Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[glenwo2]

The DNC just said how it will pick candidates to be in presidential debates
Vox

Cliffs:
-12 DNC primary debates are scheduled
-First debate will be in June
-The DNC will allow up to 20 candidates in the first debate
-The criteria has been expanded beyond polling at least 1% to also a grassroots donation quota that also could get you on the debate stage

Should be an entertaining Train-Wreck to watch them rip each other to shreds.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Frankly, I think even having this conversation re Gabbard is asinine. Gabbard's character is not a major issue any more than Clinton's character was a major issue: in fact, I take much more issue with Clinton's character than Gabbard's. But there are so few Democrats for which this is a remotely comparable trait to any Republican nominee (the "good" ones like Romney very much included). I mean....I can't even think of one for which it would be a valid concern....Harry Reid? Joe Lieberman? I literally hate Lieberman, but even he would be a choir boy on a GOP debate stage.

Like I said, I don't think "has more integrity than Trump or Bush" to be a high-enough bar. And I don't think you can compare Gabbard to Clinton (er, Hillary, that is--IMO, Bill illustrates the problem).

 

[waiguoren]

Test scores, grades, etc. If you don't value intelligence or diligence, that's fine. I do.

Yet another strawman. I never said I don't value intelligence or diligence. It should have been obvious to you that I question high school grades as a proxy for intelligence/diligence.

El Paso Times had him on a list of prominent young businesspeople, he was on the CoC board, etc

You claimed O'Rourke was a "well-known" businessman in El Paso. The fact that a small newspaper put him on a list is not good evidence for that claim, nor is the fact that he was on the CoC board.

Good for you. The argument to me is that skill and artistic sense and intelligence are generally positives.

You're living in dreamland again. Have you ever even listened to the music of O'Rourke's "band"?




This is horrible noise that a group of four children could make. That is not hyperbole.

The best we can say for O'Rourke is at least he wasn't the lead guitarist, who sounded like he had first touched a guitar one month prior. Someone in the Youtube comments says O'Rourke was the bassist. Listening on laptop speakers, I can't hear the bass so I can't criticize O'Rourke's playing. However, the fact that he wasted his time making atrocious noise with a "band" this bad should be a huge red flag for you and anyone else who would tout this as a qualification for the presidency.

There are thousands of activities Gabbard could have been doing with her time that would have been more productive than this. They include: grooming cats, jousting, knitting, and telephone booth stuffing.

Are you familiar with the guy's posts? What I said is pretty obviously true, IMO.

I've enjoyed many of @Farmer Br0wn's posts and claiming the thing about his mother should be beneath you. Trump Derangement Syndrome?

 

[waiguoren]

I think you probably realize how remarkably ironic and hypocritical the first paragraph is given your history of continually, and by my estimations disingenuously, proffering attempted legal defenses of Trump in re the Mueller investigation.

Not sure why.

I'm a consistent skeptic of big government, including special/independent counsel investigations. I thought the Starr investigation of President Clinton was mostly an absurd waste of time/money/energy. I take "innocent until proven guilty" very seriously regardless of whether I like the accused. Furthermore, I like being attacked/challenged, so I jumped at the opportunity to dive head-first into the partisan echo chamber that is @Quipling's thread.

Note that I've also defended Hillary Clinton against those accusations against her which I perceive to be weak, e.g., pay-to-play accusations related to the Clinton Foundation. I think it's very unfortunate that Trump has encouraged the "lock her up" chants and, more generally, the notion of jailing one's political opponent in lieu of a conviction.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yet another strawman. I never said I don't value intelligence or diligence. It should have been obvious to you that I question high school grades as a proxy for intelligence/diligence.

Why not? Surely you acknowledge that test scores and grades, among other factors, would at least correlate with those things.

You claimed O'Rourke was a "well-known" businessman in El Paso. The fact that a small newspaper put him on a list is not good evidence for that claim, nor is the fact that he was on the CoC board.

IMO, you are being argumentative for its own sake and just aren't willing to acknowledge that you might have been wrong.

I've enjoyed many of @Farmer Br0wn's posts and claiming the thing about his mother should be beneath you. Trump Derangement Syndrome?

Why? He's talked about how he was brought up to hate Democrats (a form of child abuse, if the stories he tells are true). He's possibly the most shameless defender of Trump here. His angle, consistently, is to celebrate evidence of corruption because liberals oppose corruption in gov't. He sees Trump's corruption and incompetence not as tolerable because the alternative is worse policy but a positive good because it makes reasonable people more inclined to see a problem. But as a citizen (and a farmer, allegedly!), he's the victim of Trump's corruption and incompetence. I'm just positing taking up another level. Notice he ducked the question of where the line is. What could Trump possibly do that he'd criticize? I'd argue, only changing his party affiliation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not sure why.

I'm a consistent skeptic of big government, including special/independent counsel investigations.

This is a bad-faith framing of your consistent views, which are in favor of big gov't (anti-BLM, pro-ICE, etc.) but against attempts to hold corrupt gov't officials accountable.

