Octopus Overlords

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:03 pm I agree but at least she'd talk about them. Biden thinks the GOP is going to respect him and cooperate. It is the worst kind of magical thinking.

I agree, but how much is that really relevant in the end? I don't think Biden's totally stupid. Do you really think that if Republicans refuse to cooperate he's just going to stand there and keep singing Kumbaya? Seriously, what we need Biden to do is restore some normalcy to the presidency, give us competent government and get government departments functioning again as intended, and reassure our allies and give us a rational foreign policy. Legislation is going to fall to Pelosi and Schumer anyway for the most part, so they are ones that will have to work or not work with Republicans in the end. Even if he is totally wrong, I just don't see it as a big deal in the end.

Even if Biden won and did all that do you think the rest of the world wouldn't worry about what happens in 4 years? Who is to say we wont have another big old dumb baby in the WH?

Couple tips for Bernie.

1. Stand up straight. Stop dipping your head down below your shoulders when you talk. You look like a slouchy boomer turtle.

2. Stop putting the mic in your mouth and screaming when you talk. The mic is so you don't have to yell. Just because you are hard of hearing doesn't mean we want to be.

Trump called Biden Sleepy Joe. Im surprised he doesn't call Bernie something like Slouchy Screaming Sanders.

Grifman wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:09 am

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:50 pm I'm glad she dropped but this is my nightmare scenario. None of the three likely President's are going to heal the nation's divide. I think Warren had a chance of at least being realist enough to speak to the long-term problems we face. None of these men will do that even if one wasn't actively trying to tear the system down. Either we go full on kleptocracy or are looking down the barrel at another 4 years of divided governance that'll fuel the final competent autocrat ready to step into the divide.

Warren is definitely a realist but I"m not sure why you think that is the same as healing the nation's divide. She can be rather snarky to those that disagree with her - I've seen it in a town hall directed at a questioner. She doesn't strike me as a healer at all.

No, and that's why I like her. I'm tired of the Democrats trying to heal the divide and getting smashed every time. I love that Warren would take the fight to the Republicans and call them out on their bullshit.

You have to think that it bothers Biden why Obama wont come out and endorse him at this point.
It would surely give him a much needed push.
What does Obama know that we dont?

stimpy wrote:You have to think that it bothers Biden why Obama wont come out and endorse him at this point.
It would surely give him a much needed push.
What does Obama know that we dont?

That his endorsement would be used against a different winner by Trump, etc.

stimpy wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:49 am You have to think that it bothers Biden why Obama wont come out and endorse him at this point.
It would surely give him a much needed push.
What does Obama know that we dont?

That he has value as an elder statesman of the Democratic Party that would be tarnished by an endorsement. He didn't endorse Clinton in 2016 until the primary was over, when he *clearly* favored Clinton over Sanders.

Obama is Big Bertha. You don't want to bring that gun out until your side's done skirmishing.

Biden's answer to every question is (noun) (verb) Barack, so that's going to be a good synergy. Obama will support whomever gets the nod, but he won't be convincing with Sanders or Bloomberg. Warren? Maybe. Their history is complicated.

He was good enough to pick as his Vice President.
You'd think that a vote of confidence for him to be President would be a no brainer.
I feel that the longer he waits, the weaker it makes Biden look.

stimpy wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:09 am He was good enough to pick as his Vice President.
You'd think that a vote of confidence for him to be President would be a no brainer.
I feel that the longer he waits, the weaker it makes Biden look.

Obama sees an endorsement as being divisive and doesn't want to put his thumb on the scale. He wants to be able to campaign for whoever the nominee is. He did publicly congratulate Biden on winning SC - I don't think he has done the same for any other winner so far.

stimpy wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:09 am He was good enough to pick as his Vice President.
You'd think that a vote of confidence for him to be President would be a no brainer.
I feel that the longer he waits, the weaker it makes Biden look.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:59 am

stimpy wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:49 am You have to think that it bothers Biden why Obama wont come out and endorse him at this point.
It would surely give him a much needed push.
What does Obama know that we dont?

