Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[LordKain]

It's great seeing Joe Biden showing such great leadership in this time of crisis.......BUAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Trumps approval ratings are way up. Americans actually think he's doing a great job handling the corona pandemic. Bernie is showing true leadership by giving daily livestreams what the media ignores him as usual.

I am enjoying the Bidenites trying to defend his absence though. Keep it up! /popcorn

[Theodarzna]

Seriously, where the hell is Joe Biden? He should be showing leadership right now, not hiding away somewhere and proposing ideas that Congress already came up with a week ago

Biden is either dead and they haven't gotten a good deep fake out to make it to the inevitable tele-convention where "he" announces he is passing the baton to someone else; or his dementia is super bad and they just can't let him in front of the public until they can get him rational enough to film him passing the baton to some other candidate.

[Rukh]

Biden is either dead and they haven't gotten a good deep fake out to make it to the inevitable tele-convention where "he" announces he is passing the baton to someone else; or his dementia is super bad and they just can't let him in front of the public until they can get him rational enough to film him passing the baton to some other candidate.

Oooooooooor he's enjoying his weekend, being quarantined like everyone else and doing lots of phone calls on strategy coordination.

No it must be the most pessimistic thing possible. Derp derp derp.

Seriously, this new plastic attack aint going to work, go back and strategize a better one.

[Telogrus]

Oooooooooor he's enjoying his weekend, being quarantined like everyone else and doing lots of phone calls on strategy coordination.

No it must be the most pessimistic thing possible. Derp derp derp.

Seriously, this new plastic attack aint going to work, go back and strategize a better one.

Nothing wrong with wanting your nominee to show some leadership

[Theodarzna]

Oooooooooor he's enjoying his weekend, being quarantined like everyone else and doing lots of phone calls on strategy coordination.

No it must be the most pessimistic thing possible. Derp derp derp.

Seriously, this new plastic attack aint going to work, go back and strategize a better one.

Dude doesn't even know what the Internet is. Hell, Bernie is as old and doing WAY more than he is.

[starlord]

Oooooooooor he's enjoying his weekend, being quarantined like everyone else and doing lots of phone calls on strategy coordination.

No it must be the most pessimistic thing possible. Derp derp derp.

Seriously, this new plastic attack aint going to work, go back and strategize a better one.

the primary is pretty much over so they gotta get their sour grapes in.

[Themius]

Kamala destroyed Kamala by being immensely unlikeable, dishonest, and unappealing to progressives. Tulsi just noticed and pointed it out as it was happening.

Tulsi destroyed Kalama In the same way Pete destroyed Bernie.... Which is to say they didn’t. People said Pete destroyed Bernie when he kept aggressively over talking despite saying nothing if substance.

[Orbitus]

That she finally dropped out doesn't change that she was and still is most if not all of these, especially the first two.

Also she has just as much shot in 2024 as she did in 2020. None. Hopefully she'll lose her current seat and slink off into oblivion, or her nice commentary job at Fox News.

She wasn't seeking re-election anyway, her primary challenger rocked her pretty much, or is going to whenever they have primary elections.

[Spectral]

Tulsi destroyed Kalama In the same way Pete destroyed Bernie.... Which is to say they didn’t. People said Pete destroyed Bernie when he kept aggressively over talking despite saying nothing if substance.

I'd pretty much agree. Kamala's downfall was that she's awful and everyone noticed. Bernie's downfall is that about a third of Dem primary voters will vote for him and others won't if they have any moderate options. Neither of these things were meaningfully changed by debate opponents.

[Theodarzna]

I'm not really sure this translates into the real world, this distinction you've made. My understanding is that an asset is someone under the direction of an agency or administrative body.

You could hardly say an individual beyond control but who might happen to align with your goals is an asset.

The implication is what matters, to the general public, saying someone is "Russian Asset" is the same as accusing them of being a spy.

[Dacien]

The implication is what matters, to the general public, saying someone is "Russian Asset" is the same as accusing them of being a spy.

Right, that's what I'm thinking. It's very much implied.

