Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

1) Yes.

 

2) I don't see how accepting hiring recommendations from Facebook's founder/CEO is a way to "tame" the amplification of misinformation.  I'm sure there may be a personal benefit - a couple of the foremost experts in digital media/marketing joining his team is likely a positive for his campaign.  But it's the same thing as candidates who say we need to get dark and big money out of politics...and then turn around and accept big checks from lobbyists and corporate PACs.  Pete even has a term for it - "living your values."  If he simply wants to pick some good digital marketing people, that's fine.  But it does have the appearance that he doesn't really care to hold Facebook accountable for the role they played (and continue to play) in the spread of misinformation and lies in our politics (Facebook recently quietly changed their terms and will no longer "fact check" political ads - so Trump's worst of the worst that can't even get airtime or going out all over Facebook).  If I'm a candidate who thinks big pharma and the health insurance industry are too powerful, have too much influence in our politics, and are hurting consumers by continuing to raise drug prices at absurd rates, I'm not going to hire two people from the industry to help craft my healthcare policy.

 

A big to do about nothing if you ask me. How many people does he employ? Is he supposed to rule out anyone who ever worked in the tech industry? They are data folks. The tech industry is good with data. He's not hiring them to craft regulations for Facebook. Facebook employees have given more money to Harris than anyone else. Should we rebuke her for that? Warren is taking in tons of donations from Google employees while campaigning on a plan to break Google up. Having worked for, or even currently working for, one of these companies doesn't mean that you don't share progressive values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

Google is already prepared to be broken up.

 

Yeah - I mean honestly they pretty much already are. 

 

They very much followed the "House of Morgan" approach from the early 1900s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

A big to do about nothing if you ask me. How many people does he employ? Is he supposed to rule out anyone who ever worked in the tech industry? They are data folks. The tech industry is good with data. He's not hiring them to craft regulations for Facebook. Facebook employees have given more money to Harris than anyone else. 

 

Agree. I actually got to do a little bit of work for Facebook. I didn't get any impression that engineers/developers there shared any kind of monolithic political philosophy. It's not a cult. 

Edited by surfohio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

The facebook hiring thing is just a big tell that he's almost certainly not going to try to break up the big tech companies, while at least Warren and Sanders have pledged they would attempt to do that.

 

How so? I think you'd have to be biased against Pete to construe this as anything more than two very qualified data analysts applied for jobs and he thought they were good hires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, surfohio said:

 

I actually got to do a little bit of work for Facebook. I didn't get any impression that engineers/developers there shared any kind of monolithic political philosophy. It's not a cult. 

 

Exactly! I work in the public policy realm and I can assure you that my colleagues have all different views on politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

How so? I think you'd have to be biased against Pete to construe this as anything more than two very qualified data analysts applied for jobs and he thought they were good hires. 

The hires were recommended directly by Zuckerberg. I seriously doubt they are against breaking up Facebook. If Warren did this she would be raked for being hypocritical, because she has taken a strong anti-trust stance against Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

No basis in fact for this - it's an opinion and I'd disagree.  Then again, they're two of the top 5 candidates right now, so I'm not sure with what constituents this supposed insincerity is hurting them.

 

As for Pete - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/21/zuckerberg-privately-recommended-staff-hires-to-pete-buttigieg.html

 

 

Other candidates are proposing breaking up big tech or other ways to hold companies like Facebook more accountable for their role in our democracy.  Pete seems perfectly fine cozying up to Zuckerberg and taking his hiring recommendations.

 So just to be clear, you are arguing that you disagree with my statement of opinion, or that my opinion is not factual?? In the case of the latter, it is a statement of opinion, and I think most people recognize that.  I never implied basis of fact to this statement. It was an opinion statement based solely on my perception.

 

For what it is worth, I think Harris is going to be hurt by insincerity because she has had a lot of flip flops and walk backs early on in her stance. Plus, she has been really been hammered for her stance as a tough on crime prosecutor while at the same time trying to talk about being a reformer. I think that Warren suffers from the insincerity complex given her past writings dating back 15 years or longer as she was growing her pedigree as a law professor that often are in direct contradiction to some of her stances from today, and often only seem to be there to try and capture the Bernie base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 So just to be clear, you are arguing that you disagree with my statement of opinion, or that my opinion is not factual?? In the case of the latter, it is a statement of opinion, and I think most people recognize that.  I never implied basis of fact to this statement. It was an opinion statement based solely on my perception.

