Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Machismo]

*scratches head* that's rather contradictory isn't it? Also...

Yes, it's because of slavery, and an utter opposition to equality.

It's weird how many of you guys support affirmative action.

[Somewhatconcerned]

So Warren was asked "what do you tell people who say marriage is between one man and one woman?"

She responded "then just marry one woman".

I like Warren and hope she's the nominee, but I also think she needs to be careful not to come across as Hilary 2.0 with some of the snarky comments.

We've seen the right's ability to weaponize comments like "deplorables" as well as their overall snowflakey-ness. I can see many on the right taking the above response from Warren as "she's attacking white men!"

It's sad, but that's the victim mentality these people live with these days.

[omerome]

I like Warren and hope she's the nominee, but I also think she needs to be careful not to come across as Hilary 2.0 with some of the snarky comments.

We've seen the right's ability to weaponize comments like "deplorables" as well as their overall snowflakey-ness. I can see many on the right taking the above response from Warren as "she's attacking white men!"

It's sad, but that's the victim mentality these people live with these days.

While true, it really doesn't matter because regardless of what she says and does, those same people will find anything to get upset about. Miserable people are miserable.

[Somewhatconcerned]

While true, it really doesn't matter because regardless of what she says and does, those same people will find anything to get upset about. Miserable people are miserable.

That's true....but the less soundbites the better IMO.

[Benggaul]

So Warren was asked "what do you tell people who say marriage is between one man and one woman?"

She responded "then just marry one woman".

Sorry, Breccia, but I scooped you on that one. :P

I keep finding more reasons to get behind Warren as the candidate...

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status...906527232?s=20

Good grief that was perfect.

[cubby]

Yes, Trump won despite getting fewer votes. That's how the election can work in the US despite it being batshit crazy.

But, it's important to keep in mind that republicans don't actually care about the constitution or that the election works this way. Not just because they've been letting Trump stomp all over the constitution, but simply because they're the ones who benefited in 2000 and 2016.

As soon as that's no longer possible you are going to see republicans completely flip on the subject of the EC. They will then try to convince everyone they were against it all along. This is going to happen when states like Florida and Texas turn reliably blue (not necessarily 2020 obviously). It may also happen when (not if) the US gets more states.

By the time we hit the 2024 or 2028 election cycle you are going to see republicans explaining how terrible the EC is.

Historically, the GOP hasn't won a popular election since 1992 (2004 was Bush2's reelection, and that was from the 2000 win).

[Blur4stuff]

*scratches head* that's rather contradictory isn't it? Also...

I'm pointing out that when it comes to the EC, republican support of it has nothing to do with respecting or upholding the constitution. The reason we know this is because they are currently allowing Trump to stomp and crap all over it while arguing that congress doesn't have the authority to investigate him. And there's the parts they'd like to completely ignore or remove altogether.

The second the EC no longer favors republicans they will immediately change their position. That will happen over the next decade.

[Seiklis]

I'm pointing out that when it comes to the EC, republican support of it has nothing to do with respecting or upholding the constitution. The reason we know this is because they are currently allowing Trump to stomp and crap all over it while arguing that congress doesn't have the authority to investigate him. And there's the parts they'd like to completely ignore or remove altogether.

The second the EC no longer favors republicans they will immediately change their position. That will happen over the next decade.

Yup Republicans have no path if they lose Texas. Their only hope is to flip New England and that'll be a challenge with an educated voting bloc

And no I'm not saying New England will flip, I'm saying that New England is the only place left with the correct demographics for Trumpism to have any sort of appeal

[Thepersona]

Yup Republicans have no path if they lose Texas. Their only hope is to flip New England and that'll be a challenge with an educated voting bloc

And no I'm not saying New England will flip, I'm saying that New England is the only place left with the correct demographics for Trumpism to have any sort of appeal

Even if they dont lose texas this election season, forcing GOP resources to that state (one that's mostly secure) makes them unable to do so in less safe races.

[Endus]

I like Warren and hope she's the nominee, but I also think she needs to be careful not to come across as Hilary 2.0 with some of the snarky comments.

Frankly, fuck that. This was as kind a response as the hypothetical question deserves.

The idea that anyone not heterosexual should be denied marriage rights based on narrow and extremist religious views of a minority is an appalling viewpoint to try and force on society. "If you believe that, practice what you believe and leave everyone else the fuck alone" is as far as that should go. Any move to take it past that needs to be sat the fuck back down.

