US Presidential Election 2020

eagle eye · 20-02-2020 12:42PM

Joe_ Public wrote:

When its odds on, whether bernie succeeds or not, that the race for white house will be fought out by two 70 somethings, going after him on health grounds seems to me an indication of how little they have to go on against sanders beyond the predictable big bad socialist motif. Bloombergs 3 houses jibe was equally weak sauce. If anything, it tells you sanders cant be quite the communist they'd have you believe.

Health issues are huge. He has to show that he is healthy enough to do the job. He will lose the election on that issue alone if it's a big question mark.

Joe_ Public · 20-02-2020 12:55PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Health issues are huge. He has to show that he is healthy enough to do the job. He will lose the election on that issue alone if it's a big question mark.

Sure, its an issue. Wouldnt deny that. But if democratic race came down to a straight fight between sanders and either biden or bloomberg, exactly how huge would it be? Surely it would be the basis for a candidate not approaching 80. If thats the worst sanders is facing at the moment, i think his campaign will be happy enough.

Red for Danger · 20-02-2020 01:41PM

Fair play to warren she played a blinder.
All those things she hit bloomberg with, could also be said of Trump, yet how come no Republican or Clinton could do it effectively in 2016.

Gbear · 20-02-2020 01:47PM

Red for Danger wrote: »

Fair play to warren she played a blinder.
All those things she hit bloomberg with, could also be said of Trump, yet how come no Republican or Clinton could do it effectively in 2016.

They did. Clinton explicitly drew attention to what a corrupt con artist Trump was.

His base don't care about that.

This is only important to Democrats.

pixelburp · 20-02-2020 02:41PM

Red for Danger wrote: »

Fair play to warren she played a blinder.
All those things she hit bloomberg with, could also be said of Trump, yet how come no Republican or Clinton could do it effectively in 2016.

This was a real "sh*t or get off the pot" moment for Warren, as she needed a big performance to have any hope of kick-starting her flailing campaign. Her rhetoric has changed in the face of Sanders' dogged reiteration of his socialist credentials, admitting that she was a "capitalist" in one interview, making it clear she's aiming now for the centreground as the compromise candidate and wants to separate herself from the presumable stigma of "socialism"

Rjd2 · 20-02-2020 06:11PM

pixelburp wrote: »

This was a real "sh*t or get off the pot" moment for Warren, as she needed a big performance to have any hope of kick-starting her flailing campaign. Her rhetoric has changed in the face of Sanders' dogged reiteration of his socialist credentials, admitting that she was a "capitalist" in one interview, making it clear she's aiming now for the centreground as the compromise candidate and wants to separate herself from the presumable stigma of "socialism"

Bloomberg entering the field has been a blessing for Bernie as there are simply to many people running for the centre and Warren desperately needed a foil like him regarding the debate.

Knocking out the main challenger to Bernie should make her strong fav to become the Bernie VP now as she ticks so many boxes.

briany · 20-02-2020 06:18PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Knocking out the main challenger to Bernie should make her strong fav to become the Bernie VP now as she ticks so many boxes.

Possibly, but I always think it's funny that these presidential candidates spend so long attacking one another in debates and the victor ends up inviting some of them into their administration or potential administration. To spend the best part of a year attacking one another and then acting like it never happened makes a sham of the whole thing.

eire4 · 20-02-2020 06:25PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Bloomberg entering the field has been a blessing for Bernie as there are simply to many people running for the centre and Warren desperately needed a foil like him regarding the debate.

Knocking out the main challenger to Bernie should make her strong fav to become the Bernie VP now as she ticks so many boxes.

If Sanders did become the nominee that would be an interesting call. One of the major mistakes the Corporate Democrats made in 2016 was in making another uber corporate Democrat the VP nominee and thumbing their nose at the progressive Democrats. A strong argument could be made for Sanders if he became the nominee to at least try and bring on board someone who might appeal to the more moderate part of their party as well as someone who might help him win a state that is up for grabs which clearly is not the case with Warren. Personally I would love to see a Sanders and Warren ticket for the Democrats but I doubt that will happen as pragmatism I think will play a big role. in that decision.

Manic Moran · 20-02-2020 06:30PM

pixelburp wrote: »

The attempts to take a swipe at Sanders with the "you're a rich man too!" didn't feel genuine, I wonder will that be a tactic taken by the GOP if Sanders wins. The senators 3 houses doesn't seem particularly excessive when explained, not compared with Trumps' vulgar approach to wealth (not that hypocrisy hasn't been a mainstay of his Presidency)

I don’t know, the line that the guy claiming to be the most socialist also happens to be a millionaire with three houses seems to make a pretty good quote.