 

For what it is worth, I think Harris is going to be hurt by insincerity because she has had a lot of flip flops and walk backs early on in her stance. Plus, she has been really been hammered for her stance as a tough on crime prosecutor while at the same time trying to talk about being a reformer. I think that Warren suffers from the insincerity complex given her past writings dating back 15 years or longer as she was growing her pedigree as a law professor that often are in direct contradiction to some of her stances from today, and often only seem to be there to try and capture the Bernie base.

 

I was saying the statement was an opinion, and that I disagree.  Though, you do make a good point on Kamala that I had forgotten about, mostly because I forget she's still in this race.  For those paying more attention than most, yes, she certainly came out trying to win all constituents by talking a multitude of conflicting positions, often within hours of each other.  I don't think she has run a great race, and this is one of the reasons why.

 

I don't know how many people care about Warren's writings 15 years ago.  She has been consistent in trying to help Americans from going bankrupt, for example.  She has a pretty compelling reason why she left the Republican Party by the early '90s and it still holds true today - the GOP is not the party of free markets.  So she felt the Democratic Party better served the goals she wanted to see achieved.  I realize this might be a foreign concept in GOP circles, but people can change their position, especially as they learn about other perspectives.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

I was saying the statement was an opinion, and that I disagree.  Though, you do make a good point on Kamala that I had forgotten about, mostly because I forget she's still in this race.  For those paying more attention than most, yes, she certainly came out trying to win all constituents by talking a multitude of conflicting positions, often within hours of each other.  I don't think she has run a great race, and this is one of the reasons why.

 

I don't know how many people care about Warren's writings 15 years ago.  She has been consistent in trying to help Americans from going bankrupt, for example.  She has a pretty compelling reason why she left the Republican Party by the early '90s and it still holds true today - the GOP is not the party of free markets.  So she felt the Democratic Party better served the goals she wanted to see achieved.  I realize this might be a foreign concept in GOP circles, but people can change their position, especially as they learn about other perspectives.

As for Kamala, if you had to look back a year ago and forecast the strongest candidates, I would have argued the nomination would almost have been hers to lose. Her campaign thus far has shown she is not yet ready for prime time.

 

Warren, even after she left the GOP was a pragmatic advocate for the little guy and market based reforms. She made a compelling argument for the bankruptcy reform act back in 2005 and many of her ideas were incorporated into that. The key was that they represented market based reforms. They may have come from more of a liberal point of view, but at least they were grounded in market based principles. My concern with her is that she has appeared to have abandoned many of those principles back around 2010 or so when she was pushing the CFPB. In my opinion, I think the real Warren is someone more akin to the 2005-2010 version and I feel that her positions today are more about headline grabbing attention than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know you are like the only UO user against the CFBP, right? A lack of the CFBP collapsed the financial markets while transferring entire family fortunes to 27-year-old 350-pound Mexican guys with silver tongues and Van Dykes who used the money to buy Land Rovers that are only worth 15% of their original value when they are 5 years old. Which means the money totally disappeared from the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

You know you are like the only UO user against the CFBP, right? A lack of the CFBP collapsed the financial markets while transferring entire family fortunes to 27-year-old 350-pound Mexican guys with silver tongues and Van Dykes who used the money to buy Land Rovers that are only worth 15% of their original value when they are 5 years old. Which means the money totally disappeared from the economy.

Not wanting to get into a CFPB debate on this thread, my point in referencing the CFPB was to serve as a time marker. In my opinion, it was not until after the CFPB that Warren moved from a moderate democrat with more moderate market based position to hard left populist. That is all I was attempting to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 In my opinion, I think the real Warren is someone more akin to the 2005-2010 version and I feel that her positions today are more about headline grabbing attention than anything.

 

Fwiw, she's releasing her white paper details on her plans for anyone to use in the future, be it President, Senate, etc.  I wouldn't expect someone doing it just for headline attention to basically make it open sourced.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


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

Except Trump was able to successfully convince enough people that he was an "outsider".

 

I think the average person is rightfully skeptical of the political elite. Politics have essentially been the same since about 1970, and during that time, the wages of the average person have stagnated while the wealth of the 1% has grown tremendously. All of the Dem candidates aside from Sanders/Warren are promising more of the same, which we know just hasn't worked for the majority of people. Warren is promising change, but she is constrained by the DNC framework. Sanders has a genuine grassroots movement that will build working-class solidarity and power. That is what sets him apart.

