Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[anveena]

What are you even referring to?

probably joe biden voters

[Machismo]

probably joe biden voters

Or, you know... 54% of the GOP:

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/651750...rett-kavanaugh

[I Push Buttons]

In Bernard news:

Some top Sanders advisers urge him to consider withdrawing

A small group of Bernie Sanders’s top aides and allies — including his campaign manager and his longtime strategist — have encouraged the independent senator from Vermont to consider withdrawing from the presidential race, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

The group includes campaign manager Faiz Shakir and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a top Sanders surrogate and ally, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive private discussions...

[Kraenen]

lol.

First you don't believe the insult applies, then when i won't recant, you decide its not an insult, thereby making your original response to me, wholly stupid and unnecessary.

I didn't say it's not an insult - I said it's not a very incisive one. Read what you're replying to.

Rogan is a conspiracy theorist blowhard who pushes his narrative for financial gain.

Which one makes him such a detestable person? Ancient weed smoking cavement is not really something I'd condemn someone for believing, even if millions believed in it because Joe said so.

[Bodakane]

I didn't say it's not an insult - I said it's not a very incisive one. Read what you're replying to.



Which one makes him such a detestable person? Ancient weed smoking cavement is not really something I'd condemn someone for believing, even if millions believed in it because Joe said so.

Sigh, you still got your panties in a bunch because I insulted Rogan, then downplayed the insult which only shone a light on the ridiculousness of your initial panty bunching. You can parse the semantics all you want, but it still makes you look silly in the end.

Yes, apparently that's the only conspiracy theory Rogan perpetrates......blah, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

It never fails, defenders of Rogan or Jones or Milos or Trump, etc. all have the same thing in common......you cannot have a rational discussion with them because they will back flip into whatever mental gymnastics is necessary no matter how false and or hypocritical.

[Theodarzna]

This is a discussion board, not the world stage. You aren't stopping the evils of the world by raging and shouting into the void of the internet.

I rarely see anymore proof than, "They like X, so anything they say is bad". Which is nothing more than a logical fallacy and doesn't prove shit. which makes it lazy, because then people don't even want to hear what anyone has to say that doesn't already agree with them.

The most important thing I guess one can do with their time is calling people names on MMO-OC; and despite getting humiliated by their targets and having their nonsense refuted, they come back for more. I am and remain profoundly stunned by the sheer level people take MMO-OC GenOT threads. It's like a manifestation of "Own the libs"/"Own the chuds" kinda thinking.

Heck, its that thinking that has people or present themselves as somewhere Left of Ronald Reagan coming out to bat against Universal Healthcare because "The Theo is for it so it must be bad, because we hate Theo for saying Hillary Clinton is bad.......!!!!1111!1eleven!!111"

[PC2]

Sigh, you still got your panties in a bunch because I insulted Rogan, then downplayed the insult which only shone a light on the ridiculousness of your initial panty bunching. You can parse the semantics all you want, but it still makes you look silly in the end.

Yes, apparently that's the only conspiracy theory Rogan perpetrates......blah, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

It never fails, defenders of Rogan or Jones or Milos or Trump, etc. all have the same thing in common......you cannot have a rational discussion with them because they will back flip into whatever mental gymnastics is necessary no matter how false and or hypocritical.

Who doesn't like Joe Rogan... He's harmless and doesn't say anything that is politically controversial and when he has an intellectual on his podcast he genuinely tries to learn new things.

[Bodakane]

You made an unsubstantiated assertion about Rogan, someone quietly asked what you meant, you know accuse him of getting his panties in a bunch. It is clearly you that has some kind of hard-on for Rogan.

Yeah, that's bullshit.

I said he was a piece of shit then i listed other pieces of shit and that person decided to tell me he doesn't belong in the category of others.

But you can keep white knighting if you want I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

Who doesn't like Joe Rogan... He's harmless and doesn't say anything that is politically controversial and when he has an intellectual on his podcast he genuinely tries to learn new things.

If you cannot understand it, then look inward.

[cubby]

Biden spoke with Sanders today, privately, letting Sanders know that Biden is formally starting his VP and Cabinet search. I really hope Sanders is offer, and accepts, a spot.

