US Politics Megathread

[fightinfrenchman]

@Amsel_ A lot of people don't know who Pete is

[wardyb1]

Tough to make too much of it. Probably looks best for Warren but still isn't too much different than Biden/Sanders. Pete's looks good but also I guess has either still no name recognition or no opinions by the fact that it only totals 63. Not sure how the polls are done entirely. Pretty much sums up the primary really. Each candidate is divisive to a different group of people and don't really look like changing until people drop out.

Going to come down to early state voting, getting people out to vote and where people put their chips if someone drops out after the first couple of states. Probably best to keep looking at who people would vote for as their 2nd or 3rd option as well. Finishing 4th will be death knell for someone's campaign, only then will the primary really begin imo.

[Dolan]

That's not why Buttigieg won't get elected (his McKinsey stint). Most Americans are just not going to want a gay couple in the White House, because the puritan spirit is still strong in the USA.

Incoming grumbles...

[fightinfrenchman]

That's not why Buttiegieg won't get elected (his McKinsey stint). Most Americans are just not going to want a gay couple in the White House, because the puritan spirit is still strong in the USA.

There's literally thousands of other threads you can post in other than this one. You can even share your thoughts on liebing Wildwood in some of them

[Dolan]

[gibson]

That's not why Buttiegieg won't get elected (his McKinsey stint). Most Americans are just not going to want a gay couple in the White House, because the puritan spirit is still strong in the USA.

There's literally thousands of other threads you can post in other than this one. You can even share your thoughts on liebing Wildwood in some of them

I mean he's not wrong. Living in the south I can tell you that even many southern democrats are mildly homophobic.

[Dolan]

I mean something like the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal could have never existed in Europe. Nobody cares if the president banged a chick in his office here. Or if he cheats on his wife. It's something for them to sort it out. And yet, in the USA it became a huge scandal and Clinton was impeached because of perjury. And why was he forced to lie about the whole thing and get accused of perjury? Because the American media would have destroyed his image if he admitted Monica fondled his cigar in the Oval office.

Now imagine what goes on in the mind of the average American voter when he thinks he's going to see this for 4 years in the White House:

Butti pic

"What will kids think?" "What will the rest of the world think about us, omagosh"

[Amsel_]

I mean something like the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal could have never existed in Europe. Nobody cares if the president banged a chick in his office here. Or if he cheats on his wife. It's something for them to sort it out. And yet, in the USA it became a huge scandal and Clinton was impeached because of perjury. And why was he forced to lie about the whole thing and get accused of perjury? Because the American media would have destroyed his image if he admitted Monica fondled his cigar in the Oval office.

Now imagine what goes on in the mind of the average American voter when he thinks he's going to see this for 4 years in the White House:

Butti pic

"What will kids think?" "What will the rest of the world think about us, omagosh"

Thank you for spoilering that. Now I can blame only myself for feeling so grossed out.

[Goodspeed]

Well I’m not the only one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opin ... insey.html

He doesn't "need" to give more info, it's not going to change anyone's mind. The only people who give a shit about this are people who would already never vote for him anyway. Breaking the NDA would:
- Enable people to criticize him for breaking contracts under pressure
- Probably get him sued, which would also hurt the campaign
- Hurt his career prospects in the private sector if he doesn't win, which is still the most likely result

[Amsel_]

If Sanders loses Arizona by such a large margin then that's a big problem. It means that he'll probably lose Nevada too, and Colorado and New Mexico will be in play. That pretty much costs him the election even if he does win back the rust belt. He'd have to sweep the map, essentially, while Trump would only need two more to get over the finish line.



I've always thought progressives were a bad choice this election. It seemed like they had more to lose than Hillary and less to gain. I'd like to see more data about how progressives fair out West. I think we kind of presumed that these states were just going to keep drifting more and more blue, but I see no reason for them to automatically continue the trend under vastly different candidates. Biden would probably have the West locked down.

On the bright side for my fellow Bloombois, we're about tied with Pete.

[n0el]

id be more concerned with that poll if Trumps number was moving up, but its holding the same aginst all candidates

[n0el]

@fightinfrenchman

[fightinfrenchman]

@n0el

1.) So I'm supposed to feel bad for... health insurance companies? I somehow doubt you would mind those workers getting laid off if Medicare for all got passed.

2.) I don't understand why people are going after Pete about this one job he had instead of criticizing him for the fact that his claim to fame is being the mayor of a shitty little town in a shitty little state. It's honestly baffling to me

[n0el]

I would mind greatly if people were laid off or lost their jobs. Any M4A bill has to account for that and surely would, look at the GND framework.

[fightinfrenchman]

I would mind greatly if people were laid off or lost their jobs. Any M4A bill has to account for that and surely would, look at the GND framework.

Why is it that people who work in a shitty industry deserve special rights that normal people don't get?

[n0el]

Because the government is displacing their jobs. Why shouldn’t they?

[fightinfrenchman]

Because the government is displacing their jobs. Why shouldn’t they?

That just implies that their jobs only exist because the government created a situation where they are feasible

[wardyb1]

I would mind greatly if people were laid off or lost their jobs. Any M4A bill has to account for that and surely would, look at the GND framework.

Why is it that people who work in a shitty industry deserve special rights that normal people don't get?

So the government tries to create a much better healthcare industry, but it results in either tens of thousands of people losing their jobs, or the government helping them out and providing them with jobs that they would just go and apply for anyway. And your response is "nah fuck them, they work in a shitty industry, I've never been given a job, so why should they?".
Like isn't it an ideal world where the government, the body elected to represent the people, work for the people, tries to help as many people as possible. How jaded and vindictive do you have to be to want everyone to lose their jobs in exchange for better healthcare when you don't have to do that.

[fightinfrenchman]

[n0el]

Warren, OUCH

[fightinfrenchman]

At the next debate they should ask the candidates where they stand on fixed crates

[Jam]

At the next debate they should ask the candidates where they stand on fixed crates

Well that's easy, they stand on the top.

[fightinfrenchman]

Let's check on how that Pete surge is doing...

[n0el]

Pete has real issues.

[fightinfrenchman]

Yeah, like the fact that he's the mayor of a small City in Indiana. But the media has to have interesting stories and it's boring to say that the Vice President of 8 years is still winning