 

[waiguoren]

Why not? Surely you acknowledge that test scores and grades, among other factors, would at least correlate with those things.

I firmly believe that intelligence comes in many forms and that book smarts are often a poor substitute for (and can even "crowd out") more useful forms of intelligence.

As for diligence, I think it's possible to do well in school without being absurdly diligent, and I think plenty of students are working hard at other activities while their peers are focusing on getting A's.

The irony here is that O'Rourke is the one who seems like a lifelong slacker who hopes to smooth-talk his way to the presidency.

IMO, you are being argumentative for its own sake and just aren't willing to acknowledge that you might have been wrong.

IMO, you are backtracking because you have dug your heels in on the untenable position that Robert O'Rourke was a "well-known" businessman in El Paso.

 

[Sketch]

Someone who is OK with Trump being president is pretty much signalling that he has no real moral standards, that anyone with an R next to their name should be given any position, period. Someone could rape Farmer's mother right in front of him, and if he were a Republican, Farmer would help cover it up.

What the hell?

 

[waiguoren]

This is a bad-faith framing of your consistent views, which are in favor of big gov't (anti-BLM, pro-ICE, etc.) but against attempts to hold corrupt gov't officials accountable.

On BLM, I have seen no quality evidence that police mistreat black people disproportionally compared to other races. I'm living in a black, crime-ridden city right now and the police are one of the few barriers between chaos and civilization. Also, my comment referred primarily to the federal government, which has centralized far more resources than any city or local government ever could. If you're accusing me of supporting police brutality or something, that's dumb. I do oppose BLM adherents chanting "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon", storming libraries on college campuses to shout at people, and destroying/looting their local communities in fits of rage.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I firmly believe that intelligence comes in many forms and that book smarts are often a poor substitute for (and can even "crowd out") more useful forms of intelligence.

You're arguing against some kind of absolutist position, when I've pretty clearly stated a different one.

IMO, you are backtracking because you have dug your heels in on the untenable position that Robert O'Rourke was a "well-known" businessman in El Paso.

My position is correct, and I provided evidence for it. Your response was not intellectually honest. I don't think you're going to accept anything that contradicts your view. You're free to research Beto all you want. And your refusal to use his preferred name is evidence enough that you're letting your emotions get the best of you and are incapable of being objective.

 

[Jack V Savage]

On BLM, I have seen no quality evidence that police mistreat black people disproportionally compared to other races.

Right, so you play dumb and defend oppressive gov't where it is most visible and meaningful but you suddenly become a great civil libertarian when it comes to clean investigations of corrupt gov't officials in your party. That's exactly my point.

 

[waiguoren]

This is a bad-faith framing of your consistent views, which are in favor of big gov't (anti-BLM, pro-ICE, etc.) but against attempts to hold corrupt gov't officials accountable.

As for ICE and the wall, I've started to look at the issue somewhat differently in the past few months. Not really sure where I stand at the moment. I like the Ron Paul argument that the wall can also be used to keep people in, for one. I'm not sure why you would say that supporting the existence of ICE is an example of being pro big gov't. Could you elaborate? You want no deportation force whatsoever?

 

[Jack V Savage]

As for ICE and the wall, I've started to look at the issue somewhat differently in the past few months. Not really sure where I stand at the moment. I like the Ron Paul argument that the wall can also be used to keep people in, for one. I'm not sure why you would say that supporting the existence of ICE is an example of being pro big gov't. Could you elaborate? You want no deportation force whatsoever?

Well, if you reverse on the issue, you reverse on it. But you still can't say that you're a consistent skeptic of big gov't when you're not consistently skeptical of big gov't.

Oh, what I want doesn't matter. The issue is whether it is appropriate to describe you as a consistent skeptic of big gov't. If you'd said that you're occasionally skeptical of big gov't (mostly when it is convenient for your party), I would have not taken issue.

 

[waiguoren]

You're arguing against some kind of absolutist position, when I've pretty clearly stated a different one.

I'm saying that you haven't posted any good evidence that Gabbard is unintelligent, and in the case of Robert O'Rourke it seems like you overrate high school GPA and test scores as a proxy for intelligence.

My position is correct, and I provided evidence for it. Your response was not intellectually honest. I don't think you're going to accept anything that contradicts your view. You're free to research Beto all you want. And your refusal to use his preferred name is evidence enough that you're letting your emotions get the best of you and are incapable of being objective.

No, you were being sloppy again and got caught.

The Senate Majority Leader's name is Addison McConnell. That DUI guy who almost beat Rafael Cruz is Robert O'Rourke.

Right, so you play dumb and defend oppressive gov't where it is most visible and meaningful

???

Please elaborate.

you suddenly become a great civil libertarian when it comes to clean investigations of corrupt gov't officials in your party.

??

I support the Mueller probe and look forward to his final report.

 

[waiguoren]

Oh, what I want doesn't matter.

Do you want to see the elimination of all deportation forces in the US (including ICE)?