- - - Updated - - -

It's great seeing Joe Biden showing such great leadership in this time of crisis.......BUAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Trumps approval ratings are way up. Americans actually think he's doing a great job handling the corona pandemic. Bernie is showing true leadership by giving daily livestreams what the media ignores him as usual.

I am enjoying the Bidenites trying to defend his absence though. Keep it up! /popcorn

Biden is just too old. I mean, he's not taking his age well, is what I should say. He's probably resting. And I hate to be morbid but it needs to be said he could also be suffering from covid.

[Edge-]

And I hate to be morbid but it needs to be said he could also be suffering from covid.

What hellhole fringe right wing circles did you find this in?

[Dacien]

What hellhole fringe right wing circles did you find this in?

Oh I'm just being funny.

[eschatological]

A) Kamala isn't awful. She just came up in a system where CA/NY Dems, in order to prove they weren't "soft on crime" bleeding heart liberals, often went the DA route. Everyone I knew in law school who was interested in politics (either Republican/Dem but especially Dems who didn't want to be hurt by being seen as soft) went the ADA/State AG/US Attorney route. I went the public defender at Legal Aid route, but because I was so interested in politics, I was strongly considering working at DANY, where I also interned for a summer in law school. And you can't come out of being a prosecutor in this country without facing criticisms for the serious, systemic flaws in our justice system (which is also part of the reason I didn't join the DA's office). Kamala is smart, passionate, and tough - but because of the nature of her job, and what she was obligated to do at that job, it was too much of a burden. I'd still like to see her as AG. People forget that the prosecutor has to be a "zealous advocate" for the law, even if you disagree with the law. Our judicial system believes in a pretty capitalist theory of law - if you have two sides, going all out for their own side, the "competition" will prove to provide the best result. All this always assumes the competition is fair, which it isn't. The public defenders have less resources/more cases than the DA's, and the private defense attorneys have more resources/less cases (and thus more time) than the DA. It's a rather fascinating, self-devouring system.

B) I wonder if the Bernie supporters who were rabidly suggesting Warren 1) drop out before Super Tuesday, and 2) hounded her for the two days it took her to drop out after Super Tuesday, will now reflect on why they suddenly aren't opposed to Bernie dropping out now. My contention, as a Warren supporter, was always that she shouldn't have to drop out before Super Tuesday because it was literally 4 contests, and Super Tuesday was kind of the benchmark to see if you could be anywhere near viable, and that if she wasn't, she should drop out after.....which is exactly what she did......yet I was lambasted for the idea that she didn't "consolidate the progressives" behind Bernie. Even though now it's fairly self-evident there's a pretty even split with which way Warren voters are turning. FWIW, I'll still probably vote Bernie if he's still in the race in April for the NY primary.

C) I find it ironic that a user on this forum who was so rabidly pro-Bernie to the point of posting Russian-promulgated conspiracies of DNC tampering in 2016, and endlessly talked about DNC interference this cycle, is now touting the username "Tulsi2024." Can non-mods not see username histories in users' profiles? I've been a mod for like 5 years now, I don't even know. That should point out to any reasonable person on this forum that that person isn't really a progressive, because Tulsi is trash and not a progressive. She's barely a Dem. Her dropping out and supporting Biden isn't some sign of her being a team player, it's her trying to save her own skin, because before that her political career was essentially over. Kudos I guess, for her not wanting to be relegated to the dustbin of "being the former Dem Congresswoman on FoxNews"?

- - - Updated - - -

The implication is what matters, to the general public, saying someone is "Russian Asset" is the same as accusing them of being a spy.

No, that's not the implication at all. People consider(ed) Trump a Russian asset. No one thinks he's actually smart enough to be a spy/Manchurian candidate.

It's quite amusing that for the side of the debate that constantly whinges about having their words misrepresented, you're now deliberating misinterpreting what other people are saying. Hell, if you read Hillary's comments on Tulsi, you'd be pretty clear that she thinks Tulsi is being used by Russians, not that she's an actual fucking spy.

[Edge-]

Oh I'm just being funny.

There's a joke about civility in here somewhere. Because your attempt isn't funny.

[Theodarzna]

No, that's not the implication at all. People consider(ed) Trump a Russian asset. No one thinks he's actually smart enough to be a spy/Manchurian candidate.

