The Democratic Presidential Debates

cincybearcat

mrussel1 said:

The only reason @cincybearcat doesn't like Trump (president #45) is it reminds him of the only two time Heisman winner.  

Both cheaters

Ledbetterman10

mrussel1 said:

The only reason @cincybearcat doesn't like Trump (president #45) is it reminds him of the only two time Heisman winner.  

As a one of the world's foremost appreciator of Michael Jordan's baseball career, I'm not big on Trump highjacking the number 45. 

Do you think Trump knows that despite being the 45th president, he's actually the 44th person to be president? Everyone learns about Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive terms in like 7th grade. You think Trump knows it? I doubt it. 

mrussel1

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

The only reason @cincybearcat doesn't like Trump (president #45) is it reminds him of the only two time Heisman winner.  

As a one of the world's foremost appreciator of Michael Jordan's baseball career, I'm not big on Trump highjacking the number 45. 

Do you think Trump knows that despite being the 45th president, he's actually the 44th person to be president? Everyone learns about Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive terms in like 7th grade. You think Trump knows it? I doubt it. 

No, to your second question.  
To the first statement, are you sure you're not the ONLY appreciator?

Ledbetterman10

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

The only reason @cincybearcat doesn't like Trump (president #45) is it reminds him of the only two time Heisman winner.  

As a one of the world's foremost appreciator of Michael Jordan's baseball career, I'm not big on Trump highjacking the number 45. 

Do you think Trump knows that despite being the 45th president, he's actually the 44th person to be president? Everyone learns about Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive terms in like 7th grade. You think Trump knows it? I doubt it. 

No, to your second question.  
To the first statement, are you sure you're not the ONLY appreciator?

There's not many of us. That's for sure. 

Spiritual_Chaos

Lerxst1992

JimmyV said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

If there was a realistic chance of South Carolina voting Democrat in the near future, or any history at all of them doing so in my lifetime, I would not be making this case. There is neither. And I would be fine with scrapping the SC primary altogether, but my greater point is that, of all the early states, South Carolina should have the least say in who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. At the very least move it to the back of the line. 

SC is important not because it never votes D in the general, thats not the issue.

SC is the first test to see how enthusiastic the D base is. You can infer based on turnout in the SC primary how the base might turn out in swing states in the fall.

SC is also important because Biden needs momentum going into Super Tuesday. If Sanders gets a blowout in Cali and splits the rest of the states evenly Tues, that could spell trouble for voters wanting a democrat on the ticket in Nov. 

South Carolina is neither a swing state nor a good indicator of Democratic base turnout. Iowa voted for Obama in 2008. New Hampshire has been blue since 2004 but historically has not been as reliably Democratic as other New England states. Both would paint a better picture of turnout and enthusiasm than South Carolina.

Jimmy Carter. 1976. Red state ever since.

Obama and Bill won because the base was energized. I didn't define the "democratic base" here yet  but the SC African American vote represents 60% of the democratic vote.

SC Turnout and who they vote for will provide important information for candidates, especially Biden.

The African American vote in SC and other southern states are important hints to how the african american vote will turn out in swing states. 

Helped the cause a ton in 2016. Those margins Hillary racked up in SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, etc. during February and March really paid dividends in November. 

I'm not saying "helped." Just saying it provides interesting information.

2008 was a big win for obama and 2016 indicated the base did not trust sanders. Considering his strength was completely outside the south that was interesting information. 

Biden has been punched by trump on a historic level, and by the dems as well. Hell get some momentum if he wins but there's not enough time to raise $ for tuesday.

OnWis97

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

The only reason @cincybearcat doesn't like Trump (president #45) is it reminds him of the only two time Heisman winner.  

As a one of the world's foremost appreciator of Michael Jordan's baseball career, I'm not big on Trump highjacking the number 45. 

Do you think Trump knows that despite being the 45th president, he's actually the 44th person to be president? Everyone learns about Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive terms in like 7th grade. You think Trump knows it? I doubt it. 

If he did, he'd try to change it to him being the 44th president.

I just Found out that Grover Cincinatie is the 22nd and 24th President. No way some LOSER from the 1400's should get to be listed TWICE when Your favorite president (who's going to Serve AT LEAST FIVE terms) is only listed once.  Unfair!  I am 44.  Actually, I am 43 because Obama's from Kenya.

Spiritual_Chaos

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1233489473947754496?s=20

Spiritual_Chaos

You can’t even have a nice friday night in front of the TV without being exposed to the god damn Phony Pete fans. EVENING RUINED

brianlux

Spiritual_Chaos said:

You can’t even have a nice friday night in front of the TV without being exposed to the god damn Phony Pete fans. EVENING RUINED

Just curious- which Pete fans do you see as phony?  Or do you see them as generally all being phony?  Honestly curious- I'd never heard that one before. 

Spiritual_Chaos

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

You can’t even have a nice friday night in front of the TV without being exposed to the god damn Phony Pete fans. EVENING RUINED

Just curious- which Pete fans do you see as phony?  Or do you see them as generally all being phony?  Honestly curious- I'd never heard that one before. 

