Jump to content
IGNORED

General Current Events/Political Discussion


MrWunderful
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was actually gonna make a 2020 Election discussion sort of topic but I guess that will be covered here right?  For everyone's convenience, here's a handy dandy Electoral College map (and it features ones from all the past elections too!) so you can keep track of which states are safe, leaning, toss-up and what-have-you.  It also includes Senate/House/Governor maps as well.  Enjoy!

https://www.270towin.com/

www.realclearpolitics.org is a great place to keep up with that kind of thing too, but they don't yet have an electoral map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Estil 

To continue the discussion from the other thread, you made the following remark:

Quote

 

"That's how I view it too...we have more than enough checks and balances in place (and I don't just mean the three ring gov't from that Schoolhouse Rock diddy) to ensure that's it's not "the end of the world" just because your preferred candidate didn't win.  Remember it's not just the President/governor being up every four years...every other year so is your Congressperson and in two out of three of those two year cycles one of your Senators is up as well.

The President may allegedly be the most powerful man in the free world or whatever but he can't do nearly as much as people think he can (again checks and balances)." 

 

I always hear this stupid argument about "well, you are just mad your candidate didn't win" and it is total horse shit. We aren't mad our candidate didn't win. I didn't even have a candidate I liked in the final race. We are upset because of the specific person who is in the office. It's not about winning and losing. 

The president can't do as much as people think he can argument is fine, but you are simply referring to legal policy. You are neglecting his influence over the public. His rhetoric that has made people who used to hide away their racist bullshit now think it's ok to spew it out in the open. Once he became president, these awful people came out of the woodwork. "Well if the president can mock disabled people it must be ok to do it right? If the president can be a total sexist and grab them by the pussy then it must be ok for me to do it too right?" The legal and policy changes he can make aren't nearly as important as the drastic damage he's done to our society as a whole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny take on what Trump actually says  at his Rallies, if you can’t bring yourself to watch one:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/politics/trump-new-hampshire-rally/index.html


Even gives Credit to him for a good line or two for the “CNN= fakes news” crowd  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im stunned Bernie diddnt do better in nh. He cleaned up against Hillary 4 years ago! 

 

A bigger surprise was the turnout for Amy. I just don't see a lot of people for her in manchester. She must be getting a lot from Biden's implosion last week. 

If i had to pick a Democrat, personally at this point, i'm with Pete. I would pick Pete over trump any day. From the little I have read about Amy(seriously, where the hell did that come from?!) I would pick her too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

Im stunned Bernie diddnt do better in nh. He cleaned up against Hillary 4 years ago! 

 

A bigger surprise was the turnout for Amy. I just don't see a lot of people for her in manchester. She must be getting a lot from Biden's implosion last week. 

If i had to pick a Democrat, personally at this point, i'm with Pete. I would pick Pete over trump any day. From the little I have read about Amy(seriously, where the hell did that come from?!) I would pick her too.

I think Sanders could have done a little better too, but this race is completely different than 2016 you have to account for the number of viable candidates in the race.

If the DNC or Iowa would have announced Bernie's win in Iowa and Pete didn't get an 8% boost because of the momentum, Sanders would have had a bigger win.

Pete's problem is he can't win nationally. A vote for Pete is the same as a vote for Trump because Pete's a loser and he will lose. He is only in the race because he couldn't win his other elections and figured he had nothing else to lose. Also, and I just wanna get this out of the way, there is no judgement here, he is going to have a problem getting people to vote for him as a gay person.

Pete is trying to fail up. He lost a state treasures race by 20 points, he then lost a campaign to run the DNC.He's a mayor of a small town and has 0% of the black vote because of the way he fired black people in the city he was the mayor. 

Pete put all his time and money at the time into Iowa and New Hampshire. I am sure he has gotten a cash infusion because of his good showings, but he has done very little work in the rest of the states. Bernie has been everywhere 

Edited by Californication
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Californication said:

I think Sanders could have done a little better too, but this race is completely different than 2016 you have to account for the number of people in the race.

If the DNC or Iowa would have announced Bernie's win in Iowa and Pete didn't get an 8% boost because of the momentum, Sanders would have had a bigger win.

Pete's problem is he can't win nationally. A vote for Pete is the same as a vote for Trump because Pete's a loser and he will lose. He is only in the race because he couldn't win his other elections and figured he had nothing else to lose.