That he has value as an elder statesman of the Democratic Party that would be tarnished by an endorsement. He didn't endorse Clinton in 2016 until the primary was over, when he *clearly* favored Clinton over Sanders.

Why didn't Biden run in 2016?

Daehawk wrote:Why didn't Biden run in 2016?

The death of his son.

Bigger problem is that Warren didn't run, allowing Bernie to lay the foundation which is boosting him.

Biden's son Beau had just died, and it broke ol' Joe. Beau was the favored son who turned down Joe's Senate seat because (1) he wanted to earn it, not inherit it, and (2) he was Delaware Attorney General in the middle of prosecuting a serial pedophile doctor. Apparently, the case upset Beau so much that he couldn't stand the possibility of leaving the prosecution with 471 charges against 103 victims unfinished. The charges included rape, sexual exploitation of a child, unlawful sexual contact, continuous sexual abuse of a child, assault, and reckless endangering. A decent, good politician.

There's also an interview where Biden said that Hillary was a terrible campaigner, but "thought she would have been a really good president."

Grifman wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:03 am

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:42 am
I agree generally. I fear however that a return to normality is impossible and the assumption that a centrist has the easiest time is unproven. They all are beating Trump in the general polls. If we need a realist who can defeat Trump then Biden is the wrong choice. Same problem goes for Sanders.

Being a realist does to how you govern, not how you run. I realize that you don't think Biden is being realistic about working with Republicans if he becomes president but that doesn't have much to do with the campaign. As for a centrist beating Trump, I don't think it is unproven at all. Who won the House for the Democrats? It was centrist/moderate candidates, not the progressive wing. Biden will probably appeal to those same voters. Sanders argument was that he didn't need to broaden his appeal, he could increase turnout, but that's not proving true in the primaries.

It is unproven because no one knows what the state polls look like in races that are critical to this election. 2018 has hints about what matters but it is a likely a mistake to think that the 2018 or general polls mean more than they do.

And you don't think the Republicans aren't ready to dirty up Sanders, or any other candidate that the Democrats put forward?

Of course, they are. The difference with Joe is he is utterly incapable of defending himself. Until I see him effectively defend himself I'm going to assume Trump is going to stomp all over his face. As much as we all don't want it to work going negative is very effective.

I don't think Biden carries any more risks that any other candidate, and I happen to think he carries a whole lot less baggage than Sanders. I've read a ton of stuff lately that can be used against Sanders - his past support of leftist dictators, the "socialism" label, past comments about women, getting a nuke waste site moved to a Latino community in Texas for Vermont nuke waste, etc. He's got a ton of baggage.

Reference Biden's many previous attempts to run as President. The man is a terrible campaigner. He made a lot of mistakes when he was young. He is now pushing 80, and every joke is about how out of touch he is. And they are right. Sanders isn't a great choice either. And that is ultimately the problem.

It's also worth pointing out that at the start of the cycle, Clinton was much a lot more popular than Biden, but her popularity dropped while his rose.

Well, I have now voted for Warren! So she is a lock to be our next President.

Anyway, should be a two-person race effectively after today. And ultimately I'm fine with either Sanders or Biden - you can make pluses and minuses for both (in terms of policy and electability). So I'll see how it plays out, and canvass for the winner.

Defiant wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:09 am It's also worth pointing out that at the start of the cycle, Clinton was much a lot more popular than Biden, but her popularity dropped while his rose.

To be expected as Republicans focused their fire on Clinton (as the active candidate) and not Biden. If Biden ran but not Clinton it would have been the reverse.

So the Warren is a liar thing among independents has really stuck with me. When I see others make the claim (which I hadn't seen until that graphic and now I'm seeing it a bit) I try to politely press them on it. Pocahontas is always first to come up but it's rather trivial.