It's quite amusing that for the side of the debate that constantly whinges about having their words misrepresented, you're now deliberating misinterpreting what other people are saying. Hell, if you read Hillary's comments on Tulsi, you'd be pretty clear that she thinks Tulsi is being used by Russians, not that she's an actual fucking spy.

The word Asset in spygames/CIA Spook stuff actually is a distinction without a difference.

In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy.[1][2][3][4] They are sometimes referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs" for short.

There are different categories of assets, including people who:

> Willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their own government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there are few other ways available.
> Work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets.
> Have been blackmailed and are forced into their role.
> Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.

You are, no matter what accusing either Trump or Tulsi of giving information or secrets to some other country and given the ambiguity of the term I'd put this usage of the word "Asset" to be nothing more than a dog whistle on your and others part.

Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the population of the general public at large while also simultaneously having an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose ultrasonic tone is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.

Calling someone a "Russian Asset" is calling someone a spy but with plausible deniability, kind of like talking about Welfare Queens or "Forced Busing" but really you are wanting to just say the N-Word.

To quote Lee Atwater on this:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "[N-Word], [N-Word], [N-Word]." By 1968, you can't say "[N-Word]" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[N-Word], [N-Word]."

[Dacien]

No, that's not the implication at all. People consider(ed) Trump a Russian asset. No one thinks he's actually smart enough to be a spy/Manchurian candidate.

No, but they believed he was an active conspirator. Not many I can recall referred to Trump as a Russian asset only as a bumbling and inadvertent happenstance.

[Endus]

The implication is what matters, to the general public, saying someone is "Russian Asset" is the same as accusing them of being a spy.

And here we have the twin brother of "what he meant was"; "what I want to pretend you meant was". Where you ignore what was actually said, to attack a straw man of your own creation, by misrepresenting what words mean.

This isn't a defensible argument. Members of "the public" who make that assumption are just knee-jerking, willfully ignorant reactionaries. You shouldn't be using them as the basis for analysis. These are the same people who freak out when someone says "niggardly" or says that "half of Trump supporters are deplorable".

- - - Updated - - -

The word Asset in spygames/CIA Spook stuff actually is a distinction without a difference.

It's pretty amusing you link a definition that directly contradicts you, and somehow think it's supportive.

Here's a hint; read that 4th category, the "useful idiots". Helps if you finish reading what you're copy-pasting.

[Theodarzna]

And here we have the twin brother of "what he meant was"; "what I want to pretend you meant was". Where you ignore what was actually said, to attack a straw man of your own creation, by misrepresenting what words mean.

This isn't a defensible argument. Members of "the public" who make that assumption are just knee-jerking, willfully ignorant reactionaries. You shouldn't be using them as the basis for analysis. These are the same people who freak out when someone says "niggardly" or says that "half of Trump supporters are deplorable".

----

It's pretty amusing you link a definition that directly contradicts you, and somehow think it's supportive.

First; Suggesting that people are engaging in a dog whistle isn't exactly an unbreachable subject.

Second; I know you believe you are an authority on all facts, but please explain you proclamation. Otherwise I'll just say "Way to make stuff up and say baseless things" and we can chase each other in circles.

[Endus]

First; Suggesting that people are engaging in a dog whistle isn't exactly an unbreachable subject.

Of course it isn't.

Here's the problem, though; a "dog whistle" is an attempt to use one accusation as a coded message regarding a different, usually socially unacceptable accusation. By your own example, complaining about "welfare queens" because you're a racist and don't want to face social opprobrium for ranting about "n-words".

What on earth do you think the "asset" accusation is a dog whistle for? That Gabbard is weirdly right-wing and pseudo-Republican on a lot of issues? That's not something you've gotta hide; you can just come out and say that, right out.

Second; I know you believe you are an authority on all facts, but please explain you proclamation. Otherwise I'll just say "Way to make stuff up and say baseless things" and we can chase each other in circles.

To repeat, the 4th entry in the definition you cited includes "useful idiots"; people who aren't consciously aiding the foreign power but can be manipulated into doing so, or whose security is so lax it can be exploited. It directly contradicts your claim that "asset" always means "conscious, willing agent".