advertisement


The Future Of The Democratic Party.

debate 1A last night [cory booker gag warning]:



based on their performances, tim ryan and bebeto o'rourke (and a few others) should consider running for the republicans.
 
Warren did OK at the start, but then faded. While a few of the others had minor moments, they remain irrelevant to the Presidential race. Several were auditioning for VP.

Tonight could be more interesting. Am expecting Sanders and Buttigieg to confront Biden. The former on his record, the latter on his age and insider status.
 
Seriously, how is it that politicians and the accompanying theater get worse every cycle, and with everything modern society offers, most notably an astounding amount of information?

Simple: because (a) there's a huge barrier to entry and (b) no one remotely qualified or deserving of political power wants anything to do with it even if they could get around the barrier. And so the bar is set lower every go-round because essentially less thinking people care WTF their 'leaders' are doing and so the target becomes dupes and mopes.

The evidence of the system's failure is so widespread it's the only conclusion any sensible person could reach. But then Twitter ....
 
Did anyone else see the article the other day that Biden refused to apologise for having worked with openly racist and white supremacist republican pond life in the past in southern states....
 
Marky-Mark said:
Seriously, how is it that politicians and the accompanying theater get worse every cycle, and with everything modern society offers, most notably an astounding amount of information?

Simple: because (a) there's a huge barrier to entry and (b) no one remotely qualified or deserving of political power wants anything to do with it even if they could get around the barrier. And so the bar is set lower every go-round because essentially less thinking people care WTF their 'leaders' are doing and so the target becomes dupes and mopes.

The evidence of the system's failure is so widespread it's the only conclusion any sensible person could reach. But then Twitter ....
Click to expand...

Ok, as a hopium sucking mope, I’ll bite. Who do you think should be running for the nomination, but isn’t?
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Did anyone else see the article the other day that Biden refused to apologise for having worked with openly racist and white supremacist republican pond life in the past in southern states....
Click to expand...

I am not a Biden fan, but I believe his point was that in order to get the votes to pass meaningful legislation, sometimes a Senator has to act civilly to his opposition, even those who he finds personally reprehensible.
 
Hook said:
Ok, as a hopium sucking mope, I’ll bite. Who do you think should be running for the nomination, but isn’t?
Click to expand...

The question disqualifies itself (for me) by including 'nomination', because nothing beyond business as usual will ever come from establishment parties. And a quick look around tells you how well that's worked out. But I've given up pounding on that sandbag so I'll leave it there. And so I'm left to conclude that the active electorate is perfectly happy with BAU. Because 1st world creature comfort.

Beyond the nomination angle, anyone who were to at least bat at half the truth would suffice. But since the current truth is all about failure, I could just as easily conclude that perhaps it's best that establishment sees us out. A stars and stripes celebration with an american version of Baghdad Bob would be fitting. Maybe pepper the daily brief with feel good features of migrant internment camp children learning to make origami from the labels on their K-rations of reconstituted apple pie from apples grown in RoundUp™
 
Marky-Mark said:
The question disqualifies itself (for me) by including 'nomination', because nothing beyond business as usual will ever come from establishment parties. And a quick look around tells you how well that's worked out. But I've given up pounding on that sandbag so I'll leave it there. And so I'm left to conclude that the active electorate is perfectly happy with BAU. Because 1st world creature comfort.

Beyond the nomination angle, anyone who were to at least bat at half the truth would suffice. But since the current truth is all about failure, I could just as easily conclude that perhaps it's best that establishment sees us out. A stars and stripes celebration with an american version of Baghdad Bob would be fitting. Maybe pepper the daily brief with feel good features of migrant internment camp children learning to make origami from the labels on their K-rations of reconstituted apple pie from apples grown in RoundUp™
Click to expand...

It wasn't a hard question, but I’ll bite one last time. Who do you think should be running for President? Is there anyone you could support?
 
vuk said:
debate 1A last night [cory booker gag warning]:



based on their performances, tim ryan and bebeto o'rourke (and a few others) should consider running for the republicans.
Click to expand...