Pete put all his time and money at the time into Iowa and New Hampshire. I am sure he has gotten a cash infusion because of his good showinga, but he has done very little work in the rest of the states. Bernie has been everywhere 

Bernie is an established brand, though. It's a lot easier to do work when you all ready have that brand built in.

 

Pete has work to do. More so than Bernie. I know Pete gets picked on for accepting donations from the wealthy, but he doesnt have nearly the network that bernie does. It costs a lot of money to run for president. Myself being a capitalist libertarian, i dont judge him for it.

But amy was completely unknown here in NH. I dont see tons of Amy signs and rallygoers everywhere I go like with Bernie. And she still got 20%. Pete may make some serious noise in the coming weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just that Pete takes money.

Pete has no ideology and takes money. That mean he is for sale to the highest bidder. It's hard enough for a candidate with an ideology to do the right thing with all the forces around them, someone with no ideology, it's a shit show.

Pete's dad is a famous Marxist. Pete understands socialism. He wrote a thesis on Bernie Sanders talking about how great he is while in school. Cornel West is like Pete's uncle. He is just a sell out.

He worked for McKinsey.He was the guy they sent into places and explained where to cut jobs and pensions. 

Amy did really well. I hope she splits the vote for the other conservatives.

And your right about Sanders, they already had a list of people who support him left over from 2016 and learned from their mistakes. His public speaking is so much better this time around. Sanders also surrounded himself with really smart campaigners and surrogates.

Edited by Californication
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do democratic contenders announce their running mates before getting nominated or do they typically wait until after?

 I could see the benefit in teaming up with someone strategic before getting nominated in order to win more popularity to win the primaries. But it could also be a bad move because someone might be a highly desirable pick for Vice President regardless of who they are running with so some people may want to wait until the air is clear before committing to partnering 

Edited by phart010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, phart010 said:

Do democratic contenders announce their running mates before getting nominated or do they typically wait until after?

 I could see the benefit in teaming up with someone strategic before getting nominated in order to win more popularity to win the primaries. But it could also be a bad move because someone might be a highly desirable pick for Vice President regardless of who they are running with so some people may want to wait until the air is clear before committing to partnering 

People wait to see what region theyll need or group theyll need to bolster and ususlly gear their pick for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take back what I said about Pastor Pete having read more. He really has no business being here.

 

I call him Pastor Pete since my wife played a Christian podcast that ripped apart his scripture interpretations that he loved to use so much as he described his Christian faith, which i always suspected to be as much of a sham as Trump's.

That being said, I would still vote for Pastor Pete over Trump. I may start pulling for Amy though. 

I'm not, nor ever will be a Bernie guy, however.

 

(Disclaimer, I am registered as a Republican in NH, so I had no horse in this race.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

I take back what I said about Pastor Pete having read more. He really has no business being here.

 

I call him Pastor Pete since my wife played a Christian podcast that ripped apart his scripture interpretations that he loved to use so much as he described his Christian faith, which i always suspected to be as much of a sham as Trump's.

That being said, I would still vote for Pastor Pete over Trump. I may start pulling for Amy though. 

I'm not, nor ever will be a Bernie guy, however.

 

(Disclaimer, I am registered as a Republican in NH, so I had no horse in this race.)

The comments I see against Pete are usually focused around him being good at making empty speeches but not actually having any policy points. I can't stand listening to speeches though so I'm getting that secondhand. 

What specifically do you have a problem with regarding Bernie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lincoln said:

The comments I see against Pete are usually focused around him being good at making empty speeches but not actually having any policy points. I can't stand listening to speeches though so I'm getting that secondhand. 

What specifically do you have a problem with regarding Bernie?

Pretty much that I identify myself as a capitalistic libertarian. Pretty much the exact polar opposite of Bernie's politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a ton of money these days, and I am not even living in the US, but I have been contributing to Bernie's campaign this whole time.  I definitely would not support Biden, and I don't think I would consider voting for Pete, as I don't trust him after he switched stances on healthcare.  I understand that a lot of Americans, for whatever reason, are strongly opposed to socialized healthcare...  But after living several years in a country with a national healthcare service, I feel that it is something Americans would benefit from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to General Current Events/Political Discussion
  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...