[Machismo]

This is a discussion board, not the world stage. You aren't stopping the evils of the world by raging and shouting into the void of the internet.

I rarely see anymore proof than, "They like X, so anything they say is bad". Which is nothing more than a logical fallacy and doesn't prove shit. which makes it lazy, because then people don't even want to hear what anyone has to say that doesn't already agree with them.

Great, then feel free to pander to them, and enjoy their concern trolling. I'm simply enacting critical thinking, by examining exactly WHY people are saying what they are saying.

- - - Updated - - -

The most important thing I guess one can do with their time is calling people names on MMO-OC; and despite getting humiliated by their targets and having their nonsense refuted, they come back for more. I am and remain profoundly stunned by the sheer level people take MMO-OC GenOT threads. It's like a manifestation of "Own the libs"/"Own the chuds" kinda thinking.

Heck, its that thinking that has people or present themselves as somewhere Left of Ronald Reagan coming out to bat against Universal Healthcare because "The Theo is for it so it must be bad, because we hate Theo for saying Hillary Clinton is bad.......!!!!1111!1eleven!!111"

And yet, I provided dozens of examples to show exactly what you are. I very much enjoyed using your own words against you.

[Machismo]

That makes no sense, but if you think dismissing people based on who they posted or believing anyone who disagree with you is concern trolling I won't stop ya.

Except, I don't believe everyone who disagrees with me is concern trolling. I'm a libertarian, literally almost everyone will disagree with me when it comes to politics. When Trumpsters start trying to concern troll, I call them out for it. Luckily, I also provide evidence, like in the case of Theo and Jehct.

As for the people that swear they are totes Bernie supporters, but out of outrage will vote for Trump, then I will treat them for the Trumpsters that they admit they are. Once again, using their own words against them is exactly what is going on.

As for people who opt to associate with racist shitbags, I also choose to judge them based on their actions.

[Themius]

The EC in my view isn't that big of a deal. The United States, is a Union of States not a unitary country so something where one has to win a majority of the perishes/districts/states makes a degree of sense given this is the Federal Governments offices you are running for. So I do fundamentally not see a problem with the Electoral College, its existed since the country began and complaining about it is a bit like saying "If we had played checkers instead of chess I would have won!" Local elections are more important than some people realize and its one of the few places your average person kinda can have a say, its just sad how week local governments are and how ineffectual they are since a lot of peoples big material concerns aren't going to be mitigated on the local level.

And yeah, like politics isn't why I married this person. He isn't around for his political stances. He is attractive, loyal, and does what he is told and has a good job. I'm too domineering to ever put up with a man with seriously strong opinions for too long.

- - - Updated - - -



I wonder what your stance on Aimee Terese is, or Anna Khachiyan for that matter.

The country has had an issue with the EC since the very founding of the country.

The country has had an issue with giving the rural states more representation than they deserve since the constitution was first signed. These were problems then and they're problems today, your argument is almost "Why try to solve problem?"

- - - Updated - - -

Much better to take that approach than to be so full of hate that you'd disown family over a vote the way some posters here are proud of doing. Imagine walking around that bitter and distrustful of so many people around you!

A vote says a lot.

If you can vote for a person, so obviously hateful, and so obviously inept, I want nothing to do with you.

It's like if I had a friend who thought parts of my family were rapist wetbacks who need to go back to where they came from and voted for trump because he felt he would help rise that segment of people to action.

it's like having a friend who is cool with voting for nazi parties but would never be a nazi themselves because that's too far, but has no problem supporting them.

Why the fuck would i associate with that?

Why the fuck do I want a friend who can see a terror attack happen because of the person who they voted for rhetoric and then say "well... if the wall was built they wouldn't be here."

A person who can support scum, and do so with no remorse after clear missteps and doesn't care, if as good as the scum they voted for in my book.

- - - Updated - - -

It's lazy and a way to view someone in a way that isn't reflected in reality. People use it on the internet as a way to dismiss someone's point view instead of taking that point as legitimate.