I don’t think the concept that three houses is excessive is an issue per se. I’m sure most of us would like a vacation home as well as the primary, if w could afford one, and the idea of having a home near your job also is ‘reasonable’.

It’s also not particularly relatable. A large portion of the Democratic vote does not own even one home. Republicans are more likely to own a home at all, and they are also more likely to own them free and clear. Note the average income of a Democrat, and the average cost of a home where their strongholds are. I’m in the “top 5%” of earners, and own one house I live in, plus one which I must rent out in order to pay the bills. I certainly can’t afford a vacation home. I sure as hell cant afford three homes I can consider living in. Granted, however, by the time I hit age 77 like Bernie, I expect that both mortgages will be paid off, and it’s just tens of thousands a year in property taxes I’ll need to pay. I don’t think Bernie is aiming for the votes of the top 5%.

That said, true or not, that doesn’t necessarily affect the voter either. Ultimately, voters will go for “what’s in it for me”, the fact that the guy doing the promising is unrelatably rich probably doesn’t matter if the voter’s lot will be improved by him. However, this argument also applies just as much to the liabilities that other candidates have, such as Trump and Bloomberg.

AbusesToilets · 20-02-2020 06:40PM

Surely it's an argument in Sanders favor, that you can be a Socialist and still be wealthy.

Burty330 · 20-02-2020 07:09PM

sid waddell wrote: »

Bloomberg has up to now faced a serious lack of scrutiny. Once that happens, it's not likely to go well for him. But the danger is that he has been working away in the background absolutely plastering the Super Tuesday states with advertising, and his online ads are good, very good. That works.

But Bernie Sanders beats everybody in a two way contest. The only other canidate who even comes close to him is Elizabeth Warren.

Hey weasel , how does it feel squealing to a moderator rather than defending your extremist bile when challenged?
Yes guy , you are a doom and gloom monger of leftist extremism and a parrot of other woke twitter shut-in's with life experience levels of 2/10.

You don't have an original thought in your head Sid Weasel , every talking point you sprout about our society descending into fascism has been rejected by the many bots that said it before you.
Me , a life long liberal finds you to be an utter embarrassment and no better for society than the right winger you keep showing screen caps of.
Remember your voice is loud on an internet forum , but in reality you are a total irrelevance and everything you stand for has been rejected and will continue to be rejected , particularly by Gen z'ers who are creeped out by your cultist-like and joyless existence.
Enjoy posting you Cowpoke.

Burty330 · 20-02-2020 07:17PM

Berties_Horse wrote: »

Sanders is the front-runner now without question, unless Bloomberg can fade into relevance.

Catching somebody's typo will no doubt be the highlight of your week.

PyreOfHellfire · 20-02-2020 07:19PM

Burty330 wrote: »

Hey weasel , how does it feel squealing to a moderator rather than defending your extermist bile when challenged?
Yes guy , you are a doom and gloom monger of leftist extremism and a parrot of other woke twitter shut-in's with life experience levels of 2/10.

You don't have an original thought in your head Sid Weasel , every talking point you spout about our society decending into facism has been rejected by the many bots that said it before you.
Me , a life long liberal finds you to be an utter embarasment and no better for society than the right winger you keep showing screen caps of.
Remember your voice is loud on an internet forum , but in reality you are a total revelence and everything you stand for has been rejected and will contunie to be rejected , particularly by Gen z'ers who are creeped out by your cultist like and joyless existence.
Enjoy posting you Cowpoke.

Weren't you literally just threadbanned from the germany shooting thread for basically defending white supremacists shooters? Hardly the actions of a "life long liberal" now is it? I actually feel sorry for you. I've only seen a handful of posts from you but I can already tell the type of person you are, a very lonely man with little love shown to you (maybe for very valid reasons) so you need to seek out attention online, even if it's just for a reaction. I honestly hope your life turns around and the hatred you have in your heart doesn't consume you. - Regards, an actual life long liberal.

Burty330 · 20-02-2020 07:23PM

PyreOfHellfire wrote: »

Weren't you literally just threadbanned from the germany shooting thread for basically defending white supremacists shooters?

I did no such thing.

Manic Moran · 20-02-2020 07:39PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Surely it's an argument in Sanders favor, that you can be a Socialist and still be wealthy.

Not really. He may be a socialist, but the environment which he has taken advantage of to obtain his wealth certainly isn’t. Indeed, he wants to change that.

Of course, he now has his three homes....

