The perfect 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate:
https://uploads.scratch.mit.edu/users/avatars/451/5827.png
Presidential run 2020.
- Thread starter gaby
- Start date
- Status
The perfect 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate:
https://uploads.scratch.mit.edu/users/avatars/451/5827.png
^^^^^^^ A binary person with one breast and one testicle and a liberal arts degree who escaped form Martha Stewart's sweat shop would win for sure.
I'm thinking this takes Corey Booker out of the race.
https://www.mediaite.com/online/cory-booker-thinks-margaritas-are-made-with-vodka/
https://www.mediaite.com/online/cory-booker-thinks-margaritas-are-made-with-vodka/
Booker seems insincere and very ingratiating. And relative to your comparison to Clinton, can Booker really feel our pain?
In order to stem the excitement on the Left, prominent Moderate Democrats seem to be clearing the Moderate track for Biden. Bloomberg, Sherrod Brown. That could be a mistake if Biden falters. The clear the field for Hillary strategy was disastrous and all too predictable.
In order to stem the excitement on the Left, prominent Moderate Democrats seem to be clearing the Moderate track for Biden. Bloomberg, Sherrod Brown. That could be a mistake if Biden falters. The clear the field for Hillary strategy was disastrous and all too predictable.
I have two reactions to the article posted just above.
1. Are the two authors Far-Left supporters who want to believe Biden is falling behind and try to pump fake Democrats?
2. In this era, the importance of money is exaggerated. In fact, almost all the top candidates are guaranteed to receive too much exposure. In regards to Patron's comment regarding policy speeches, there are likely many Moderate Democrats who don't need to hear policies. They just want anyone not on the Far-Left.
1. Are the two authors Far-Left supporters who want to believe Biden is falling behind and try to pump fake Democrats?
2. In this era, the importance of money is exaggerated. In fact, almost all the top candidates are guaranteed to receive too much exposure. In regards to Patron's comment regarding policy speeches, there are likely many Moderate Democrats who don't need to hear policies. They just want anyone not on the Far-Left.
I posted this because some people continue to sell the silly lie that certain U.S. networks are NOT liberal. This woman's crime is that she is a Republican and worked for Jeff Sessions in the Justice Dept.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...de-will-be-a-cnn-analyst-not-political-editor
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...de-will-be-a-cnn-analyst-not-political-editor
I'm not going back over all the stuff I missed on this thread. (Although I still say that Harris bringing up sex decrim, even as the Nordic Model, is important because it puts the issue on the table. Since no one really believes her 180 she will have to defend it and if she does, it means others will be asked for their position as well. )
But I really have to answer sambuca here. You say you are posting that link because it refutes the idea that the networks aren't liberal. The link you post to is about a woman who worked for Jeff Sessions who was hired as a political editor by CNN and then in the face of a backlash CNN refused to unhire herand made her a political analyst where she will be on TV giving the conservative position. This hiring of someone conservative and making sure she has a voice during the election is proof that they are liberal, according to you.
Interesting logic.
You also mention a crime but I don't see one talked about. She worked in the Trump administration so it is possible she has been charged with a crime but I am not aware of one.
But I really have to answer sambuca here. You say you are posting that link because it refutes the idea that the networks aren't liberal. The link you post to is about a woman who worked for Jeff Sessions who was hired as a political editor by CNN and then in the face of a backlash CNN refused to unhire herand made her a political analyst where she will be on TV giving the conservative position. This hiring of someone conservative and making sure she has a voice during the election is proof that they are liberal, according to you.
Interesting logic.
You also mention a crime but I don't see one talked about. She worked in the Trump administration so it is possible she has been charged with a crime but I am not aware of one.
Sarah Isgur's role has been reduced from editor to analyst. There is no doubt that this was a victory for those who criticized her hiring.
You know damn well the use of the word crime is not literal. Her critics are treating her like she committed crime because she worked in the Trump Administration, but clearly in an indirect role.
Can we agree she's kind of hot in a sexy, librarian kind of way? I guess this would make her GND based on how that term is used here.
You know damn well the use of the word crime is not literal. Her critics are treating her like she committed crime because she worked in the Trump Administration, but clearly in an indirect role.
Can we agree she's kind of hot in a sexy, librarian kind of way? I guess this would make her GND based on how that term is used here.
^ OK, but you are still left with "CNN tried to hire her into an editor position and then when criticized, reduced the position but are keeping her and putting her on air". You claimed this proves the media is liberal. CNN spending big money to hire her and refusing to let her go in face of pressure proves CNN is liberal how? Hiring people from the Trump administration is liberal/left-wing/anti-conservative?
You seem to be implying with your "crime" comment that the only reason people objected to her being an editor is that she worked for Sessions. Presumably you feel she is a completely qualified hire in all other respects for that position, and are willing to back that claim up.
I do agree she has a certain hot librarian look about her.
You seem to be implying with your "crime" comment that the only reason people objected to her being an editor is that she worked for Sessions. Presumably you feel she is a completely qualified hire in all other respects for that position, and are willing to back that claim up.
I do agree she has a certain hot librarian look about her.