Today, I am seeing people respond to me that she her lies that matter concern her run for presidency. That her tactics were limit funding of other nominees and then change her position once they dropped out

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/20/elizabe ... pport.html

I am also told she lied a lot about "Pete" but my gentle pressure to understand this hasn't yield any fruit yet.

The general assessment is her dishonesty is that of privilege is this bad for LGBTQetc... and PoC. This is a tiny sample size of people on social media among people I know who know other people who seem to try and shoot for honesty. But it's interesting to me, because I am, in fact, still stuck on Warren being known as a liar as this sort of accepted thing that I wasn't aware of.

James Comey weighs in:

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/1234899712991518722

El Guapo wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:45 am Well, I have now voted for Warren! So she is a lock to be our next President.

Anyway, should be a two-person race effectively after today. And ultimately I'm fine with either Sanders or Biden - you can make pluses and minuses for both (in terms of policy and electability). So I'll see how it plays out, and canvass for the winner.

+1. I was surprised to see two races missing: Markey v. Kennedy, and a local debt exclusion question. The internet tells me that we vote again on 3/29 for the Senate primary, and not until 9/1 for the local question. I...guess we need three separate elections? OK then. I'm old; I've got nothing better to do.

I'm still hoping Warren snags enough delegates today to play kingmaker at the convention, or even turn it into a 3-way race going forward. Being the youngest candidate and the only woman left standing has to count for something. I prefer Sanders to Biden, but neither one is a lock. Frankly, it doesn't matter who the Dems nominate; November will be a referendum on Trump, pure and simple, and the economy will determine the outcome.

pr0ner wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:58 pm James Comey weighs in:

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/1234899712991518722

Ugh. I don't disagree with Comey, but every time he pops up my overwhelming reaction is "STFU Comey - you've done enough. Go away".

LordMortis wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:21 pmI am also told she lied a lot about "Pete" but my gentle pressure to understand this hasn't yield any fruit yet.

Essentially she originated and perpetuated the notion that Pete was taking money from rich people and promising favors to them in return. She masterfully created an illusion that he was a corrupt puppet beholden to rich donors, and reinforced this idea with her "wine cave" attacks and implying he was offering people ambassadorships in exchange, etc. While he called her on her hypocrisy at the time (she did many of the exact same things in days past prior to shifting her money over from her last campaign), the damage was already done. I know this because one co-worker of mine knew nothing about Pete except for the wine cave reference. The fact is she knew the legal limit that any single donor can give is $2800, regardless of who you are. Possibly you could get around this with some tricks, but it's highly doubtful it made up any significant percentage of Pete's donors. If she had any proof there was something more insidious going on, she should have presented it. By the way you can go to a website and see the names of every single donor and how much they donated.

I went to two of Pete's so-called "rich donor" events in LA. One was at a nice but small restaurant, and the second was at a kind of swanky hotel lobby. They had finger foods and snacks at both places. Ticket donations started at $250 and maxxed out at the legal limit of $2800. He gave a 10 minute stump speech and then answered questions for about half an hour, followed by hand shaking and photo ops for about 5-10 minutes. He does essentially the same thing everywhere he went, regardless of the venue or who was there. There were no closed door portions offering favors, just the notion of that is an insult not just to Pete but to me and every other donor that went to such an event. He is such a genuine, down-to-earth, WYSIWYG kind of guy. When he shakes your hand and thanks you, he doesn't do it frivolously. Maybe he's the best actor on the planet, but he makes you feel like he really cares about you and people. So the whole corruption implication is just really disgusting.

Frankly if it were me I would have confronted her directly and asked her to say exactly what she meant - because this was in fact a character assassination calling him (and essentially all attendees of such events including myself) corrupt. I would have looked her in the eye and asked her to say I was corrupt and then to prove that statement. Turns out instead she only proved her own hypocrisy over and over on this topic, the latest accepting the Super PAC help she had shunned in the past.