”Phony Pete” fans

not

phony Pete friends


(kevin is cool)

CM189191

Big questions here about who is funding Bernie's campaign.  This stinks to high heaven.

https://twitter.com/lizburgh/status/1227093037697896448?s=19

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1227093037697896448.html

Khawaja claims the Saudis and the Emiratis illegally paid tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to the Trump campaign in 2016. He says that to keep it secret, they disguised the money as small donations from Americans, using stolen identities and ‘virtual credit cards’ or gift cards — donations of less than $200 do not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission and made public. He claims the Saudis and the Emiratis were able to make thousands of such small donations at a time using the latest payment processing technology. 

https://spectator.us/whistleblower-andy-khawaja-micropayments/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

pjl44

CM189191 said:

Big questions here about who is funding Bernie's campaign.  This stinks to high heaven.

https://twitter.com/lizburgh/status/1227093037697896448?s=19

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1227093037697896448.html

Khawaja claims the Saudis and the Emiratis illegally paid tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to the Trump campaign in 2016. He says that to keep it secret, they disguised the money as small donations from Americans, using stolen identities and ‘virtual credit cards’ or gift cards — donations of less than $200 do not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission and made public. He claims the Saudis and the Emiratis were able to make thousands of such small donations at a time using the latest payment processing technology. 

https://spectator.us/whistleblower-andy-khawaja-micropayments/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

What's the headline here? That he got 50k in fishy donations in 2016?

benjs

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

Big questions here about who is funding Bernie's campaign.  This stinks to high heaven.

https://twitter.com/lizburgh/status/1227093037697896448?s=19

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1227093037697896448.html

Khawaja claims the Saudis and the Emiratis illegally paid tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to the Trump campaign in 2016. He says that to keep it secret, they disguised the money as small donations from Americans, using stolen identities and ‘virtual credit cards’ or gift cards — donations of less than $200 do not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission and made public. He claims the Saudis and the Emiratis were able to make thousands of such small donations at a time using the latest payment processing technology. 

https://spectator.us/whistleblower-andy-khawaja-micropayments/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

What's the headline here? That he got 50k in fishy donations in 2016?

Firstly, agreed on scope. 50K of funds injection would hardly be worth any candidate's time/effort/risk to pursue. 

Next, we should recognize that the stink may be real, but may or may not be the candidates themselves. Bear in mind that Russia's strategy is to play both sides of the field to stoke the flames of division (even if having a preference towards one side winning and placing outsized efforts to make that happen), and to generally create distrust and confusion (especially to weaken American institutions). People who study Russia may be able to speak more to this, but my understanding is that this is a very typical Soviet-era propaganda approach.

I feel the most appropriate thing to do when we know almost definitively that narratives are being skewed intentionally and that foreign influencers are playing dirty, is to remember to keep vigilant and skeptical, and predominantly focus on whether you believe in their vision for the future and in their ability to realize some portion of it.

Lerxst1992

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1233489473947754496?s=20

34% =/= 50%

that tells me in his best state, there are still 55% of the voters rejecting socialist healthcare 

darwinstheory

E

pjl44

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

Big questions here about who is funding Bernie's campaign.  This stinks to high heaven.

https://twitter.com/lizburgh/status/1227093037697896448?s=19

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1227093037697896448.html

Khawaja claims the Saudis and the Emiratis illegally paid tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to the Trump campaign in 2016. He says that to keep it secret, they disguised the money as small donations from Americans, using stolen identities and ‘virtual credit cards’ or gift cards — donations of less than $200 do not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission and made public. He claims the Saudis and the Emiratis were able to make thousands of such small donations at a time using the latest payment processing technology. 

https://spectator.us/whistleblower-andy-khawaja-micropayments/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

What's the headline here? That he got 50k in fishy donations in 2016?

Firstly, agreed on scope. 50K of funds injection would hardly be worth any candidate's time/effort/risk to pursue. 

Next, we should recognize that the stink may be real, but may or may not be the candidates themselves. Bear in mind that Russia's strategy is to play both sides of the field to stoke the flames of division (even if having a preference towards one side winning and placing outsized efforts to make that happen), and to generally create distrust and confusion (especially to weaken American institutions). People who study Russia may be able to speak more to this, but my understanding is that this is a very typical Soviet-era propaganda approach.

I feel the most appropriate thing to do when we know almost definitively that narratives are being skewed intentionally and that foreign influencers are playing dirty, is to remember to keep vigilant and skeptical, and predominantly focus on whether you believe in their vision for the future and in their ability to realize some portion of it.