Ryan, DiBlasio, Delaney, Inslee, the RT favorite Gabbard and maybe Klobuchar will all be out sooner rather than later. The rest will survive at least until the Iowa caucus.

The rushed format of the debate, the time constraints and the number of participants, made them all seem a bit desperate at times as they pushed to get their messages out, except for Warren who mostly kept her cool.
 
Hook said:
It wasn't a hard question, but I’ll bite one last time. Who do you think should be running for President? Is there anyone you could support?
Click to expand...

It's an impossible question, not hard. I've already eliminated the establishment parties, and I'm unaware of any third party candidates. I liked Nader decades ago, but the DNC bankrupted him by challenging ballots everywhere (that barrier I mentioned). So that narrows it down to only 300 million or so. Is this one of those Suzy Tweeter trick questions where victory is claimed by a non-answer?
 
Marky-Mark said:
It's an impossible question, not hard. I've already eliminated the establishment parties, and I'm unaware of any third party candidates. I liked Nader decades ago, but the DNC bankrupted him by challenging ballots everywhere (that barrier I mentioned). So that narrows it down to only 300 million or so. Is this one of those Suzy Tweeter trick questions where victory is claimed by a non-answer?
Click to expand...

For key rice sakes, you sure are defensive! No, I thought it was a simple, straight-forward question, and perhaps one that given a chance you might actually want to answer. I am not interested in point scoring on these threads.

Given your criticism of those who are running, I was simply interested in whether you had identified an alternative. It's fine by me if you haven't.

I liked Nader too, and respected his work on consumer protections and the environment. But I will always remember that by staying in the 2000 race, he enabled George W. Bush to win Florida and become President.
 
Hook said:
For key rice sakes, you sure are defensive! No, I thought it was a simple, straight-forward question, and perhaps one that given a chance you might actually want to answer. I am not interested in point scoring on these threads.

Given your criticism of those who are running, I was simply interested in whether you had identified an alternative. It's fine by me if you haven't.

I liked Nader too, and respected his work on consumer protections and the environment. But I will always remember that by staying in the 2000 race, he enabled George W. Bush to win Florida and become President.
Click to expand...

Sorry if it seemed defensive, but I find the clique in OT often on a war footing, so I lean into questions a little bit.

I tend not to participate in elections anymore. But I did vote in the last primary.

I'd take issue with the last sentence. I'd blather on about the meager margin of victory in 2000 and the courts, but maybe a link would be better -

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

edit: I would add this ^ -again- to the barrier to entry I mentioned. The meme of Nadar giving us Bush is cemented into the conscience of voters when it's patently untrue and only serves to consolidate voters to the Chosen Party and to think of no other.
 
Marky-Mark said:
There's no trace of Hank Moody in that post! I'm simply another idiot who likes alliteration.
Click to expand...

it's 70% hank moody.

anyhow, your positions are becoming very inconsistent. consider the following ratings of being a good president (potential or actual) in terms of policy positions:

99 - noam chomsky
95 - ralph nader
90 - chris hedges
85 - alexandria ocasio-cortez
70 - bernie sanders
70 - elizabeth warren
35 - barak obama
05 - george w bush
02 - donald trump

AOC is actually higher on the scale if we take away things like LGBTQ pandering, so really, really close to ralph nader.
 
vuk said:
it's 70% hank moody.

anyhow, your positions are becoming very inconsistent. consider the following ratings of being a good president (potential or actual) in terms of policy positions:

99 - noam chomsky
95 - ralph nader
90 - chris hedges
85 - alexandria ocasio-cortez
70 - bernie sanders
70 - elizabeth warren
35 - barak obama
05 - george w bush
02 - donald trump

AOC is actually higher on the scale if we take away things like LGBTQ pandering, so really, really close to ralph nader.
Click to expand...

What is the source of these “ratings”?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top