The Democratic Presidential Debates

1321322324326327345

Comments

  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,465

    Emily Ratajkowski Thinks Bernie Bros Are a Myth

    https://youtu.be/1B2EhhmQ6aI

    Cool shirt:




    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,072

    Emily Ratajkowski Thinks Bernie Bros Are a Myth

    https://youtu.be/1B2EhhmQ6aI

    Cool shirt:




    So is this inferring that supporting Bernie makes you a Bernie bro, or just wearing a Bernie shirt? Guilty on all charges
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    There has been a fair amount of crying wolf over voter fraud, rigged elections, voter suppression, etc. these last few years. We are inevitably going to have a no-bullshit case of one of the above and no one is going to believe it.
    no bullshit
    Trump adviser tells Wisconsin Republicans that GOP has ‘traditionally’ relied on voter suppression but will ‘start playing offense’ in 2020
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-trump-gop-wisconsin-voter-suppression-20191221-wm6pi27zufctxmbe6gx4i2r4ce-story.html

    “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”

    Clark made the comments Nov. 21 in a meeting of the Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter. Attendees included the state Senate's top Republican, Scott Fitzgerald, along with the executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

    That's a guy talking shit. I'm not sure if anyone followed up on it, but there's no evidence of any voter suppression in that article. As it actually says when you scroll down. 


  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    pjl44 said:
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    There has been a fair amount of crying wolf over voter fraud, rigged elections, voter suppression, etc. these last few years. We are inevitably going to have a no-bullshit case of one of the above and no one is going to believe it.
    no bullshit
    Trump adviser tells Wisconsin Republicans that GOP has ‘traditionally’ relied on voter suppression but will ‘start playing offense’ in 2020
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-trump-gop-wisconsin-voter-suppression-20191221-wm6pi27zufctxmbe6gx4i2r4ce-story.html

    “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”

    Clark made the comments Nov. 21 in a meeting of the Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter. Attendees included the state Senate's top Republican, Scott Fitzgerald, along with the executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

    That's a guy talking shit. I'm not sure if anyone followed up on it, but there's no evidence of any voter suppression in that article. As it actually says when you scroll down. 


    schrodinger's douchebag strikes again

    He got caught saying the quiet part out loud.
    and had to backpedal....nonono that's not what I meant

    for further evidence, look at what the GOP does, not just what they say:
    the GOP is constantly trying to pass voter id laws, closing polling stations, removing voters, and stopping any legislation that would make it easier to vote, or have a paper trail

    hard to believe he really meant anything else in that context
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    There has been a fair amount of crying wolf over voter fraud, rigged elections, voter suppression, etc. these last few years. We are inevitably going to have a no-bullshit case of one of the above and no one is going to believe it.
    no bullshit
    Trump adviser tells Wisconsin Republicans that GOP has ‘traditionally’ relied on voter suppression but will ‘start playing offense’ in 2020
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-trump-gop-wisconsin-voter-suppression-20191221-wm6pi27zufctxmbe6gx4i2r4ce-story.html

    “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”

    Clark made the comments Nov. 21 in a meeting of the Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter. Attendees included the state Senate's top Republican, Scott Fitzgerald, along with the executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

    That's a guy talking shit. I'm not sure if anyone followed up on it, but there's no evidence of any voter suppression in that article. As it actually says when you scroll down. 


    schrodinger's douchebag strikes again

    He got caught saying the quiet part out loud.
    and had to backpedal....nonono that's not what I meant

    for further evidence, look at what the GOP does, not just what they say:
    the GOP is constantly trying to pass voter id laws, closing polling stations, removing voters, and stopping any legislation that would make it easier to vote, or have a paper trail

    hard to believe he really meant anything else in that context
    Lots of bluster, lots of insults, no evidence. This is what I'm talking about.
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    pjl44 said:
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    There has been a fair amount of crying wolf over voter fraud, rigged elections, voter suppression, etc. these last few years. We are inevitably going to have a no-bullshit case of one of the above and no one is going to believe it.
    no bullshit
    Trump adviser tells Wisconsin Republicans that GOP has ‘traditionally’ relied on voter suppression but will ‘start playing offense’ in 2020
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-trump-gop-wisconsin-voter-suppression-20191221-wm6pi27zufctxmbe6gx4i2r4ce-story.html

    “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”

    Clark made the comments Nov. 21 in a meeting of the Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter. Attendees included the state Senate's top Republican, Scott Fitzgerald, along with the executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

    That's a guy talking shit. I'm not sure if anyone followed up on it, but there's no evidence of any voter suppression in that article. As it actually says when you scroll down. 


