21 ms·

Will this be before or after he is reelected one year from now? I really did have hopes for the Democrats, but they just can't quit on Biden.

pstuart 7y ago
I'd be happy to have a polite conversation with you about this. I promise to be civil. Interested?
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Sure I am interested in civil polite conversation. I have to warn you that I am supporting Tulsi Gabbard in the upcoming primary. Also I am neither Republican nor Democrat.
  - pstuart 7y ago
    What is your take on Tulsi being a spoiler? I for one, agree with HRC on this point.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      You agree that Tulsi is a Manchurian candidate sponsored by the Kremlin? Not even CNN went along with that. I think that is extraordinarily unlikely. As in, I expect the aliens to land and give us the recipe for cold fusion before that's ever the case. As I said above, I'm not a Democrat. I understand that some who identify strongly with one or the other of the two status quo parties care about this concept of "spoilers". Many of the voters they claim to want to reach do not. If HRC had wanted to win Wisconsin, she should have campaigned in Wisconsin. If she had wanted to appeal to the same voters who voted for Obama, she should have been a completely different person for her entire political life. Gary Johnson voters didn't owe her a damn thing.
      - pstuart 7y ago
        I'm a Democrat because this is a two-party system and any shred of old-school conservatism left the GOP a long time ago. The GOP today is the Trump party. A spoiler is by definition any candidate that takes votes away from a possible winner in a close race. That is uncontested. Many consider Ross Perot to be a spoiler. Regardless of "rumors", there is the fact that she's been the darling of the right wing: Tucker, Karl, David Duke, et. al. Give me one reason other than spoiler why they would liker her. We also know that Russia operates disinformation campaigns here and has weaponized social media. There is documented proof of them setting up BLM vs. "All Life Matters" events to intentionally divide us. They will seize every point of division and amplify it to their best abilities. Whether or not she actively solicits the KGB's help, they will be helping her. Tell me where I'm wrong.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Rove and Duke are horrible people, so if they were to support her I'm sure it would be for suspect reasons. (If Duke weren't consulted every time we have an election, would anyone remember he still exists? Does he still exist?) For whatever other faults he may have, Carlson actually seems like a pacifist to me. Perhaps he hasn't always been, but I haven't always been either. (Perhaps, like me, and unlike anyone else on TV news, he has paid attention for the last two decades?) He has already interceded directly to cool down the conflict with Iran. [0] Incidentally, opposition to foreign wars is one of the oldest authentically conservative political values in USA. The military-industrial complex has no values, conservative or otherwise. Fools who styled themselves conservative have long been useful to MIC. Fools who style themselves liberal have been so recently. From my increasingly pacifist point of view, it's hard to differentiate the two packs of fools. I suspect that Carlson isn't actually a Gabbard partisan. He is, however, one of the few people on TV who have interviewed her with an open mind. This tells us more about TV media than about Gabbard. Even if I believed every single thing I've heard about what Russia supposedly did about our last election (and I don't) I wouldn't care. They haven't been accused of changing votes or stuffing ballot boxes. They have been accused of excessive communication. 1A, dude. If our democracy can't handle speech, it ain't really a democracy. KGB didn't put Trump on all four channels of TV news for 25 hours a day starting in mid-2015. KGB didn't decide we'd waste trillions of dollars and uncounted lives on decades of pointless war. Etc. Also, living where I live, I've heard a lot of awful shit said about BLM. I don't think any of it was as obnoxious as the idea that they were about the KGB rather than, you know, what their fucking name says. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-st...
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I really did have hopes for the Democrats, but they just can't quit on Biden Biden’s polling in the 20s, occasionally breaking into the 30s, and he's running low on money. Sanders and Warren have much bigger warchests, and there's a lot of votes to be picked up as minor candidates fall off, which it'll be hard to compete for without funds. He's in a weaker position than the early frontrunners that ended up not winning in basically every Democratic primary in a generation without an incumbent President or Vice President in the race. (EDIT: Yes, 2016 was an exception to this, but Biden has nothing like the DNC backing Clinton had, nothing like the office-holder backing Clinton had, and nothing like the DNC rules that magnified the effect of both of those advantages.)
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Thanks for the good news, I'd prefer either of them but definitely Sanders more. I voted for him last time.