Burty330 · 20-02-2020 07:45PM

PyreOfHellfire wrote: »

Weren't you literally just threadbanned from the germany shooting thread for basically defending white supremacists shooters? Hardly the actions of a "life long liberal" now is it? I actually feel sorry for you. I've only seen a handful of posts from you but I can already tell the type of person you are, a very lonely man with little love shown to you (maybe for very valid reasons) so you need to seek out attention online, even if it's just for a reaction. I honestly hope your life turns around and the hatred you have in your heart doesn't consume you. - Regards, an actual life long liberal.

There's a lot of nasty spite there i didn't take notice of at first.

I wonder where that hate comes from considering;
a) You admit you barely know anything about me.
b) You aren't even sure if I said the things you assume I said.

So if I was you , id be concerned about that nasty and judgmental side you have , that's ready to be unloaded on anybody whether they are deserving of it or not.

eagle eye · 20-02-2020 07:47PM

AbusesToilets wrote:

Surely it's an argument in Sanders favor, that you can be a Socialist and still be wealthy.

That can also be used against him.

Red for Danger · 20-02-2020 08:01PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not really. He may be a socialist, but the environment which he has taken advantage of to obtain his wealth certainly isn’t. Indeed, he wants to change that.

Of course, he now has his three homes....

How does he compare to others in a similar position?
-how about to others in Congress?
-former presidents?
-former presidential hopefuls?
-the others on stage last night? All candidates since the start?
-the debate moderates? All debate moderaters since the start?
-even those in the audience?
Name for me, a few politicians, tv personalities, journalists, anyone with as much name recognition as sanders who are at his level of wealth?

Joe_ Public · 20-02-2020 08:15PM

Red for Danger wrote: »

How does he compare to others in a similar position?
-how about to others in Congress?
-former presidents?
-former presidential hopefuls?
-the others on stage last night? All candidates since the start?
-the debate moderates? All debate moderaters since the start?
-even those in the audience?
Name for me, a few politicians, tv personalities, journalists, anyone with as much name recognition as sanders who are at his level of wealth?

The thing is sanders will get to be judged on different stsndards to the others, because...well just because it suits the narrative against him. He shares that with the uk labour party, where for example antisemitism was deemed a heinous and unacceptable scourge while the awful, vile racism of the ruling party was - and is - completely ignored. That said, i believe sanders will be far better to cope with whatever smears are thrown his way.

Gbear · 20-02-2020 09:00PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The thing is sanders will get to be judged on different stsndards to the others, because...well just because it suits the narrative against him. He shares that with the uk labour party, where for example antisemitism was deemed a heinous and unacceptable scourge while the awful, vile racism of the ruling party was - and is - completely ignored. That said, i believe sanders will be far better to cope with whatever smears are thrown his way.

Or giving out about the value of Corbyn's home when it's a bog standard terraced or maybe semi-d in Islington he's owned for 50 years.

This notion that Sanders is some kind of champagne socialist is, to be blunt, total bollocks, and I'd expect better of posters like Manic to be peddling it.

If anything, it's yet another argument in his favour, as he's been able to, with a upper middle class wage, like many doctors, engineers, and other professionals who form the backbone of the tax base from his generation, buy a house years ago at a reasonable price, have a house for work in DC, when that's become far more difficult for modern upper middle class workers because of student debt or medical care costs, amongst other things.

Being a millionaire in the US isn't particularly rare. There's nearly 19 million millionaires there. I would imagine most of those are retirees or similar, who've paid off mortgages and now have massively valuable assets, from the perspective of people with nothing.

But this is all besides the point, because he's actively working to increase the tax liabilities of the wealhty, which totally undermines any suggestion of hypocrisy. If he's wealthy, than he's actively working against his own interests for the sake of what he perceives as more equitable distribution of wealth.

I think you can probably make arguments about the viability of specific policies he makes, but this sort of facile nonsense should embarass the people who argue for it.

sid waddell · 20-02-2020 09:07PM

Burty330 wrote: »

Hey weasel , how does it feel squealing to a moderator rather than defending your extremist bile when challenged?
Yes guy , you are a doom and gloom monger of leftist extremism and a parrot of other woke twitter shut-in's with life experience levels of 2/10.

You don't have an original thought in your head Sid Weasel , every talking point you sprout about our society descending into fascism has been rejected by the many bots that said it before you.
Me , a life long liberal finds you to be an utter embarrassment and no better for society than the right winger you keep showing screen caps of.
Remember your voice is loud on an internet forum , but in reality you are a total irrelevance and everything you stand for has been rejected and will continue to be rejected , particularly by Gen z'ers who are creeped out by your cultist-like and joyless existence.
Enjoy posting you Cowpoke.

