didn't come with details of why. Can only tax transfers of money or something.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

IOW, with the exception of the Income Tax (an exception established by the 16th Amendment), Congress can only assess direct taxes against the inhabitants of a State in direct proportion to the population of said State, as established by the most recent census.

Since different States have different levels of wealth (eg., Californians are richer than Mississippians), any attempt to establish a wealth tax would necessarily fail the test imposed by this clause. This actually happened with the first attempts to impose an income tax, resulting in a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), in which the income tax was declared unconstitutional. The ruling of the Court in Pollock lead directly to the passage of the 16th Amendment, making it lawful for Congress to reestablish the income tax as a means of funding the Federal Government.

The thing is, the 16th Amendment's wording isn't flexible enough to cover wealth taxes, too: The exception that it establishes only works to legalize income taxes:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The key word is "incomes", not "property" or "wealth". Thus a wealth tax would fail to meet constitutional muster under the Pollock precedent, requiring a whole new constitutional amendment to make such a tax legal.

And the odds of that happening within the next 20 years are pretty much nonexistant.

OK and if you did "apportion" according to state you wouldn't be able to raise much at all from 1%ers in New York or Cali (where the billionaires are) as the limit would be set by Alabama or somewhere. Even that would be very hard on the poorest states.

I remember a bit better now. Last time I asked "what about land tax?" and the answer was "not Federal".

No constitutional amendment, just because it's a tax. And despite that most states would benefit from a shift income-->property

[Telconi]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

IOW, with the exception of the Income Tax (an exception established by the 16th Amendment), Congress can only assess direct taxes against the inhabitants of a State in direct proportion to the population of said State, as established by the most recent census.

Since different States have different levels of wealth (eg., Californians are richer than Mississippians), any attempt to establish a wealth tax would necessarily fail the test imposed by this clause. This actually happened with the first attempts to impose an income tax, resulting in a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), in which the income tax was declared unconstitutional. The ruling of the Court in Pollock lead directly to the passage of the 16th Amendment, making it lawful for Congress to reestablish the income tax as a means of funding the Federal Government.

The thing is, the 16th Amendment's wording isn't flexible enough to cover wealth taxes, too: The exception that it establishes only works to legalize income taxes:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The key word is "incomes", not "property" or "wealth". Thus a wealth tax would fail to meet constitutional muster under the Pollock precedent, requiring a whole new constitutional amendment to make such a tax legal.

And the odds of that happening within the next 20 years are pretty much nonexistant.

OK and if you did "apportion" according to state you wouldn't be able to raise much at all from 1%ers in New York or Cali (where the billionaires are) as the limit would be set by Alabama or somewhere. Even that would be very hard on the poorest states.

I remember a bit better now. Last time I asked "what about land tax?" and the answer was "not Federal".

No constitutional amendment, just because it's a tax. And despite that most states would benefit from a shift income-->property

States could implement wealth taxes.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Very interesting debate.