    schrodinger's douchebag strikes again

    He got caught saying the quiet part out loud.
    and had to backpedal....nonono that's not what I meant

    for further evidence, look at what the GOP does, not just what they say:
    the GOP is constantly trying to pass voter id laws, closing polling stations, removing voters, and stopping any legislation that would make it easier to vote, or have a paper trail

    hard to believe he really meant anything else in that context
    Lots of bluster, lots of insults, no evidence. This is what I'm talking about.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
    this shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    There has been a fair amount of crying wolf over voter fraud, rigged elections, voter suppression, etc. these last few years. We are inevitably going to have a no-bullshit case of one of the above and no one is going to believe it.
    no bullshit
    Trump adviser tells Wisconsin Republicans that GOP has ‘traditionally’ relied on voter suppression but will ‘start playing offense’ in 2020
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-trump-gop-wisconsin-voter-suppression-20191221-wm6pi27zufctxmbe6gx4i2r4ce-story.html

    “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”

    Clark made the comments Nov. 21 in a meeting of the Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter. Attendees included the state Senate's top Republican, Scott Fitzgerald, along with the executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

    That's a guy talking shit. I'm not sure if anyone followed up on it, but there's no evidence of any voter suppression in that article. As it actually says when you scroll down. 


    schrodinger's douchebag strikes again

    He got caught saying the quiet part out loud.
    and had to backpedal....nonono that's not what I meant

    for further evidence, look at what the GOP does, not just what they say:
    the GOP is constantly trying to pass voter id laws, closing polling stations, removing voters, and stopping any legislation that would make it easier to vote, or have a paper trail

    hard to believe he really meant anything else in that context
    Lots of bluster, lots of insults, no evidence. This is what I'm talking about.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
    this shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend
    Of course it happens. But there's no evidence in the case you linked to. There's also no evidence to back up AOC's claim about Michigan, which is what started this conversation. 

    This is precisely the problem I'm talking about. People pointing to unrelated examples and applying it to any election where they don't like the results. Being angry and vulgar doesn't make you more right. It means no one is going to believe you when that situation actually happens.
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,852
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    really want to know her definition of suppression...
    I’d say waiting in line for 3 hours is a form of suppression, particularly when you compare population density of registered voters by precincts and subsequent distribution of polling place employees and voting machines. It’s well documented. Whether AOC’s claim in this particular instance is accurate, I don’t know. But it’s worth investigating and if found to be true, there should be remedies.
    my counter would be, despite a higher registered voter number, the election boards prepare based on historical turnout i.e. number of poll workers and machines at a given location.

    further, there is no way to predict, along with actual turnout, just what time a set of voters will actually appear.

    so the states either put up the cash to have enough machines in place for all eligible voters, registered or not. And have an equal number of volunteers on hand to  meet that potential demand. or the voters put ul with the inconvenience consistantly to force states to to put up the cash to meet demand.

    this is driven by citizen apathy not sinister motives although that can also play a role.
    I disagree. 
    The charge of voter suppression carries the accusation that it was intentional and deliberate.  Being poorly managed, underestimating the turnout, not having enough workers, these are examples of perhaps unpreparedness, but not a deliberate attempt to try and prevent one group of people from voting.  

    If you poorly manage on purpose, say in minority neighborhoods?
    Im not saying there's no such thing,  I'm saying the charge in this case is specious.


    Damn these executives and their fancy words.

    If in Nov everything returns to normal and our emperor allows elections, we’ll be pretty pissed if thousands can’t vote in the swing cities.

    The funny thing about AOCs claim, is voting was up 30% in Washtenaw County. 

  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,105
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    really want to know her definition of suppression...
    I’d say waiting in line for 3 hours is a form of suppression, particularly when you compare population density of registered voters by precincts and subsequent distribution of polling place employees and voting machines. It’s well documented. Whether AOC’s claim in this particular instance is accurate, I don’t know. But it’s worth investigating and if found to be true, there should be remedies.
    my counter would be, despite a higher registered voter number, the election boards prepare based on historical turnout i.e. number of poll workers and machines at a given location.

    further, there is no way to predict, along with actual turnout, just what time a set of voters will actually appear.

    so the states either put up the cash to have enough machines in place for all eligible voters, registered or not. And have an equal number of volunteers on hand to  meet that potential demand. or the voters put ul with the inconvenience consistantly to force states to to put up the cash to meet demand.

    this is driven by citizen apathy not sinister motives although that can also play a role.
    I disagree. 
    The charge of voter suppression carries the accusation that it was intentional and deliberate.  Being poorly managed, underestimating the turnout, not having enough workers, these are examples of perhaps unpreparedness, but not a deliberate attempt to try and prevent one group of people from voting.  

    If you poorly manage on purpose, say in minority neighborhoods?
    Im not saying there's no such thing,  I'm saying the charge in this case is specious.


    Damn these executives and their fancy words.

    If in Nov everything returns to normal and our emperor allows elections, we’ll be pretty pissed if thousands can’t vote in the swing cities.

    The funny thing about AOCs claim, is voting was up 30% in Washtenaw County. 

