2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

[trixR4kids]

Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

The problem is you recognize the relative but still deal in absolutes. Just because the Dems have been found to have drawn partisan maps in Maryland does not make it equal to the nationwide gerrymandering orchestrated by republicans in 2010 and their continued fight to strip the VRA down to nothing while making it harder for the poor, minorities, youth, and elderly to vote.

Well his post was in reply to Kepler's post saying the right is more racist, misogynistic, and evil. I read that as the far right (actual politicians and supporters) and not necessarily your average republican voter, in which case I agree because it's pretty well documented and there's stats/policies to back that assertion. The abortion laws they've passed in a number of states are incredibly misogynistic and hurt poor people the most. The far right commits more terrorist acts than fanatical Muslims much less the "far left", not to mention they're doing it in support of a white ethno-state and racial purity which is the most ****ed up reasoning ever, they're definitely more evil and racist in that sense.

Which either leads me to believe that he's doing more low effort trolling or he's incredibly stupid and incapable of doing basic research outside of listening to whatever nonsense right wing sources.

[The Rube]

Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Well his post was in reply to Kepler's post saying the right is more racist, misogynistic, and evil. I read that as the far right (actual politicians and supporters) and not necessarily your average republican voter, in which case I agree because it's pretty well documented and there's stats/policies to back that assertion. The abortion laws they've passed in a number of states are incredibly misogynistic and hurt poor people the most. The far right commits more terrorist acts than fanatical Muslims much less the "far left", not to mention they're doing it in support of a white ethno-state and racial purity which is the most ****ed up reasoning ever, they're definitely more evil and racist in that sense.

Which either leads me to believe that he's doing more low effort trolling or he's incredibly stupid and incapable of doing basic research outside of listening to whatever nonsense right wing sources.

Kep said that both sides have prejudices, the left is less rabid on that front. I agreed on that point, and said the rabid left (as for attacking the other side in general) is just as rabid as the right.

And the echo chamber pounced on me. Hilarious. A few phrases come to mind when talking with the rufus', Scoobys, trix', and jerpsichs of the world: blinded by the light, but it's different in this case, etc etc.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

I hate it when I believe Onion articles and then notice where they're from.

I had to reread it twice and then saw where it was from.

[The Rube]

Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Hickenlooper has no clue. None. JFC. (watching on CNN right now)

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Another reason Tom Perez was a terrible choice? He made the decision to ban climate change from the dem debate.
Way to go, Tom.

[ericredaxe]

Hickenlooper has no clue. None. JFC. (watching on CNN right now)

Was it a re-run of his earlier CNN town Hall or a second one?

I’ve been watching them on-demand and the one I saw I agree he didn’t do so well.

Of the ones I’ve watched, I thought Moulton did really well.

[The Rube]

Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Was it a re-run of his earlier CNN town Hall or a second one?

I’ve been watching them on-demand and the one I saw I agree he didn’t do so well.

Of the ones I’ve watched, I thought Moulton did really well.

I think it was live? He was clueless to how little chance he had.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Another reason Tom Perez was a terrible choice? He made the decision to ban climate change from the dem debate.
Way to go, Tom.

Here’s the thing. I don’t think climate change is going to win the election. It’s a great thing to have on the platform, but to beat trump you’re going to have to convince the moronic sliver of the electorate that somehow considers themselves “independents”. As if there’s such a thing anymore. Honestly it’s just republicans who are too embarrassed to vote for the GOPand they’re having seller’s remorse.

[ericredaxe]

Here’s the thing. I don’t think climate change is going to win the election. It’s a great thing to have on the platform, but to beat trump you’re going to have to convince the moronic sliver of the electorate that somehow considers themselves “independents”. As if there’s such a thing anymore. Honestly it’s just republicans who are too embarrassed to vote for the GOPand they’re having seller’s remorse.

Actually in my state of Massachusetts , the majority (or at least plurality) of the electorate is registered as unenrolled / independent. (Although many certainly lean blue).

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Here’s the thing. I don’t think climate change is going to win the election. It’s a great thing to have on the platform, but to beat trump you’re going to have to convince the moronic sliver of the electorate that somehow considers themselves “independents”. As if there’s such a thing anymore. Honestly it’s just republicans who are too embarrassed to vote for the GOPand they’re having seller’s remorse.

To ban it from debates is dumb.

[Rover]

Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

I researched this climate change debate story because it didn't make any sense. What actually happened if I'm reading this correctly is that Inslee wanted a debate focused solely in climate change. The DNC said no, because all the debates are focused on multiple topics, not one in particular. I've seen nothing that says climate change is banned as a topic in any debate. If you give a Inslee climate change debate, then you need to give Bernie income inequality, etc etc. The jury's still out on Perez but that seems reasonable to me. Unfortunately that didn't stop people from running with a disinformation campaign.

[mookie1995]

I researched this climate change debate story because it didn't make any sense. What actually happened if I'm reading this correctly is that Inslee wanted a debate focused solely in climate change. The DNC said no, because all the debates are focused on multiple topics, not one in particular. I've seen nothing that says climate change is banned as a topic in any debate. If you give a Inslee climate change debate, then you need to give Bernie income inequality, etc etc. The jury's still out on Perez but that seems reasonable to me. Unfortunately that didn't stop people from running with a disinformation campaign.

Wasn’t cause D take $$$ from ford and Exxon too?

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

I researched this climate change debate story because it didn't make any sense. What actually happened if I'm reading this correctly is that Inslee wanted a debate focused solely in climate change. The DNC said no, because all the debates are focused on multiple topics, not one in particular. I've seen nothing that says climate change is banned as a topic in any debate. If you give a Inslee climate change debate, then you need to give Bernie income inequality, etc etc. The jury's still out on Perez but that seems reasonable to me. Unfortunately that didn't stop people from running with a disinformation campaign.

Huh, that wasn’t what I read but I can’t find the source. Not having an entire debate dedicated to it makes sense

[mookie1995]

Huh, that wasn’t what I read but I can’t find the source. Not having an entire debate dedicated to it makes sense

Dunno.
Easy to lose viewers...

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Dunno.
Easy to lose viewers...

Still, nothing Perez has done so far is giving me a ton of confidence