The issue is whether it is appropriate to describe you as a consistent skeptic of big gov't. If you'd said that you're occasionally skeptical of big gov't (mostly when it is convenient for your party), I would have not taken issue.

Which big government agency do I support? I've routinely attacked the biggest (military industrial complex and SS) on these forums. There is no federal police force relevant to a discussion of BLM, so that line of argument confuses me. Finally, I have no party affiliation. I've always been registered independent. I've never voted for a Republican in my life. Those guys usually like wasteful spending too much. No national political party I'm aware of aligns with my views closely. I kind of liked the US Constitution Party in 2016 and voted for Darrell Castle, the Party's nominee for US President.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm saying that you haven't posted any good evidence that Gabbard is unintelligent, and in the case of Robert O'Rourke it seems like you overrate high school GPA and test scores as a proxy for intelligence.

Why does it seem that way to you?

No, you were being sloppy again and got caught.

Because I'm not playing along with your trolling. I provided evidence to support my point. Rather than simply thank me and accept the point as being at least likely true, you started moving goalposts.

The Senate Majority Leader's name is Addison McConnell. That DUI guy who almosst beat Rafael Cruz is Robert O'Rourke.

But you've never referred to those people by those names here. And I'd say that at the least your personal style guide makes it appear that you are letting emotions get in the way of your reasoning. At most, I'd say that you developed the rule in response to correct charges that you're doing that.

???

Please elaborate.

??

I support the Mueller probe and look forward to his final report.

That's news to anyone familiar with your posts! Congratulations on dropping the Dershowitz regurgitation and joining reality.

And here, what did you think of this?:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...5/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

 

[waiguoren]

Because I'm not playing along with your trolling. I provided evidence to support my point. Rather than simply thank me and accept the point as being at least likely true, you started moving goalposts.

It's not "moving goalposts" if I continue to reject your original statement, which is that Robert O'Rourke was a "well-known" businessman in El Paso. That statement remains unsupported.

That's news to anyone familiar with your posts! Congratulations on dropping the Dershowitz regurgitation and joining reality.

Wrong. I've said the same thing many times before.

Dershowitz is currently the best pundit in the MSM breaking down the Mueller investigation, and has been for years.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Which big government agency do I support? I've routinely attacked the biggest (military industrial complex and SS) on these forums. There is no federal police force relevant to a discussion of BLM, so that line of argument confuses me. Finally, I have no party affiliation. I've always been registered independent. I've never voted for a Republican in my life. Those guys usually like wasteful spending too much. No national political party I'm aware of aligns with my views closely. I kind of liked the US Constitution Party in 2016 and voted for Darrell Castle, the Party's nominee for US President.

I named a big gov't agency you support. I noted your indifference to oppressive policing. SS has minimal administrative costs or control over people's lives. Again, it looks to me like you're trying to reframe support for oppressive gov't as skepticism of "big gov't." Let's see if you're going to call for an end to gov't-enforced property rights along with the end to any compensation for people who are negatively impacted by that big-gov't program.

 

[killakoy]

Sure, but shouldn't Democrats have a higher standard for character than Trump? I don't see Gabbard doing well at all, but say she wins the nomination, how should a person of good conscience handle it in the general? I think you gotta be clear that she's not as bad as Trump, but I don't think people should lower themselves to actually defending her. We're seeing now how corrosive that kind of thing can be. I really think the left needs to be vigilant against the idea that Trump means you don't need to care about the character of politicians you might generally agree with. And the same applies to other standards. "Oh, Trump is president and he doesn't know what he's doing so it's OK." No. It's very far from OK, and that's part of the reason.

That's really interesting you say all this, JVS, because Clinton as a centrist was really supposed to have me as her prime demographic. But, to me, it was her character that continuously made her a nonviable candidate. Again, not as bad as Trump, but still someone I couldn't in good conscience vote for.

With regards to Gabbard, what do her supporters have to defend about her character? If you're talking about established dialogs with Assad, El-Sisi, and Modi, this fits right in line with her thinking of how to handle international relations. Are you arguing that because an approach to solving certain international problems differs from your preferred approach it would make a person immoral? I would argue that at most it'd make them wrong.

 

[waiguoren]

I named a big gov't agency you support.

Again, I'm not sure what my position on ICE is. If you're going to claim I support big government agencies you'll have to do better.

I noted your indifference to oppressive policing.

I do not support oppressive policing.

SS has minimal administrative costs or control over people's lives.

It takes from young struggling people and gives the money to retirees. It's a huge program. I oppose it and would favor a gradual phase-out.

it looks to me like you're trying to reframe support for oppressive gov't as skepticism of "big gov't."

I hope federal prosecutors never take an interest in you. I know you brag about having a high income, but I suspect they'd get you on a minor process crime and still manage to bankrupt you in the process.

Let's see if you're going to call for an end to gov't-enforced property rights

Erm, no? That's an important part of the backbone of our system and an essential part of any successful society.

the end to any compensation for people who are negatively impacted by that big-gov't program.

Property rights enforcement can be handled by a small government. No big government needed.