 

I remember in 2008 I could tell McCain was in deep trouble because all around the internet they were calling him McSame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

"More of the Same" literally is Biden's platform

it is actually a shrewd move on her end. it is a longshot but her only chance since her weakness is campaigning, and there is no way she could win the nomination straight up.

She just needs Biden to implode midway through the primary cycle,  hope there is too much chaos around the other candidates and have a brokered convention. She steps in as the "reluctant" candidate that everyone can get behind and then we get a rematch from 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/30/kamala-harris-campaign-layoffs-061112

 

Quote

Kamala Harris is dramatically restructuring her campaign by redeploying staffers to Iowa and laying off dozens of aides at her Baltimore headquarters, according to campaign sources and a memo obtained by POLITICO Wednesday, as she struggles to resuscitate her beleaguered presidential bid.

 

The moves come as Harris is hemorrhaging cash and in danger of lacking the resources to mount a competitive bid against better-funded rivals in Iowa. The overhaul will touch nearly every facet of Harris’ operation, with layoffs or re-deployments coming at headquarters, as well as in New Hampshire, Nevada and her home state of California, a Super Tuesday prize that her advisers once viewed as a big asset.

 

I don't think she comes back from this.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ on paper she was a very strong candidate. She has made a ton of unforced errors to date and has run a poor campaign.

 

Agreed.  Seems like she's going to hold on long enough to come in...5th? 6th? in Iowa/NH and probably drop out either after SC or CA if she can make it that far.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Agreed.  Seems like she's going to hold on long enough to come in...5th? 6th? in Iowa/NH and probably drop out either after SC or CA if she can make it that far.

The question is whether she stands to gain more getting out early or more by sticking around. Sticking it out has worked for people like John Edwards in the past but he finished 2nd. Does a 5th place finish help or hurt the candidate's long term ambitions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The Current Events section has gotten out of control.  This forum is meant to be a meeting place for all who can voice their opinion in a civil and constructive manner.  Moving forward, violating the forum rules, especially in the Current Events section will have you banned from being able to see or participate there. 

Again,  if you troll or abuse any of the rules, you'll be banned from the entire Current Events sections.

 



I'm actually excited to see some people get banned from the current events sections of the forum, so I decided to re-open this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden has fallen to 3rd or maybe even 4th in Iowa.  Obviously he's betting big on SC, but can we survive a 4th place finish in Iowa?  He's also not set up well in NH and barely hanging on in Nevada.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see where his supporters go.  On the surface, it would seem like Buttigieg has the most to gain from this, but Beto's supporters seemed to really hate Pete (Given he kind of stole all of Beto's momentum).

 

I imagine his supporters just spread evenly though and nothing really changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon people. They're politicians. Having met hundreds of politicians in my two main careers, I learned that most are running for office to cover up their insecurities and/or to feed their fragile egos. Trump is one of the worst, most extreme examples of this. But none are worth such adoration....

 

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying this because I love all of you and I think you need to hear this:

 

Bernie's crowd chanting lock him up at a political event is deeply troubling. Period. 

 

One of my biggest gripes against Trump in 2016 was his lack of decency and his willingness to disintegrate normative behavior in American democracy. I really hope Bernie nips this in the butt - and I'm saying this as someone who personally believes Trump committed a crime while in office. 

 

Having said that, neither Bernie's proxies nor Bernie have participated in or facilitated these chants, but I hope they do their best to stop it. 

 

Bottom line, we cannot allow chants for a political opponent to be jailed to be the norm in this country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Saying this because I love all of you and I think you need to hear this:

 

Bernie's crowd chanting lock him up at a political event is deeply troubling. Period. 

 

One of my biggest gripes against Trump in 2016 was his lack of decency and his willingness to disintegrate normative behavior in American democracy. I really hope Bernie nips this in the butt - and I'm saying this as someone who personally believes Trump committed a crime while in office. 

 

Having said that, neither Bernie's proxies nor Bernie have participated in or facilitated these chants, but I hope they do their best to stop it. 

 

Bottom line, we cannot allow chants for a political opponent to be jailed to be the norm in this country. 

 

You meant nip it in the bud, right?   Or are you channeling an old Sam Kinison skit?  >:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

You meant nip it in the bud, right?   Or are you channeling an old Sam Kinison skit?  >:)

 

Sorry - butts on the mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Have you ever heard of trolling?

