2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Clark

I don't get it. Why would dems push Biden when they could have someone like this?

Which Dems? From day 1 of Primary season, barring some unforeseen circumstance, the vote was going to come down to either Biden or Sanders.
It's nearly impossible for another candidate to garner enough national attention in such a wide field.

Gabbard is despised by the establishment for turning her back on the DNC following the 2016 Primary.

Yang would've been my first choice, and I think he is likely a prominent Presidential candidate in 2024.

[pingbling23]

If I get a wild hair to waste an hour of my life watching those interviews I’ll give my opinion. I’m not in favor of everything trump says or does. I’m also not in favor of all of the unwarranted criticism that is thrown his way. If all criticisms were unbiased and warranted it would be much easier to take in. I’m curious, since you’re posting these Trump interviews why do you not post the many Biden gaffes?

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by pingbling23

If I get a wild hair to waste an hour of my life watching those interviews I’ll give my opinion. I’m not in favor of everything trump says or does. I’m also not in favor of all of the unwarranted criticism that is thrown his way. If all criticisms were unbiased and warranted it would be much easier to take in. I’m curious, since you’re posting these Trump interviews why do you not post the many Biden gaffes?

There's a big difference between 'gaffes' & our current President continually spreading misinformation during national interviews.

If you get a wild hair to pay attention to something longer than 5 second gaffes, perhaps your perspective on the issue of misinformation would carry a bit more weight.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Which Dems? From day 1 of Primary season, barring some unforeseen circumstance, the vote was going to come down to either Biden or Sanders.
It's nearly impossible for another candidate to garner enough national attention in such a wide field.

Gabbard is despised by the establishment for turning her back on the DNC following the 2016 Primary.

Yang would've been my first choice, and I think he is likely a prominent Presidential candidate in 2024.

I have seen Rogans interview with Yang and thought it was positive. I like what Gabbard said in this interview. What was the turning her back controversy?

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by Clark

I don't get it. Why would dems push Biden when they could have someone like this?

I don't really get it either; if she were the candidate now I think she'd destroy Trump. It makes me wonder how fair the primaries really are. It seemed to me Democratic voters were really pushing for big changes in leadership and somehow they ended up with Biden?

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

I don't really get it either; if she were the candidate now I think she'd destroy Trump. It makes me wonder how fair the primaries really are. It seemed to me Democratic voters were really pushing for big changes in leadership and somehow they ended up with Biden?

It must've been her poor complexion.

[hairysasquatch]

Hide, Joe, hide! Stay in that basement and keep talking sh*t to black reporters! That's some winning stuff right there! Say come on, man a few more times, too!

Basement Joe - he's like that mold in the corner you've been meaning to clean!

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Clark

I have seen Rogans interview with Yang and thought it was positive. I like what Gabbard said in this interview. What was the turning her back controversy?

She was a vice chair of the DNC until the 2016 Primary season, where she resigned in order to back Bernies campaign after calling into question Hillary-leaning biases that she felt existed within the DNC. Gabbard has been a vocal critic of the DNC in the past few years.

[pingbling23]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

There's a big difference between 'gaffes' & our current President continually spreading misinformation during national interviews.

If you get a wild hair to pay attention to something longer than 5 second gaffes, perhaps your perspective on the issue of misinformation would carry a bit more weight.

Be less hypocritical and unbiased. If you’re going to post everything wrong with trump do it against the other side too please. What misinformation did he spread in the interviews, facts please so I don’t have to sift through a bunch of bs.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by pingbling23

If I get a wild hair to waste an hour of my life watching those interviews I’ll give my opinion. I’m not in favor of everything trump says or does. I’m also not in favor of all of the unwarranted criticism that is thrown his way. If all criticisms were unbiased and warranted it would be much easier to take in. I’m curious, since you’re posting these Trump interviews why do you not post the many Biden gaffes?

Unbiased and unwarranted, in your little head only. Thats your opinion.

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

There's a big difference between 'gaffes' & our current President continually spreading misinformation during national interviews.

If you get a wild hair to pay attention to something longer than 5 second gaffes, perhaps your perspective on the issue of misinformation would carry a bit more weight.

"Gaffes" is certainly one way to put it. I myself get lost for the right word every once in a while but what Biden says sometimes is just word salad.

As long as one can convey the message they are trying to put out, the occasional "gaffe" is fine. Can you tell me what Biden is actually trying to say in that clip I posted?

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by mc1

Unbiased and unwarranted, in your little head only. Thats your opinion.

You got a big ol head, eh?