Another blatant lie, which I have to say was awesome tactically, was that Pete had changed on his positions, which is in reality what SHE did. The funny thing is she started just taking ideas and lines from his campaign, like "change the channel" and her flip on medicare for all. If you saw her last debate, she stole one of his favorite stump lines, "choosing a secretary of education who believes in public education." You can find gifs of his reaction which are priceless. People were joking she was going to start saying she was a proud son of South Bend lol.

I have to say, she is a very shrewd politician and it's definitely fun watching her go full attack dog at the debates. I just couldn't get behind someone who is such a blatant and in your face hypocrite, it just doesn't work for me.

I just couldn't get behind someone who is such a blatant and in your face hypocrite, it just doesn't work for me.

Thank you,

Your sentiment on hypocrisy is what keeps getting referred to but without the details and your being part of such scandal as opposed to alluding to something makes it more worth accepting. Is it weird that it is both hard and easy for me to this in her. From every account Warren's heart is in the right place and she is the smartest person in the room. But from her editorials, I can see her (intentionally? I assume) playing games with facts and data points to build a narrative and that is not a trait I appreciate from the smartest person in the room. The very person I am supposed to entrust with those facts and data points.

She still has my vote today but it is slowly turning toward holding my nose while I do it.

Incoming Hunter Biden investigation

The Treasury Department has complied with Republican senators’ requests for highly sensitive and closely held financial records about Hunter Biden and his associates and has turned over “‘evidence’ of questionable origin” to them, according to a leading Democrat on one of the committees conducting the investigation.

For months, while the impeachment controversy raged, powerful committee chairmen in the Republican-controlled Senate have been quietly but openly pursuing an inquiry into Hunter Biden’s business affairs and Ukrainian officials’ alleged interventions in the 2016 election, the same matters that President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani unsuccessfully tried to coerce Ukraine’s government to investigate.

malchior wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:43 pm Incoming Hunter Biden investigation

The Treasury Department has complied with Republican senators’ requests for highly sensitive and closely held financial records about Hunter Biden and his associates and has turned over “‘evidence’ of questionable origin” to them, according to a leading Democrat on one of the committees conducting the investigation.

For months, while the impeachment controversy raged, powerful committee chairmen in the Republican-controlled Senate have been quietly but openly pursuing an inquiry into Hunter Biden’s business affairs and Ukrainian officials’ alleged interventions in the 2016 election, the same matters that President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani unsuccessfully tried to coerce Ukraine’s government to investigate.

It's amazing to watch Burisma investigations fluctuate with Biden's poll numbers.

Dont care who wins the primary but Ill vote for them at the end of the year. Hope they are smart on their VP pick.

Just heard an amazing figure:

Pete Buttigieg could run for president in 2060 and only then be Bernie Sanders’ age.

The version I heard is that he could run in 2056 and still be younger than all the remaining front runners. I did not fact check this claim.

I did chuckle at the idea that there would still be elections in 2056.

As an old white dude, he'll be a novelty candidate in 2055+

In 2056 AOC will be a distinguished 67.

Smoove_B wrote:As an old white dude, he'll be a novelty candidate in 2055+

Hopefully this doesn't get lost in the Super Tuesday Insanity

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/sta ... 3092760579

Democrats just flipped a state house seat in Maine by 15 points tonight that Trump previously carried by 8 points. Terrible news for Susan Collins.

The lone security/secret service on the scene looked like he could have been Biden's college roommate. Time to spring for some more muscle.

So, we're kind of back at 2016 again, aren't we?

Ya we might have Bernie and his supporters to thank for 8 years of Trump. If they sit out the election because Bernie isn't in we're in a world of hurt.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:06 am The lone security/secret service on the scene looked like he could have been Biden's college roommate. Time to spring for some more muscle.

I think Jill Biden is the muscle.

Bloomberg is suspending his campaign.

Good riddance to him.

Holman wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 11:13 am Bloomberg is suspending his campaign.

Good riddance to him.

He just ended his campaign and endorsed Biden.