2020 US General Election Thread IV: The Battle Begins

[Satuga]

I'd say the whole 2016 Trump was more reminiscent of The boy who cried wolf. With the MSM being the boy.

[Cisairse]

Deval "Who is that Guy?" Patrick just dropped out.

You're like 30 hours late on that one.

[Cisairse]

Why should someone outside the Democrat Party "membership" get to vote on the Democrat candidate?

Because those with democrat “membership” make up less than 20% of the population. It’s highly undemocratic to have only 20% of the people choose the nominee for the 80%

The fact that you're implicitly assuming that there's only 1 or 2 candidates makes me said.

[Sougra]

There are such things as preventative measures. You could argue that's one of them.

And one could reasonably state that someone of the opposite party, would want to vote for someone from the opposing party that would be easy to beat or fits their view more, but since they're not the base of the party, you'd end up with a bunch of people who aren't really representative of the party's base, and could just be a Frankenstein's Monster of political opinions by those of their party and those of the opposing one made in good and bad faith. If one were only voting with one ballot, it lessens the chance of that happening significantly. Presumably, at least.

But as I said, so what if someone is voting in bad faith? It's their vote. You can't stop someone from voting in bad faith in the actual election in November, so why should there be any measures taken to prevent that in the primaries?

And in regards to all political nominations being open to the whole electorate, that's a completely different argument. It's the extreme end of it, and is arguably a slippery slope fallacy, although I can't be certain.

I'm taking the argument that Thermodolia has presented, that it is undemocratic to limit participation in a party's primary only to members of that party, to its logical conclusion. That all party nominations should be open to the whole electorate. Personally I think this is ridiculous, you may as well say that the local wine mom book club should have to let the whole state decide what they're going to read next. Private clubs should get to make their own decisions on their own terms. If they don't want to poll then general public then they don't have to.

Because I highly doubt many who'd bother to vote in the general election would purposefully vote for someone they don't, at least prefer to the other candidates available. And by voting in bad faith in the primary, that has a massive impact on who people have as their next President, creating massive harm. Simple preventative measures that aren't anti-democratic, or at least, aren't heavily so, that are technically more democratic than the previous system is fine to me.

I understand taking something to its logical conclusion, I've done that before. The issue I have with the way you're doing it is making it the crux of your argument (of at least this section) and not an addendum. One could just say in response to your conclusion "we're not going to go that far, because it's absurd/I don't believe in direct democracy (or whatever else), however, there's little to lose by making things more democratic, open, and fair compared to the current system," and I think that would be a generally acceptable response. Although you may disagree.

And Therm probably has his own specific argument, so I'll let him state that when he wishes if I haven't already. Although, and maybe this is a difference of definition or maybe I'm not as well-versed as you are, but I'm unsure if I'd call political parties private. I believe they receive a certain level of tax payer money, and you know, make up the government, so I'd at least state they aren't wholly private. Also, I doubt many people, if any, are arguing that the parties have to reform, more so that they should. Rather large difference to me.

[Cisairse]

Bloomberg victory in every state moving forward.

You misspelled Jeb!.

[Ifreann]

America must tell a very different version of the Pied Piper of Hamelin than what I am familiar with.

What's your version like?

Hamelin hire a guy to sort out the rat problem. He gets the rats to jump in the river with his sweet tunes, but they don't pay, so he takes the kids too, at which point they cough up the dough. So I really don't get what a Pied Piper strategy is meant to be. Kidnap people's children to get them to pay what they owe you?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Cenk was suggesting last night Bernie Sanders running with Elizabeth Warren as running mate.

No. Just no. Republicans smear Democrats as adulterers enough without a man and woman next to each other on the campaign trail to add fuel to the fire.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What's your version like?

Hamelin hire a guy to sort out the rat problem. He gets the rats to jump in the river with his sweet tunes, but they don't pay, so he takes the kids too, at which point they cough up the dough. So I really don't get what a Pied Piper strategy is meant to be. Kidnap people's children to get them to pay what they owe you?

Didn't I explain before?

In case I didn't, here's a source explaining it.

[Cisairse]

Cenk was suggesting last night Bernie Sanders running with Elizabeth Warren as running mate.

No. Just no. Republicans smear Democrats as adulterers enough without a man and woman next to each other on the campaign trail to add fuel to the fire.

Of all the arguments against a Sanders—Warren ticket I've seen so far, that is by far the most illogical.

I have never seen Republicans throw random allegations of adultery at Democrats. In fact, Democrats fielded a man and a woman ticket in 2016 and I still didn't see such accusations.

Was this a meme? Am I being memed?

[Ifreann]

Cenk was suggesting last night Bernie Sanders running with Elizabeth Warren as running mate.