 

Yeah - started in 2016 when a bunch of people ignorant to geopolitics, macroeconomics, American institutions, and democratic norms decided that they knew more about said topics than people who have devoted their lives to it and voted accordingly. 

 

But, please, do replicate - it's good for the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am currently reading the Guy Snodgrass (no relation) book on General Mattis’s run as defense secretary.   I’ve reached the part where Bolton is involved (the author was actually quite impressed with him when he did not expect to be), and supposedly the Ambassador made some suggestions that Mattis was “pretty much a Democrat”.

 

What if he ran for the nomination?   The Dems are currently at least as fractured as the GOP was in 2016, he could grab the “is there anyone else?” faction pretty quickly.    Bring over some Never Trump Republicans and a phenomenon could build similar to “MAGA”, only on behalf of someone worthy.   (#MadDog2020 maybe?   🙂 )

 

A Tim Ryan type economic agenda could fit with what we know about his views.   Hell, make TR his running mate.

 

If he got the nomination, the election would likely be easier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like the chants, but it’s definitely trolling of a man who went after Clinton for supposedly being too corrupt for office while ending up in impeachment for corruption. Trump is getting due process from Democrats. Trump suggested Clinton be murdered on more than one occasion and suggested it for Schiff, etc.  I don’t think this is a fair comparison at all.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

I don’t like the chants, but it’s definitely trolling of a man who went after Clinton for supposedly being too corrupt for office while ending up in impeachment for corruption. Trump is getting due process from Democrats. Trump suggested Clinton be murdered on more than one occasion and suggested it for Schiff, etc.  I don’t think this is a fair comparison at all.  

 

8 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Trump turned politics into pro wrestling. It could take a generation to turn it back. 

 

Exactly in re: pro wrestling. the comparison is based on the fact that the chant happened. 

 

Again - I agree, Trump is corrupt and the root cause of this behavior. 

 

It just comes down to this - do you care more about letting people know you're angry or the future health of the republic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, YABO713 said:

 

 

Exactly in re: pro wrestling. the comparison is based on the fact that the chant happened. 

 

Again - I agree, Trump is corrupt and the root cause of this behavior. 

 

It just comes down to this - do you care more about letting people know you're angry or the future health of the republic. 

 

The thing is, when people don't believe any of the choices are good for the latter, they reach for the former.

 

Trump spoke to a constituency that felt that way.   One that the other side either took for granted, condescended to, or even lectured.   He spoke to them in their language, and even though most probably figured he was full of modell, they preferred it to what I just listed above.

 

He's not the root cause, though.  "Outrage culture" is.   He just adopted their tactics, and offered laughter as an alternative to anger.   In retrospect, that was bound to work.

Share this post


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

Trump spoke to a constituency that felt that way.   One that the other side either took for granted, condescended to, or even lectured.   He spoke to them in their language, and even though most probably figured he was full of modell, they preferred it to what I just listed above.

 

Not lashing out at you E Rocc, but I'm so sick of this - 

 

Want to know why experts on a matter can lecture you on a topic? Because they're experts. Populists do not aspire to excellence, they don't crave knowledge. Rather, it makes them feel inferior so they belittle it. It's the same reason I sit there and listen when my chiropractor tells me I need to stretch more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

I don’t like the chants, but it’s definitely trolling of a man who went after Clinton for supposedly being too corrupt for office while ending up in impeachment for corruption. Trump is getting due process from Democrats. Trump suggested Clinton be murdered on more than one occasion and suggested it for Schiff, etc.  I don’t think this is a fair comparison at all.  

 

Sorry, I'm with Yabo713 on this one -- Bernie and the other candidates need to shut this down as unacceptable before it becomes acceptable behavior and leads to worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Want to know why experts on a matter can lecture you on a topic? Because they're experts. Populists do not aspire to excellence, they don't crave knowledge. Rather, it makes them feel inferior so they belittle it. It's the same reason I sit there and listen when my chiropractor tells me I need to stretch more. 

 

Let's turn this back towards the 2020 Democratic primary.  This is heading closer to territory where I had to remove a number of off-topic posts, including some of my own, in another thread.

 

And yes, I know one of the front-runners for the nomination is a Harvard professor, so this topic is going to come up again, and some of it is fine when connected to a candidate like that.  But let's avoid general pontificating on the value and sources of expertise and what that entitles people to do that others can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...