The thing that kills me most in all this is how much it requires the reader to connect dots. Because the hard evidence shows yeah, they're certainly making efforts, but the only real results are the ability to drive people crazy. People aren't being influenced by Facebook memes, they're allowing themselves to get hysterical over conspiracy theories. Interestingly, the person in question here is pointing to the Saudis and not the Russkies.

benjs

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

Big questions here about who is funding Bernie's campaign.  This stinks to high heaven.

https://twitter.com/lizburgh/status/1227093037697896448?s=19

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1227093037697896448.html

Khawaja claims the Saudis and the Emiratis illegally paid tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to the Trump campaign in 2016. He says that to keep it secret, they disguised the money as small donations from Americans, using stolen identities and ‘virtual credit cards’ or gift cards — donations of less than $200 do not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission and made public. He claims the Saudis and the Emiratis were able to make thousands of such small donations at a time using the latest payment processing technology. 

https://spectator.us/whistleblower-andy-khawaja-micropayments/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

What's the headline here? That he got 50k in fishy donations in 2016?

Firstly, agreed on scope. 50K of funds injection would hardly be worth any candidate's time/effort/risk to pursue. 

Next, we should recognize that the stink may be real, but may or may not be the candidates themselves. Bear in mind that Russia's strategy is to play both sides of the field to stoke the flames of division (even if having a preference towards one side winning and placing outsized efforts to make that happen), and to generally create distrust and confusion (especially to weaken American institutions). People who study Russia may be able to speak more to this, but my understanding is that this is a very typical Soviet-era propaganda approach.

I feel the most appropriate thing to do when we know almost definitively that narratives are being skewed intentionally and that foreign influencers are playing dirty, is to remember to keep vigilant and skeptical, and predominantly focus on whether you believe in their vision for the future and in their ability to realize some portion of it.

The thing that kills me most in all this is how much it requires the reader to connect dots. Because the hard evidence shows yeah, they're certainly making efforts, but the only real results are the ability to drive people crazy. People aren't being influenced by Facebook memes, they're allowing themselves to get hysterical over conspiracy theories. Interestingly, the person in question here is pointing to the Saudis and not the Russkies.

On the actors specifically - fair point. Also as far as that goes, who's to say how many foreign nations have been watching Trump invite foreign interference instead of criticize it?

On how influential the disinformation campaigns are, I don't feel you or I are necessarily the target audience. We have skepticism, basic logic comprehension, the ability to communicate with depth that extends beyond 140 characters at a time, etc. Sadly, I feel that these disinformation campaigns are targeting those without those abilities, and at the very least I don't feel comfortable surmising one way or another on how effective they are at swaying people. What I would say, is that these have been extremely effective campaigns in terms of the goal of creating distrust in institutions at large.

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1233489473947754496?s=20

34% =/= 50%

that tells me in his best state, there are still 55% of the voters rejecting socialist healthcare 

55% of Democrats,  no less. 

pjl44

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

Big questions here about who is funding Bernie's campaign.  This stinks to high heaven.

https://twitter.com/lizburgh/status/1227093037697896448?s=19

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1227093037697896448.html

Khawaja claims the Saudis and the Emiratis illegally paid tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to the Trump campaign in 2016. He says that to keep it secret, they disguised the money as small donations from Americans, using stolen identities and ‘virtual credit cards’ or gift cards — donations of less than $200 do not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission and made public. He claims the Saudis and the Emiratis were able to make thousands of such small donations at a time using the latest payment processing technology. 

https://spectator.us/whistleblower-andy-khawaja-micropayments/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

What's the headline here? That he got 50k in fishy donations in 2016?

Firstly, agreed on scope. 50K of funds injection would hardly be worth any candidate's time/effort/risk to pursue. 

Next, we should recognize that the stink may be real, but may or may not be the candidates themselves. Bear in mind that Russia's strategy is to play both sides of the field to stoke the flames of division (even if having a preference towards one side winning and placing outsized efforts to make that happen), and to generally create distrust and confusion (especially to weaken American institutions). People who study Russia may be able to speak more to this, but my understanding is that this is a very typical Soviet-era propaganda approach.

I feel the most appropriate thing to do when we know almost definitively that narratives are being skewed intentionally and that foreign influencers are playing dirty, is to remember to keep vigilant and skeptical, and predominantly focus on whether you believe in their vision for the future and in their ability to realize some portion of it.

The thing that kills me most in all this is how much it requires the reader to connect dots. Because the hard evidence shows yeah, they're certainly making efforts, but the only real results are the ability to drive people crazy. People aren't being influenced by Facebook memes, they're allowing themselves to get hysterical over conspiracy theories. Interestingly, the person in question here is pointing to the Saudis and not the Russkies.

On the actors specifically - fair point. Also as far as that goes, who's to say how many foreign nations have been watching Trump invite foreign interference instead of criticize it?

On how influential the disinformation campaigns are, I don't feel you or I are necessarily the target audience. We have skepticism, basic logic comprehension, the ability to communicate with depth that extends beyond 140 characters at a time, etc. Sadly, I feel that these disinformation campaigns are targeting those without those abilities, and at the very least I don't feel comfortable surmising one way or another on how effective they are at swaying people. What I would say, is that these have been extremely effective campaigns in terms of the goal of creating distrust in institutions at large.

If someone can swing an election with 45k in Facebook ad buys, those are the most valuable political consultants in the world and your preferred candidate should hire them immediately