advertisement


The Future Of The Democratic Party.

What is the source of these “ratings”?

given that marky and i rate ralph nader near the top and trump near the bottom, i simply filled in the rest with my impressions to paint the picture for him and ask him to explain his apparent inconsistency (or how exactly i am getting it wrong).
 
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.

Not really inconsistent. Reread what I wrote - Nader came up in the context of being pressed for a candidate and I said I liked his positions many years ago. He would stand even less of a chance now going against the megabucks empire that is the DNC than he did then.

And again and again, I don't dislike AOC, I just don't find her terribly compelling. And especially on climate change. Which was a topic notably in short supply at the debate because -again- the DNC. Why would anyone trust a f'n thing they do or candidate they field is beyond ponderous, it's pathological. To me, anyway.
 
Harris had a very strong debate. Will be interesting to see her new polling numbers.
 
Long live the new corporate whore!

edit: I apologize for referring to the gentle lady as a corporate whore. Her family's heritage as Jamaican slave owners (plantation) and her reek of AIPAC notwithstanding, she didn't deserve the slander.

My only defense is being highly unsettled due to the passing of Beth Chapman, identified lovingly as 'MRSDOG' on the hearse's plate ... That would be 'Dog' half in frame wearing the smart acid-washed denim combo. A sad day in america indeed.

cdcf58ec3c4128593ec80d68a2ac14a2
 
hook.

it's a sad day in the world when the most an american can aspire to is merely defeating trump.

i can also assure you that harris has little chance of doing it -- the progressive wing does not like her very much.

similar story with buttigieg, who is as phony as that stuff implanted on top of joe biden's head.

your football judgment is miles better than this.
 
hook.

it's a sad day in the world when the most an american can aspire to is merely defeating trump.

i can also assure you that harris has little chance of doing it -- the progressive wing does not like her very much.

similar story with buttigieg, who is as phony as that stuff implanted on top of joe biden's head.

your football judgment is miles better than this.

Vuk, we'll have to agree to disagree on all of your points.*

I believe that defeating Trump is the most important thing right now, and I see Harris as the person most capable of doing exactly that.

I also believe the progressive wing will warm to her as the campaign progresses. Most of her policy positions are very progressive (but I suspect she will be forced to tack back to center during the general election).

I do not see Buttigieg as phony. Intellectual, technocratic, and more analytical than emotional for sure. Maybe even a bit cold and over-rehearsed at times. But when I think of him as VP, I can see him offering solid, well-thought out advice on a number of important issues.

==============

* With the possible exception being the high quality of my football judgment. :)
 
hook.

i'm disappointed that even tucker carlson is pulling ahead of you (and the puzzled look is slowly fading from his face):


[more later -- i have to finish some work]
 
it's a sad day in the world when the most an american can aspire to is merely defeating trump.

But don't you see, all is going according to plan. Each cycle is another lowering of the bar in a perpetual battle of "the lesser of two evils" meme.

Beyond the fact the electorate doesn't seem to care they're always choosing between two evils from essentially what amounts to the same two corporations, expectations are automatically lowered for the next round whenever a rank evil is elected. Works a real treat! Just ask the 1%
 
But don't you see, all is going according to plan. Each cycle is another lowering of the bar in a perpetual battle of "the lesser of two evils" meme.

actually, this time around, we have 3 very different options with sanders, warren and gabbard.

you seem to be rehashing and old analysis that doesn't quite fit the facts.
 
actually, this time around, we have 3 very different options with sanders, warren and gabbard.

you seem to be rehashing and old analysis that doesn't quite fit the facts.

The facts will never fit you if we're talking about two different things: you're referring to the primary intrigue and I'm going on about the general. I'd have thought the 'lesser of two evils' line in reply to "merely defeating Trump" would've made that clear!

You simply have to pay attention, Vuk.
 
I also believe the progressive wing will warm to [K. Harris] as the campaign progresses. Most of her policy positions are very progressive (but I suspect she will be forced to tack back to center during the general election).

She won't be forced because the middle-right IS her position of choice. All you need do is take a little time to inspect her record as a prosecutor and AG.

"SINCE GETTING ELECTED to the senate, Kamala Harris has become one of the most progressive voices in the chamber, coming out in favor of Medicare for All and debt-free college. Her forensic questioning of Brett Kavanaugh during last September’s Supreme Court nomination hearings boosted her national profile even further.

However, her record as a district attorney and as attorney general in California stand in stark contrast to the progressive ideals she now claims to hold. As attorney general, Harris opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate shootings involving police officers and threatened to imprison the parents of truant children, who are disproportionately poor and non-white. Her office fought a proposed parole program that would release prisoners early if they served half their sentences, arguing that “prisons would lose an important labor pool.”

When questioned about her record at a CNN Town Hall this week, Sen. Harris evaded the questions and argued instead that her record has been “consistent.” On this week’s Deconstructed podcast, Mehdi Hasan is joined by Jamilah King of Mother Jones and by Lara Bazelon, a professor of law at the University of San Francisco, to discuss Sen. Harris’s record and her prospects in the Democratic primaries."

As the name of the link to the article I pulled this ^ from points out, progressive cops are a myth.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/31/kamala-harris-and-the-myth-of-a-progressive-cop/

You should really listen to the podcast or read the transcript.
 
Nice post Marky, and a welcome change from the slave owner family heritage crap.

Now that Harris appears to be rising in the poles, she will definitely come under attack for her record and for her past statements, especially from those on her left. It’s only fair that she does, and we’ll see how well she can defend herself. I suspect she will prepare meticulously, and do quite well.

Each and every candidate has baggage. Biden and bussing (and Iraq and Anita Hill and...), Bernie and guns, Warren and her Native American ancestry claim. Even the younger candidates have questions to answer. Gabbard and homophobia, Buttigieg and the South Bend police force. Almost invariably, their answer comes as some form of “my position has evolved”, and I suspect that’s how Harris will answer as well. We’ll see in the next debate.

On the positive side for Harris, if she can withstand attacks on her law enforcement career during the primary, it is not something she will have to defend in a general election. Trump will likely focus on her most progressive policy positions, and attack her as a just another “socialist”.
 
None of the also-rans had that break-out moment on either night. I figure the field will be halved by the time of Iowa, as the crappier candidates' fund raising efforts falter.
 
On the positive side ...

I'm glad you found one of those in that unabashed shit-show, because from where I sat it looked like old men and opportunists with typically inflated egos and delusions of self-grandeur scoring Twitter points on age-old topics while ignoring what should absolutely be the #1 issue of any debate, and doing it -- mind-blowingly -- on a stage in a city where sea level rise could displace up to 200 million people, causing unimaginable social catastrophe. And all with the news story backdrop of the third 500 year European heatwave in recent memory. But, yeah, she's a real corker alright.
 
Nice post Marky, and a welcome change from the slave owner family heritage crap.

Missed this bit. So we can talk about a candidate's wealth or background so long as it isn't inconvenient? That's quite a mainstream approach!

I happen to see someone coming from a law enforcement career having a family heritage of plantation owners with slaves as germane to their worldview. I frankly can't understand why anyone wouldn't see it that way. Warren's native american thing, if she says something she can't prove that's a problem in my book. Just like AOC ballyhooing about how she's a girl from the Bronx when she spent time there as a child before growing up in suburbia. On and on. Those aren't issues that evolve, those are fabrications. And if they're fabricating at the start, they'll be fabricating all the way to the end.

But then I'm not very mainstream, apparently. I mean, Oprah Winfrey doesn't put checks in presidential boxes for me on any level, so I guess that's a strike against me. We're simply not going to agree on anything political.
 


advertisement


Back
Top