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

I don't really get it either; if she were the candidate now I think she'd destroy Trump. It makes me wonder how fair the primaries really are. It seemed to me Democratic voters were really pushing for big changes in leadership and somehow they ended up with Biden?

I might have said this a few hundred pages ago, but one of the clearest lessons the last two elections have taught is that:

1. The DNC has far too much control over selecting its candidates.

2. The GOP has far too little control over selecting its candidates.

[pingbling23]

Originally Posted by mc1

Unbiased and unwarranted, in your little head only. Thats your opinion.

Was the insult really needed?

[mc1]

Originally Posted by cnewby

You got a big ol head, eh?

A small one and a big one.

Both of these clowns should be sent to mars. I said the same thing about Clinton and your president in 2016.

[tpeichel34]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Which Dems? From day 1 of Primary season, barring some unforeseen circumstance, the vote was going to come down to either Biden or Sanders.
It's nearly impossible for another candidate to garner enough national attention in such a wide field.

Gabbard is despised by the establishment for turning her back on the DNC following the 2016 Primary.

Yang would've been my first choice, and I think he is likely a prominent Presidential candidate in 2024.

Despised by the establishment is the key phrase. The establishment picks the candidate, not the voters. That should be glaringly obvious at this point.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by mc1

A small one and a big one.

Both of these clowns should be sent to mars. I said the same thing about Clinton and your president in 2016.

Hes your president as well.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by tpeichel34

Despised by the establishment is the key phrase. The establishment picks the candidate, not the voters. That should be glaringly obvious at this point.

Bernie Sanders is also despised by the establishment, despite the narrative that some conservatives somehow believe he's an insider in the Dem Party.

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I might have said this a few hundred pages ago, but one of the clearest lessons the last two elections have taught is that:

1. The DNC has far too much control over selecting its candidates.

2. The GOP has far too little control over selecting its candidates.

Sounds right. What would worry me about the GOP having more control is the high probability we'd always get some war hawk.

[tpeichel34]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Bernie Sanders is also despised by the establishment, despite the narrative that some conservatives somehow believe he's an insider in the Dem Party.

Yes. Despised and not the nominee. Sanders did collect on a nice pay day though.

[tpeichel34]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

Sounds right. What would worry me about the GOP having more control is the high probability we'd always get some war hawk.

I think the GOP has a lot of control, Trump was simply too strong of a candidate and overcame the establishment. They are still fighting against him to this day.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

She was a vice chair of the DNC until the 2016 Primary season, where she resigned in order to back Bernies campaign after calling into question Hillary-leaning biases that she felt existed within the DNC. Gabbard has been a vocal critic of the DNC in the past few years.

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I might have said this a few hundred pages ago, but one of the clearest lessons the last two elections have taught is that:

1. The DNC has far too much control over selecting its candidates.

2. The GOP has far too little control over selecting its candidates.

Thanks, I am curious on this. My first thoughts is she was pissed at the establishment, but I will do some research.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by tpeichel34

I think the GOP has a lot of control, Trump was simply too strong of a candidate and overcame the establishment. They are still fighting against him to this day.

He certainly had that grassroots populist support.

Setting aside Trump's personality and ideology, maybe you would agree with me that this presidency has really revealed just how much presidents depend on all the hundreds of other administration staffers.

My takeaway at this point is that upending the establishment is ultimately going to take more than a single extravagant personality (whether you think that personality is extravagantly good or bad) to do it. It's going to take an outsider with an established network of capable people so that they don't sweep into the White House following Election Night and immediately find themselves saddled with the standard DNC or GOP staffers.

Put another way, maybe Trump has or has not "drained the swamp"—but we might agree that there just isn't enough "clean water" at the present to take the place of all the mud and crud that has built up.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

He certainly had that grassroots populist support.

Setting aside Trump's personality and ideology, maybe you would agree with me that this presidency has really revealed just how much presidents depend on all the hundreds of other administration staffers.

My takeaway at this point is that upending the establishment is ultimately going to take more than a single extravagant personality (whether you think that personality is extravagantly good or bad) to do it. It's going to take an outsider with an established network of capable people so that they don't sweep into the White House following Election Night and immediately find themselves saddled with the standard DNC or GOP staffers.

Put another way, maybe Trump has or has not "drained the swamp"—but we might agree that there just isn't enough "clean water" at the present to take the place of all the mud and crud that has built up.

100% agree. Changing a culture within 4 years, let alone 8 is an extreme challenge. One man cannot do it.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Clark

100% agree. Changing a culture within 4 years, let alone 8 is an extreme challenge. One man cannot do it.

True, although it would help if that one man understood the U.S. Constitution.