No. Just no. Republicans smear Democrats as adulterers enough without a man and woman next to each other on the campaign trail to add fuel to the fire.

I've seen both Democrats and Republicans have a man and a woman on their ticket and don't recall any suggestion that either pair were cheating on their spouses with each other.

[Cisairse]

Cenk was suggesting last night Bernie Sanders running with Elizabeth Warren as running mate.

No. Just no. Republicans smear Democrats as adulterers enough without a man and woman next to each other on the campaign trail to add fuel to the fire.

I've seen both Democrats and Republicans have a man and a woman on their ticket and don't recall any suggestion that either pair were cheating on their spouses with each other.

Now that I think about this, it would be absolutely hilarious if somebody ran on a ticket with their spouse as their VP.

[The Emerald Legion]

What's your version like?

Hamelin hire a guy to sort out the rat problem. He gets the rats to jump in the river with his sweet tunes, but they don't pay, so he takes the kids too, at which point they cough up the dough. So I really don't get what a Pied Piper strategy is meant to be. Kidnap people's children to get them to pay what they owe you?

Our version ends at the first part and there's no real reference to pay or dispute with the town. Just a Piper leading a bunch of rats to drown. References to the pied Piper are basically "following someone that sounds good but leads you to your Doom/death/misfortune."

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Cenk was suggesting last night Bernie Sanders running with Elizabeth Warren as running mate.

No. Just no. Republicans smear Democrats as adulterers enough without a man and woman next to each other on the campaign trail to add fuel to the fire.

I've seen both Democrats and Republicans have a man and a woman on their ticket and don't recall any suggestion that either pair were cheating on their spouses with each other.

When Republicans do it it's not as damaging for some reason. Republicans and swing voters alike seem to consider Republican men who cheat on their spouses as suave Bond-types who've proven they've enough game to pull it off, if the election of Trump in the first place is anything to go by. It's when Democrat men cheat on their spouses that the immorality of it takes centre stage.

As for Clinton/Kaine, maybe they didn't feel the need to go there because they had so much else to get them on? Sanders is more populist than Clinton, so they can't exactly get him on not caring about the little guy, and doesn't have an e-mail scandal, let alone a "son in the Marine Corps" who "would have been court-martialed" for... doing whatever else they think they can get Warren on.

[Grinning Dragon]

I've seen both Democrats and Republicans have a man and a woman on their ticket and don't recall any suggestion that either pair were cheating on their spouses with each other.

Now that I think about this, it would be absolutely hilarious if somebody ran on a ticket with their spouse as their VP.

Hmm, I dunno about that, might get interesting or the video'd arguments might also be epic.
Aid: Mr. president you are requested at...
Prez: I'm sorry I have to take the garbage out.

[Ifreann]

Hamelin hire a guy to sort out the rat problem. He gets the rats to jump in the river with his sweet tunes, but they don't pay, so he takes the kids too, at which point they cough up the dough. So I really don't get what a Pied Piper strategy is meant to be. Kidnap people's children to get them to pay what they owe you?

Didn't I explain before?

Maybe? I might have missed it. Or maybe it just didn't stick.

In case I didn't, here's a source explaining it.

Ah, I get it. I still think the child kidnapping could be a powerful persuasive move.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Now that I think about this, it would be absolutely hilarious if somebody ran on a ticket with their spouse as their VP.

Hmm, I dunno about that, might get interesting or the video'd arguments might also be epic.
Aid: Mr. president you are requested at...
Prez: I'm sorry I have to take the garbage out.

I'm thinking in the White House they probably have assistants for that sort of thing...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Didn't I explain before?

Maybe? I might have missed it. Or maybe it just didn't stick.

In case I didn't, here's a source explaining it.

Ah, I get it. I still think the child kidnapping could be a powerful persuasive move.

No matter how you change the story, you're still changing it. So long as it isn't about literally playing music to attract rats, the phrase "Pied Piper" is only an analogy, not a 1 to 1 comparison.

[Ifreann]

I've seen both Democrats and Republicans have a man and a woman on their ticket and don't recall any suggestion that either pair were cheating on their spouses with each other.

Now that I think about this, it would be absolutely hilarious if somebody ran on a ticket with their spouse as their VP.

Trump/Trump 2020.

---

Hamelin hire a guy to sort out the rat problem. He gets the rats to jump in the river with his sweet tunes, but they don't pay, so he takes the kids too, at which point they cough up the dough. So I really don't get what a Pied Piper strategy is meant to be. Kidnap people's children to get them to pay what they owe you?

Our version ends at the first part and there's no real reference to pay or dispute with the town. Just a Piper leading a bunch of rats to drown. References to the pied Piper are basically "following someone that sounds good but leads you to your Doom/death/misfortune."