pstuart 7y ago

I'd be happy to have a polite conversation with you about this. I promise to be civil. Interested?

jessaustin 7y ago
Sure I am interested in civil polite conversation. I have to warn you that I am supporting Tulsi Gabbard in the upcoming primary. Also I am neither Republican nor Democrat.
- pstuart 7y ago
  What is your take on Tulsi being a spoiler? I for one, agree with HRC on this point.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    You agree that Tulsi is a Manchurian candidate sponsored by the Kremlin? Not even CNN went along with that. I think that is extraordinarily unlikely. As in, I expect the aliens to land and give us the recipe for cold fusion before that's ever the case. As I said above, I'm not a Democrat. I understand that some who identify strongly with one or the other of the two status quo parties care about this concept of "spoilers". Many of the voters they claim to want to reach do not. If HRC had wanted to win Wisconsin, she should have campaigned in Wisconsin. If she had wanted to appeal to the same voters who voted for Obama, she should have been a completely different person for her entire political life. Gary Johnson voters didn't owe her a damn thing.
    - pstuart 7y ago
      I'm a Democrat because this is a two-party system and any shred of old-school conservatism left the GOP a long time ago. The GOP today is the Trump party. A spoiler is by definition any candidate that takes votes away from a possible winner in a close race. That is uncontested. Many consider Ross Perot to be a spoiler. Regardless of "rumors", there is the fact that she's been the darling of the right wing: Tucker, Karl, David Duke, et. al. Give me one reason other than spoiler why they would liker her. We also know that Russia operates disinformation campaigns here and has weaponized social media. There is documented proof of them setting up BLM vs. "All Life Matters" events to intentionally divide us. They will seize every point of division and amplify it to their best abilities. Whether or not she actively solicits the KGB's help, they will be helping her. Tell me where I'm wrong.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Rove and Duke are horrible people, so if they were to support her I'm sure it would be for suspect reasons. (If Duke weren't consulted every time we have an election, would anyone remember he still exists? Does he still exist?) For whatever other faults he may have, Carlson actually seems like a pacifist to me. Perhaps he hasn't always been, but I haven't always been either. (Perhaps, like me, and unlike anyone else on TV news, he has paid attention for the last two decades?) He has already interceded directly to cool down the conflict with Iran. [0] Incidentally, opposition to foreign wars is one of the oldest authentically conservative political values in USA. The military-industrial complex has no values, conservative or otherwise. Fools who styled themselves conservative have long been useful to MIC. Fools who style themselves liberal have been so recently. From my increasingly pacifist point of view, it's hard to differentiate the two packs of fools. I suspect that Carlson isn't actually a Gabbard partisan. He is, however, one of the few people on TV who have interviewed her with an open mind. This tells us more about TV media than about Gabbard. Even if I believed every single thing I've heard about what Russia supposedly did about our last election (and I don't) I wouldn't care. They haven't been accused of changing votes or stuffing ballot boxes. They have been accused of excessive communication. 1A, dude. If our democracy can't handle speech, it ain't really a democracy. KGB didn't put Trump on all four channels of TV news for 25 hours a day starting in mid-2015. KGB didn't decide we'd waste trillions of dollars and uncounted lives on decades of pointless war. Etc. Also, living where I live, I've heard a lot of awful shit said about BLM. I don't think any of it was as obnoxious as the idea that they were about the KGB rather than, you know, what their fucking name says. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-st...

dragonwriter 7y ago

> I really did have hopes for the Democrats, but they just can't quit on Biden Biden’s polling in the 20s, occasionally breaking into the 30s, and he's running low on money. Sanders and Warren have much bigger warchests, and there's a lot of votes to be picked up as minor candidates fall off, which it'll be hard to compete for without funds. He's in a weaker position than the early frontrunners that ended up not winning in basically every Democratic primary in a generation without an incumbent President or Vice President in the race. (EDIT: Yes, 2016 was an exception to this, but Biden has nothing like the DNC backing Clinton had, nothing like the office-holder backing Clinton had, and nothing like the DNC rules that magnified the effect of both of those advantages.)

jessaustin 7y ago
Thanks for the good news, I'd prefer either of them but definitely Sanders more. I voted for him last time.