"I think mexicans are rapists bad hombres who need to get out our country and i tell you what... that el paso shooting... I mean it's bad it happened, but it's their fault"

Yes I should take this point seriously

[Theodarzna]

The country has had an issue with the EC since the very founding of the country.

The country has had an issue with giving the rural states more representation than they deserve since the constitution was first signed. These were problems then and they're problems today, your argument is almost "Why try to solve problem?"

I think the issues with the EC are largely from a sense that it historically wasn't connected to votes.

If I had to reform the EC, I'd apportion Electoral College delegates based not on a first past the post model, but that isn't calling for a strictly First Past the Post popular vote for the presidency. I think it isn't someone's place to say a rural state doesn't merit much representation because that ultimately becomes a value judgement of the kind of people who live there.

My stance towards any electoral reforms or changes is essentially ones of fairness. So I'd oppose a strictly "Lets just do a FPTP popular vote presidency" because obviously there is a primal reason for that that isn't really fairness but one group realizing that the rules as set don't favor them and the idea of having to appeal in rural states to people whom by your own definition have way more representation than they are deserving of; just aren't your demographic.

But I do think the EC shouldn't be FPTP and electors should be proportionally given out per state, so KINDA closer to a popular vote situation but not based on congressional districts because those can get funky.

I'd also say as a general rule fusionism like in New York State should be nationwide, and really FPTP voting is bad because it leads to two party politics.

[Themius]

I think the issues with the EC are largely from a sense that it historically wasn't connected to votes.

If I had to reform the EC, I'd apportion Electoral College delegates based not on a first past the post model, but that isn't calling for a strictly First Past the Post popular vote for the presidency. I think it isn't someone's place to say a rural state doesn't merit much representation because that ultimately becomes a value judgement of the kind of people who live there.

My stance towards any electoral reforms or changes is essentially ones of fairness. So I'd oppose a strictly "Lets just do a FPTP popular vote presidency" because obviously there is a primal reason for that that isn't really fairness but one group realizing that the rules as set don't favor them and the idea of having to appeal in rural states to people whom by your own definition have way more representation than they are deserving of; just aren't your demographic.

But I do think the EC shouldn't be FPTP and electors should be proportionally given out per state, so KINDA closer to a popular vote situation but not based on congressional districts because those can get funky.

I'd also say as a general rule fusionism like in New York State should be nationwide, and really FPTP voting is bad because it leads to two party politics.

Um the argument is living in a rural area shouldn't mean your vote has more merit

This isn't about saying they deserve less merit... just that everyone should be equal, a person... a vote.

Elections ultimately come down to a few ten thousand to hundreds of thousands in 3-4 states... it's a dumb system.

[Themius]

How am I suppose to take an arbitrary quote you just made up in your head seriously?

I did a search of even the first part of your quote and no one has ever type out that exact phrase expect for you.


Why take what I said and then try and apply the worst possible stance? I never said you couldn't ridicule someone stance based off what they said. I said you shouldn't dismiss someone's point of view because they might know some people you don't like.

Why is this such a hard concept for so many people?

Worst stance?! It happened it fucking happened those people are dead. Those people in Pennsylvania Those people in California they are dead.

Dead because of the hate and vitriol the president and his propaganda station has spread. So anyone who can sit back in the face of all of that and vote for him is reprehensible.

[Themius]

I don't think we are even discussing the same thing? You've gone off your rocker.

I am discussing prejudging trump voters based on trumps actions. There’s no damn conversation to be had.

[Theodarzna]

Um the argument is living in a rural area shouldn't mean your vote has more merit

This isn't about saying they deserve less merit... just that everyone should be equal, a person... a vote.

Elections ultimately come down to a few ten thousand to hundreds of thousands in 3-4 states... it's a dumb system.

I think it should if that was the deal set out when the State was admitted and if we are reneging on that initial pact that made the federation possible, than why should those rural states consent to their own disempowerment when they joined the union under the promise of their votes counting a certain way?

Plus, you know, the look that this is purely sour grapes and sore loser behavior, not unlike the Republicans of California who constantly want to split the State up because the trouble of formulating a good political platform and politics is too hard for them to muster and if they split up California it would hurt Democrats nationally because its a big loss to electoral votes.