Nothing really can ever be complete proof that a network is a liberal outpost. It will be mostly examples by observers and anecdotes of former employees. It's like the quote of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart regarding pornography "I know it when I see it." Whether that be networks slobbering over Jussie Smollett when the story sounded fishy. Or the networks and major newspapers making false claims regarding the Covington school kids.
I just pointed out that if CNN staffers and viewers had this much to say about Sarah Isgur's hiring then they are expecting the network to be run in a certain manner which I believe is a clear slant. You don't have to agree, but clearly something was up in the heads of those who protested her hiring. If she was hired by Fox News, likely nothing would have been said by anyone.
I commend CNN for hiring her. It's a good idea to bring in differing opinions. I have heard her speak. I don't think she will just be a Trump cheerleader.
I don't think the Covington kid(s) are going to win a big settlement, but if they won some substantial dollars would that be saying something about liberal media bias. I'm afraid in your world Valcazar you stake out a position and no ensuing event can really change it.
I just pointed out that if CNN staffers and viewers had this much to say about Sarah Isgur's hiring then they are expecting the network to be run in a certain manner which I believe is a clear slant. You don't have to agree, but clearly something was up in the heads of those who protested her hiring. If she was hired by Fox News, likely nothing would have been said by anyone.
I commend CNN for hiring her. It's a good idea to bring in differing opinions. I have heard her speak. I don't think she will just be a Trump cheerleader.
I don't think the Covington kid(s) are going to win a big settlement, but if they won some substantial dollars would that be saying something about liberal media bias. I'm afraid in your world Valcazar you stake out a position and no ensuing event can really change it.
But again, that isn't what you said. If you stuck to "CNN is clearly more liberal than Fox" then that would be fine. You don't mean that when you say it is liberal. You mean that it is lying and slanting for political gain.
And, again, you pointed to hiring her as proof it is liberal, which is just self-refuting.
What is most interesting, is that you still seem to think there was pushback on her being given the political editor position solely because of her work with Trump, and not because of her complete lack of previous experience in journalism. Her work experience is perfectly fine for the role of political analyst. (I don't know how useful she will be but then I find the political analysts at CNN are mostly terrible across the board and don't add much to the coverage.)
I agree that if she had been hired by Fox news, no one would have said anything, but that is because no one expects Fox News to do honest political coverage. (I do doubt she would have been hired, though. They have conservative editors with actual experience, and they don't need to buy better access to the president or his people.)
Please don't mistake the fact you are unable to present a convincing argument with me not being willing to change my mind. Move beyond talking points one day, and you may well get somewhere!
As for the Covington cases, yes, they have made their case contingent on the idea that the reporting was maliciously targeted due to an anti-Trump agenda. (At least so reports say.) I think that has massively lowered their chances of winning anything, since they seem to have abandoned making it an actual defamation case. (But as you agree, it seems unlikely they will win a big settlement.)
And, again, you pointed to hiring her as proof it is liberal, which is just self-refuting.
What is most interesting, is that you still seem to think there was pushback on her being given the political editor position solely because of her work with Trump, and not because of her complete lack of previous experience in journalism. Her work experience is perfectly fine for the role of political analyst. (I don't know how useful she will be but then I find the political analysts at CNN are mostly terrible across the board and don't add much to the coverage.)
I agree that if she had been hired by Fox news, no one would have said anything, but that is because no one expects Fox News to do honest political coverage. (I do doubt she would have been hired, though. They have conservative editors with actual experience, and they don't need to buy better access to the president or his people.)
Please don't mistake the fact you are unable to present a convincing argument with me not being willing to change my mind. Move beyond talking points one day, and you may well get somewhere!
As for the Covington cases, yes, they have made their case contingent on the idea that the reporting was maliciously targeted due to an anti-Trump agenda. (At least so reports say.) I think that has massively lowered their chances of winning anything, since they seem to have abandoned making it an actual defamation case. (But as you agree, it seems unlikely they will win a big settlement.)
I believe you are badgering the witness and mischaracterizing his testimony. In specific reference to CNN, I said it was a "......silly lie that certain U.S. networks are NOT liberal." I never said CNN lies. Slanting yes. I think it goes without saying that Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all display bias and slant. It's all subjective and specific narratives and reporting give one more insight into the bias than general discussions.
Fox News was certainly biased against President Obama. I don't remember, but I think they were hard on Clinton. In the shadow of the Mueller investigation, some Fox hosts and contributors seem to have walked back their opinions in support of the Ken Starr Special Counsel twenty years ago.
CNN and MSNBC are biased against President Trump. My opinion is they take it too far. They seem emboldened by how many of those that don't support Trump, hate him. I think they have made big mistakes. I think that retractions and reversals have become more common. A scathing narrative is one thing, but an error in reporting is an entirely different thing. Sure Fox made errors in reporting, but I don't know if it was as consistent today.
Lastly, you stated "no one expects Fox News to do honest political coverage". I'd be careful about dispensing virtues like honesty and truth or lack thereof to one cable news network over another. I don't think any of them have cornered the market on honesty and truth. A few years ago, I would have said CNN tried to play it down the middle (to poor ratings I might add). That's about as far I would go
Reparations
Interesting political policy to say the least. I think reparations have little support with the broad electorate. Nor do I believe there is a practical application of such a policy. It could be winning politics for the Democratic primary or it might just be required policy for the left wing candidates. Perhaps moderates like Biden will back off from the policy of reparations.