    Maybe it could have been up 40%?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    really want to know her definition of suppression...
    I’d say waiting in line for 3 hours is a form of suppression, particularly when you compare population density of registered voters by precincts and subsequent distribution of polling place employees and voting machines. It’s well documented. Whether AOC’s claim in this particular instance is accurate, I don’t know. But it’s worth investigating and if found to be true, there should be remedies.
    my counter would be, despite a higher registered voter number, the election boards prepare based on historical turnout i.e. number of poll workers and machines at a given location.

    further, there is no way to predict, along with actual turnout, just what time a set of voters will actually appear.

    so the states either put up the cash to have enough machines in place for all eligible voters, registered or not. And have an equal number of volunteers on hand to  meet that potential demand. or the voters put ul with the inconvenience consistantly to force states to to put up the cash to meet demand.

    this is driven by citizen apathy not sinister motives although that can also play a role.
    I disagree. 
    The charge of voter suppression carries the accusation that it was intentional and deliberate.  Being poorly managed, underestimating the turnout, not having enough workers, these are examples of perhaps unpreparedness, but not a deliberate attempt to try and prevent one group of people from voting.  

    If you poorly manage on purpose, say in minority neighborhoods?
    Im not saying there's no such thing,  I'm saying the charge in this case is specious.


    Damn these executives and their fancy words.

    If in Nov everything returns to normal and our emperor allows elections, we’ll be pretty pissed if thousands can’t vote in the swing cities.

    The funny thing about AOCs claim, is voting was up 30% in Washtenaw County. 

    30% statewide,  including Ann Arbor,  as you point out. That's the whole crux of my argument here. 
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,598
    Primaries can't work when people decide their candidate and their candidate only is worthy of support.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • OnWis97
    OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 5,610
    JimmyV said:
    Primaries can't work when people decide their candidate and their candidate only is worthy of support.
    Yep.  I’ve been disengaged ever since Williamson dropped out.  

    Kidding.  Yeah, the theory is that people in the party ultimately support the collaborative consensus.  This is based on the assumption that people will compromise.  Some won’t and great becomes the enemy of good.
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
    2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    I think there's a pretty stark difference between Bernie and Biden. It's like a Cruz or Rubio supporter who wouldn't vote for Trump. Not everyone is Party Above All.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,598
    If you are a Bernie supporter unwilling to support Biden in the fall, then you are saying you are ok with a second Trump term. That's your choice, but that's on you. The same goes for anyone who would have refused to support Bernie if he became the nominee. The differences between Sanders and Biden don't make Trump any more qualified or acceptable. Get over yourselves and help end this.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    edited March 2020
    JimmyV said:
    If you are a Bernie supporter unwilling to support Biden in the fall, then you are saying you are ok with a second Trump term. That's your choice, but that's on you. The same goes for anyone who would have refused to support Bernie if he became the nominee. The differences between Sanders and Biden don't make Trump any more qualified or acceptable. Get over yourselves and help end this.
    You're going to have a difficult time persuading people by telling them to get over themselves. If that's all Biden supporters have for Bernie supporters, independents, disaffected Republicans, etc., he's screwed.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    pjl44 said:
    JimmyV said:
    If you are a Bernie supporter unwilling to support Biden in the fall, then you are saying you are ok with a second Trump term. That's your choice, but that's on you. The same goes for anyone who would have refused to support Bernie if he became the nominee. The differences between Sanders and Biden don't make Trump any more qualified or acceptable. Get over yourselves and help end this.
    You're going to have a difficult time persuading people by telling them to get over themselves. If that's all Biden supporters have for Bernie supporters, independents, disaffected Republicans, etc., he's screwed.
    You can't fix stupid! 🤷‍♂️
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,598
    pjl44 said:
    JimmyV said:
    If you are a Bernie supporter unwilling to support Biden in the fall, then you are saying you are ok with a second Trump term. That's your choice, but that's on you. The same goes for anyone who would have refused to support Bernie if he became the nominee. The differences between Sanders and Biden don't make Trump any more qualified or acceptable. Get over yourselves and help end this.
    You're going to have a difficult time persuading people by telling them to get over themselves. If that's all Biden supporters have for Bernie supporters, independents, disaffected Republicans, etc., he's screwed.
    Not up to me to convince Bernie supporters of anything. Biden will make overtures and they will make their own decisions. Those decisions will have consequences, for better or worse. None of us need to pretend otherwise. You are either going to help get Trump out of office or you're not. No policy difference changes that.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,598
    If you are more invested in the argument between left-leaning factions than you are in beating Trump, then you are part of the toxic political culture that helped get him elected. I like Bernie, I like Joe. Neither were my preferred candidate, both would get my vote in November.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    Wherein people dicussing divergent political views is a toxic culture. If beating Trump means conforming to a different group of petty fascists, then you can start to understand the appeal of third parties.
This discussion has been closed.