Warren's slight snark is about the lightest possible way you could go about doing so. She responded to a hypothetical attendee demanding the right to abuse and marginalize millions of Americans and deny them basic human rights. This kind of light snark was super gentle in response to that.

We've seen the right's ability to weaponize comments like "deplorables" as well as their overall snowflakey-ness. I can see many on the right taking the above response from Warren as "she's attacking white men!"

And those people shouldn't have any considerations given to them. They're not offended by her statements (or Clinton's). They're offended by their existence, and hunting for a soundbite to take out of context to try and socially justify their existing offense.

Take your example; literally nothing in the exchange there mentioned race. And the only reason Warren specified her response as being towards a man was to be specific in her own response. You inserted race for no reason, because these people will insert race themselves, for no reason, because they don't care what Warren actually said, they're just trying to make their pre-existing outrage seem warranted.

Or Clinton. Clinton's comment was that, to paraphrase, half of Trump's supporters were a basket of deplorables. It's supremely telling that, in the aftermath, every single one who spoke out about that comment assumed that they, personally were in that deplorable half, not the other non-deplorable half.

Warren and Clinton could have said "I like puppies", and these people would have been ranting that she's anti-kitten, or that she's gonna eat puppies, or you name it. No matter what they said, they'll take offense, and take it out of context, to slander them. Their response doesn't deserve consideration.

[Wyrt]

Apparently SJWs are upset that Warren implied a person who thinks their religious beliefs should rule other people's lives couldn't find a wife.

Oh, sorry, not SJWs, conservatives who hate SJWs and totally never, ever act like SJWs ever.

[Blur4stuff]

Libertarians should love Warren's answer on same sex marriage. Marry who you want and stay the fuck out of everyone else's business.

[PACOX]

I like Warren and hope she's the nominee, but I also think she needs to be careful not to come across as Hilary 2.0 with some of the snarky comments.

We've seen the right's ability to weaponize comments like "deplorables" as well as their overall snowflakey-ness. I can see many on the right taking the above response from Warren as "she's attacking white men!"

It's sad, but that's the victim mentality these people live with these days.

The people who whined about 'deplorables' werent the people Clinton were campaigning for anyway. Cater to babies and thats all your administration will be known for.

Republicans don't care about offending the Left. Why the Left is so worried about kissing up to the Right is beyond me.

[Wyrt]

Seems the Right is really triggered by the LGBT thing. Especially by Beto threatening tax exempt status of churches that get involved in politics.

[Edge-]

Seems the Right is really triggered by the LGBT thing. Especially by Beto threatening tax exempt status of churches that get involved in politics.

Which is also wildly unconstitutional and fucking stupid. Beto is basically just feeding Republican strategists every sound bite they'll ever need for advertisements for the next 3 decades, and at this point he really needs to shut the fuck up and leave politics. Given his "performance" and his ability to say dumb shit like this, I'd be surprised if he could even win in Texas outside of a proper blue district.

Don't get me wrong, without getting into religious discussion I'm all for re-evaluating the rule granting them tax exception to see if it still makes sense in the modern era. But this was fucking braindead stupid shit to say.

[Benggaul]

Looks like Warren's practicing her trolling game for if she's chosen to go up against the Troll doll himself next year:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

I'm sure the idea wasn't hers personally but she executed it pretty damned well.

[Somewhatconcerned]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...n-to-same-sex#

This is what I mean...she needs to be careful not to come across as Hilary 2.0.

[Benggaul]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...n-to-same-sex#

This is what I mean...she needs to be careful not to come across as Hilary 2.0.

Except people who aren't going to vote for her because of this already weren't going to vote for her.

[Orbitus]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...n-to-same-sex#

This is what I mean...she needs to be careful not to come across as Hilary 2.0.

Marco Rubio is a moron. He doesn't say anything about the crude bullshit that Trump says, but wants to cry when the opposition party says a fucking joke.

[Xyonai]

Marco Rubio is a moron. He doesn't say anything about the crude bullshit that Trump says, but wants to cry when the opposition party says a fucking joke.

Honestly this. Like, sure, Warren could've done without the jab at the end but It's not like she bragged about her dick size during a debate or something. What kinda immature man-child would think that's appropriate?