Presuming that the issue of reparation goes nowhere, what does this issue accomplish in the general election? Do Dems really need to shore up African-American voters? Did you know the U.S. had two million African-born immigrants? Wonder what they think about reparations?
What I see in reality happening is what Corey Booker came out with yesterday. Hey, let's have a study on the possibility of reparations! This is an obvious political move to kind of support something without committing to something. Some call this Lip Service.
Interesting political policy to say the least. I think reparations have little support with the broad electorate. Nor do I believe there is a practical application of such a policy. It could be winning politics for the Democratic primary or it might just be required policy for the left wing candidates. Perhaps moderates like Biden will back off from the policy of reparations.
Presuming that the issue of reparation goes nowhere, what does this issue accomplish in the general election? Do Dems really need to shore up African-American voters? Did you know the U.S. had two million African-born immigrants? Wonder what they think about reparations?
What I see in reality happening is what Corey Booker came out with yesterday. Hey, let's have a study on the possibility of reparations! This is an obvious political move to kind of support something without committing to something. Some call this Lip Service.
Not really though. HB 40 has been around since 1989. It's been the dominant theme of reparations talk for at least the last 5 years since Coates made it a main point of his Atlantic article on Reparations. Yes, like the truth and reconciliation commissions and so on it may lead to nothing, but even getting it into the discussion is a big hit. But everyone knows that you can't start with "X money for X people" because that's nuts and it will also get demagogued to death, so you have to start with an actual attempt to open the dialogue.
I was wondering why you were mentioning Booker when Warren and Harris both came out in favor of it a while ago, but now I see he introduced the bill as a Senate version.
Yes, this is going to be used by the GOP to claim the Dems are insane, they are pandering to black activists, and they are coming to steal white people's money. But that's going to happen anyway (remember the Obamaphone? Remember the Welfare cadillacs?) so why not actually support something worth supporting? All the dem candidates are going to be accused of supporting reparations no matter what, at least being able to point to a real bill with real words and say "No, we are supporting this" may reach some people who still think independently.
I don't see anyone running on this as a centerpiece, but maybe that is something Booker is intending to do. I don't know. I feel it will mostly be background noise unless the GOP think "THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE YOUR MONEY TO BLACK PEOPLE!" is a better scare line than "THEY WANT OPEN BORDERS SO MS-13 CAN KILL YOU ALL!"
I was wondering why you were mentioning Booker when Warren and Harris both came out in favor of it a while ago, but now I see he introduced the bill as a Senate version.
Yes, this is going to be used by the GOP to claim the Dems are insane, they are pandering to black activists, and they are coming to steal white people's money. But that's going to happen anyway (remember the Obamaphone? Remember the Welfare cadillacs?) so why not actually support something worth supporting? All the dem candidates are going to be accused of supporting reparations no matter what, at least being able to point to a real bill with real words and say "No, we are supporting this" may reach some people who still think independently.
I don't see anyone running on this as a centerpiece, but maybe that is something Booker is intending to do. I don't know. I feel it will mostly be background noise unless the GOP think "THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE YOUR MONEY TO BLACK PEOPLE!" is a better scare line than "THEY WANT OPEN BORDERS SO MS-13 CAN KILL YOU ALL!"
They don't really, though. They talk about wanting something new, and they talk about how he isn't exciting for that reason, but they don't really say they don't like him because he is a white man. They give other reasons not to prefer him, they discuss electability, his previous policies, and they discuss why they like other people.
Joe is gonna show up and have to earn the nomination like everyone else. Personally, I think he will flame out. He's never been really good running for president before, and I think the fuzzy nostalgia he is running on won't hold up for long, especially once debates start. It's 10 months to the first primary, that's a long time not to fuck up. But maybe he will surprise me! He isn't my first choice, but I don't really have any major problems with him.
Joe is gonna show up and have to earn the nomination like everyone else. Personally, I think he will flame out. He's never been really good running for president before, and I think the fuzzy nostalgia he is running on won't hold up for long, especially once debates start. It's 10 months to the first primary, that's a long time not to fuck up. But maybe he will surprise me! He isn't my first choice, but I don't really have any major problems with him.
All the wannabee new comers will fissile out quickly. People are tire of the loud mouth carnival barker Trump and they want an old style diplomatic president. I suspect Jeb Bush will attempt and succeed at the presidency.
That's funny.
Bush isn't going to try again. If there really is a desire for old school, then the William Weld challenge will get some momentum. I do agree that the Democratic field will narrow quickly enough once things get really going. I think the debates will knock a bunch of people out since some people will not perform well.
IMHO...at the end of the day the final serious contenders will be.....BIDEN--SANDERS--BUTTIGIEG--O'ROURKE and HARRIS.....AND the winning ticket for the Dems......BIDEN--HARRIS..... i like Bill de Blasio BUT not sure de son rayonnement chez les Démocrates.
- Status