Never trust pipers. *nods*

---

I've seen both Democrats and Republicans have a man and a woman on their ticket and don't recall any suggestion that either pair were cheating on their spouses with each other.

When Republicans do it it's not as damaging for some reason. Republicans and swing voters alike seem to consider Republican men who cheat on their spouses as suave Bond-types who've proven they've enough game to pull it off, if the election of Trump in the first place is anything to go by. It's when Democrat men cheat on their spouses that the immorality of it takes centre stage.

I don't think anyone saw John McCain as some kind of player who was riding Sarah Palin on the side. And I'm sure that some people give more of a pass to politicians they like who cheat on their spouse than to politicians they don't who do the same, but I still don't think that what you are describing happens to any significant degree. Some people probably do think that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are making the Democrat with two backs, but so far as I'm aware it's nothing politically consequential for either of them.

As for Clinton/Kaine, maybe they didn't feel the need to go there because they had so much else to get them on?

Okay, so it didn't happen with Clinton and Kaine. It didn't happen with McCain and Palin. It doesn't happen with Pelosi and Schumer. Where are you actually getting this idea from? Is there actually a trend of Republicans accusing Democrats of infidelity on the basis of working with someone they aren't married to?

Sanders is more populist than Clinton, so they can't exactly get him on not caring about the little guy, and doesn't have an e-mail scandal, let alone a "son in the Marine Corps" who "would have been court-martialed" for... doing whatever else they think they can get Warren on.

Well they're going to call Sanders a communist until, somewhat ironically, they turn red in the face.

---

Maybe? I might have missed it. Or maybe it just didn't stick.


Ah, I get it. I still think the child kidnapping could be a powerful persuasive move.

No matter how you change the story, you're still changing it. So long as it isn't about literally playing music to attract rats, the phrase "Pied Piper" is only an analogy, not a 1 to 1 comparison.

I didn't really think they meant it that literally, that's just funny.

[Senkaku]

So what do our Bloomberg stans have to say about his comments on redlining that’ve come out (right after his comments on stop and frisk)?

[San Lumen]

So what do our Bloomberg stans have to say about his comments on redlining that’ve come out (right after his comments on stop and frisk)?

I hope it is brought up at the debate.

[Cannot think of a name]

Cenk was suggesting last night Bernie Sanders running with Elizabeth Warren as running mate.

No. Just no. Republicans smear Democrats as adulterers enough without a man and woman next to each other on the campaign trail to add fuel to the fire.

I have heard some dumb reasons to not pick a running mate, but this one...holy hell. Though I guess Mike Pence approves...

[Washington Resistance Army]

So what do our Bloomberg stans have to say about his comments on redlining that’ve come out (right after his comments on stop and frisk)?

Man Bloomberg really is the gift that keeps on giving lol

[Cannot think of a name]

I've seen both Democrats and Republicans have a man and a woman on their ticket and don't recall any suggestion that either pair were cheating on their spouses with each other.

Now that I think about this, it would be absolutely hilarious if somebody ran on a ticket with their spouse as their VP.

Honestly, Clinton could have pulled this off in 1992.

[Loben The 2nd]

So what do our Bloomberg stans have to say about his comments on redlining that’ve come out (right after his comments on stop and frisk)?

Man Bloomberg really is the gift that keeps on giving lol

I support him getting the nomination.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Sanders would go down in flames like Corbyn but I guess we will have to learn the hard way

It's endlessly fascinating that when left wing parties do badly in Europe, Americans say "Look, look! That's what happens if you go too far left!", but when left wing parties do well in Europe...nothing. I know some of this is coming from people who just want to keep America as far right as possible and are concern trolling Democrats, but you seem to have genuinely fallen for it.

---

I get car ads in Vietnamese and I can't figure out exactly what triggered them, but it has to be something I looked up or played on YouTube.

For a while the YouTube app on my TV played "ads" that were hour long vlogs from random Vietnamese people.

---

You know what’s really interesting, the fact that the two camps who you would expect be most vehemently opposed to each other are actually finding more common ground than others. Over the last few months, I’ve noticed Bernie Bros saying “Say what you want about the MAGA Nation, at least they realize an elite group with special interests controls the country.”

And likewise, the MAGA people are like “say what you want about Bernie Bros, at least they realize that the mainstream media and coastal elite are shit.”

I think you're inventing common ground where none really exists. Trump's followers don't "realise an elite group with special interests controls the country", they believe in conspiracies about a Deep State run by Satanic paedophiles. Trump's followers don't hate mainstream media because they inherently prioritise corporate interests, they hate specific media outlets they associate with the left because they believe they're run by Jews who want to destroy the white race.

You have a misunderstanding of most Trump supporters