I think other reforms exist that don't depend on implying that rural states don't deserve their due that they signed up to when they were admitted to the union.

[Themius]

I think it should if that was the deal set out when the State was admitted and if we are reneging on that initial pact that made the federation possible, than why should those rural states consent to their own disempowerment when they joined the union under the promise of their votes counting a certain way?

Plus, you know, the look that this is purely sour grapes and sore loser behavior, not unlike the Republicans of California who constantly want to split the State up because the trouble of formulating a good political platform and politics is too hard for them to muster and if they split up California it would hurt Democrats nationally because its a big loss to electoral votes.

I think other reforms exist that don't depend on implying that rural states don't deserve their due that they signed up to when they were admitted to the union.

THAT WAS OVER 200 HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS AGO What the fuck is with you people that think things shouldn't change? Shall we go back to slaves, and women not voting too because "that was the deal before"

And conservatives didn't join the fucking union THEY WEREN'T A THING TO BEGIN WITH are you even paying attention to the shit you're saying?

The deal originally was framed around SLAVERY and slaver aristocracy

You people are always scared of more people voting and all votes begin equal.

Do you think it makes sense for the loser to win national elections by 70k votes because the winner won by 3m millions but not in the right districts where voter suppression is rampant? That's a fucking stupid system.

Any argument against 1 person 1 vote is faulty and inherently based on the idea that you think land > people.

It's as fucking dumb as this shit:

The Washington D.C. suburbs now control every Virginia statewide election and that’s the result of the radical government in Richmond. And they're passing all kinds of bills that are just contrary to what the majority of Virginians—not the majority of Virginians, but most Virginians as far as land mass, support,” Fallwell Jr. said on Fox News.

What the fuck is this?! Land isn't people for fuck sakes!

[Theodarzna]

THAT WAS OVER 200 HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS AGO What the fuck is with you people that think things shouldn't change? Shall we go back to slaves, and women not voting too because "that was the deal before"

And conservatives didn't join the fucking union THEY WEREN'T A THING TO BEGIN WITH are you even paying attention to the shit you're saying?

The deal originally was framed around SLAVERY and slaver aristocracy

You people are always scared of more people voting and all votes begin equal.

Do you think it makes sense for the loser to win national elections by 70k votes because the winner won by 3m millions but not in the right districts where voter suppression is rampant? That's a fucking stupid system.

Any argument against 1 person 1 vote is faulty and inherently based on the idea that you think land > people.

It's as fucking dumb as this shit:

What the fuck is this?! Land isn't people for fuck sakes!

I don't think time is at all a factor, this is still a federation of states, not a unitary state and that you can't make a "Well that was a long time ago so it is wrong!" because other old stuff was not good. And objectively, when we really boil down to brass tax your objection is that you'd prefer a rule system that ensures an easy election process for your preferred party.

And yes, in a federation context and in a few other contexts, I think representing geographic spaces is actually the aim. That logic is buried into for example representative districts. This is why complaints about a lack of female reps is kinda faulty because representatives represent geographic locations on a map, not specific demographics, or they shouldn't represent the broad demographics of a unitary whole but instead the specific parochial/perish nature of a location. So having to say win a majority of the Perishes would be in my view a fair way to run a federation of some smaller political units.

[Themius]

I don't think time is at all a factor, this is still a federation of states, not a unitary state and that you can't make a "Well that was a long time ago so it is wrong!" because other old stuff was not good. And objectively, when we really boil down to brass tax your objection is that you'd prefer a rule system that ensures an easy election process for your preferred party.

And yes, in a federation context and in a few other contexts, I think representing geographic spaces is actually the aim. That logic is buried into for example representative districts. This is why complaints about a lack of female reps is kinda faulty because representatives represent geographic locations on a map, not specific demographics, or they shouldn't represent the broad demographics of a unitary whole but instead the specific parochial/perish nature of a location. So having to say win a majority of the Perishes would be in my view a fair way to run a federation of some smaller political units.

The only way and "easy election" process for my preferred party happens is if the majority of Americans actually support it

Which means once again your argument is that the minority should rule not the majority by virtue of... not living on a farm???