The great thing about far right posters is they're so articulate and reasoned.

Oh, and they usuallly claim to be "liberal", lolz.

Well, liberal in terms of spewing hate speech, certainly.

Manic Moran · 20-02-2020 09:11PM

Red for Danger wrote: »

How does he compare to others in a similar position?
-how about to others in Congress?
-former presidents?
-former presidential hopefuls?
-the others on stage last night? All candidates since the start?
-the debate moderates? All debate moderaters since the start?
-even those in the audience?
Name for me, a few politicians, tv personalities, journalists, anyone with as much name recognition as sanders who are at his level of wealth?

Believe me, the level of wealth of the US's politicians has not gone unobserved. The average net worth of a Congresscritter is over a half-million dollars, with both sides accusing the other of having their voters voting for people who aren't representative of them. There are exceptions, mainly the new recruits. This is why I'm not sure that the tarnish will actually stick. We have plenty of precedent of people in the US voting for folks who are unrelatable to them.

20-02-2020 09:30PM

I would have a lot more reservations about someone still working in a well-paid job at the age of 78 and married to someone else who had a career into her 60s if between them they somehow hadn't amassed some kind of wealth.

briany · 21-02-2020 12:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I would have a lot more reservations about someone still working in a well-paid job at the age of 78 and married to someone else who had a career into her 60s if between them they somehow hadn't amassed some kind of wealth.

If Bernie Sanders had taken a vow of poverty and turned up to work in clothes he'd made himself out of locally-sourced fairtrade hemp fibres, he'd be called a lunatic. That he has a bit of money and property, he's called a champagne socialist. It's almost like his opponents have a bullet for him in every chamber. That is to say they'll always devise a way to try and undermine his arguments and question his character and his motives. It has nothing to do with genuine concerns over his integrity.

21-02-2020 12:15AM

The best thing Bloomberg could have done was avoid all the debates and just kept pumping money into advertisements. He was an embarrassment last night. The most loathsome character in the race.

Water John · 21-02-2020 12:47AM

You could view Bloomberg as a Trump doppleganger and how all Dem candidates would chew him up. He serves a purpose, not the one he intended.

briany · 21-02-2020 12:55AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The best thing Bloomberg could have done was avoid all the debates and just kept pumping money into advertisements. He was an embarrassment last night. The most loathsome character in the race.

Running away from all debates would undermine his advertising. It would be hard to defend doing so and would give his rivals carte blanche to continue accusing of being an oligarch who has no substance and is attempting to buy the nomination.

Gbear · 21-02-2020 01:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The best thing Bloomberg could have done was avoid all the debates and just kept pumping money into advertisements. He was an embarrassment last night. The most loathsome character in the race.

If it weren't for the fact that his presence would appear to help Sanders by bleeding support from the centrists, I might actually beleive that he's running some kind of con to focus attacks from Trump on the nominee onto himself, but given that he very much does not seem like the kind of person who wants Sanders to win (ie, he's a Republican, but not mental and acknowledges that climate change exists), I can only assume that the kind of breathtaking hubris born of having amassed wealth in excess of $60B is to blame.

He gave $5m to Stacey Abrams voter enfranchisement charity Fair Fight recently. If he was spending ever penny on causes like that instead of sticking his nose into a place it doesn't belong like the presidency, he'd acheive a lot more good than this selfish, narcissistic fantasy he's indulging in.

AbusesToilets · 21-02-2020 03:38AM

briany wrote: »

If Bernie Sanders had taken a vow of poverty and turned up to work in clothes he'd made himself out of locally-sourced fairtrade hemp fibres, he'd be called a lunatic. That he has a bit of money and property, he's called a champagne socialist. It's almost like his opponents have a bullet for him in every chamber. That is to say they'll always devise a way to try and undermine his arguments and question his character and his motives. It has nothing to do with genuine concerns over his integrity.

It's really becoming more and more noticeable how the Democratic establishment is not in his favor. Any party rep I've heard talk on NPR continually frames him in a poor light, certainly relative to Biden for example.

There was one on this morning, talking about how he isn't a clear front runner yet, which is obvious lunacy.

eagle eye · 21-02-2020 04:18AM

I don't think he'll get the nomination but if Bloomberg got it then the electorate would be fairly confused with a former Dem as the Republican candidate and a former Republican as the Democrat candidate. ï¿¼

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments