• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

PhDeac said:
No. Unequal application of "justice" is one method of disenfranchisement.
Click to expand...

TITCR

Louis Gossett Jr said:
Yeah, not being able to vote is a consequence of unequal punishment for similar crimes, don’t change the you aren’t allowed to vote while in prison but instead change the reasons you ended up in prison.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as splitting hairs at best and an ideological diversion at worst. You can simultaneously extend the right to vote to current and released felons while reforming the justice system that put them there.
 
Strickland33 said:
I mean, that was the idiot moderator's line after Bernie suggested convicts should be able to vote. Interesting factoid: prisoners are counted as people with rights when it comes to states and municipalities looking to receive increased federal funding, but that's the end of prisoners' personhoood.
Click to expand...

Also for drawing congressional districts! Which is how we end up with stuff like this:

jim-jordan-grafton-prison.png
 
Liquid Karma said:
It's an asinine stance to claim that depriving a mass murderer of their voting privilege is a "slippery slope."
Click to expand...

ImTheCaptain said:
Bernie bros and the NRA love the slope
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
No. Unequal application of "justice" is one method of disenfranchisement.
Click to expand...

avalon said:
Also for drawing congressional districts! Which is how we end up with stuff like this:

jim-jordan-grafton-prison.png
Click to expand...

LK and itc seem like smart dudes, but advocating against a position that you don't understand because it doesn't sound good is so fucking stupid.
 
Strickland33 said:
It was an especially obnoxious move from an exceptionally obnoxious CNN talking head. I'm sure the campaign will respond accordingly, but to put the "bomber" rhetoric squarely on Sanders is not factual. Lots of bad people in this country are protected by rights. That's just how rights and a country with citizenship-based rights work.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely. But if a CNN talking head baits a candidate with an obnoxious question, it's up to the candidate to deliver a response that makes the headlines over the question. Bernie's response was meandering, but solid. But it didn't usurp the potential headlines that manifested after his town hall.

By comparison, Pete handled a potential headline bait question well.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/politics/pete-buttigieg-mike-pence-bait/index.html

CNN)Pete Buttigieg refused to engage when asked about a Trump administration official who accused him of pushing a "hate hoax" during a back and forth with Vice President Mike Pence.
RELATED: Pence on recent Buttigieg feud: 'He knows better. He knows me.'


US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell last week accused the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and Democratic presidential hopeful of using the feud to further his presidential candidacy, saying it was "along the lines of Jussie Smollett."


When asked about Grennell's words during a CNN town hall Monday night, Buttigieg paused and parried.

"I'm not a master fisherman, but I know bait when I see it, and I'm not gonna take it," the mayor said to applause.
Click to expand...

The headlines after Pete's town hall were all about his fisherman line, not "Buttgieg says he's not like Jussie Smollett."

If Bernie had said something like this, he would have owned the headlines: "Not taking away the right to vote isn't about the worst of us. It's about your brother, your father, your son, your daughter, maybe even you one day. One mistake should not cost someone the right to represent themselves in our democracy."
 
PhDeac said:
Oh definitely. But if a CNN talking head baits a candidate with an obnoxious question, it's up to the candidate to deliver a response that makes the headlines over the question. Bernie's response was meandering, but solid. But it didn't usurp the potential headlines that manifested after his town hall.

By comparison, Pete handled a potential headline bait question well.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/politics/pete-buttigieg-mike-pence-bait/index.html



The headlines after Pete's town hall were all about his fisherman line, not "Buttgieg says he's not like Jussie Smollett."

If Bernie had said something like this, he would have owned the headlines: "Not taking away the right to vote isn't about the worst of us. It's about your brother, your father, your son, your daughter, maybe even you one day. One mistake should not cost someone the right to represent themselves in our democracy."
Click to expand...

Bernie's response was fine. It's part of his style.

Pete's poise was ridiculous. I have never seen a candidate so well prepared/coached for a Town Hall setting in my life. He was incredibly impressive, my thoughts on his content aside. I (still) don't think that he's going to get the nomination or a VP nod, but he absolutely has the potential to get a congressional seat/spot in the Governor's Mansion in Indiana.
 
That’s funny because I thought that he was less poised than other appearances. I also realized that his eyes bug out sometimes when he answers with emphasis. I only saw some of the end. He side stepped too many questions. He needs to do better there. He usually does.

I think he’s the clear VP for Kamala or Warren. If I had to bet on a ticket, I’d bet on a Kamala/Pete brokered ticket.
 
Kamala was really unimpressive yesterday, IMO. Not that these things matter too much, but she came across over-coached and not willing to commit to a single idea or policy proposal. That's sad from somebody I was looking forward to supporting, but is currently buried under a ton of candidates (again, IMO) at the moment.
 
Here you can find 25 interviews, speeches, and town halls with Pete indexed by topic.
https://www.meetpete.org/all_videos.html

Here you can find a list of topics. So if you want to know what Pete believes on any topic, you can find it and hear it straight from his mouth, not a white paper written by an aid.
https://www.meetpete.org/tags.html

Here's the first one: How do you fix segregation in our neighborhoods?

This is impressive. I've never seen anything like this. He's leaning into what put him on the map and answering critics at the same time.

I'm guessing he'll have a traditional policy page at some point, likely within weeks, but man, this is a good interim move.
 
Are you really seriously suggesting that the Democrats nominate a guy who smelled some lady's hair ?
 
PhDeac said:
That’s funny because I thought that he was less poised than other appearances. I also realized that his eyes bug out sometimes when he answers with emphasis. I only saw some of the end. He side stepped too many questions. He needs to do better there. He usually does.

I think he’s the clear VP for Kamala or Warren. If I had to bet on a ticket, I’d bet on a Kamala/Pete brokered ticket.
Click to expand...

If I had to bet, it'd be Kamala ends up as AG. And I don't think Warren ends up on the ticket either. I'm thinking the nominee will be Biden, Bernie or Buttigieg. I still think Klobuchar, though not charismatic, would be a good veep for Buttigieg.
 
Yeah. If she runs the gauntlet well, you may be right about Kloubachar.

Listening to an On Point discussion about “electability” and race/gender. I think it’s a huge overreaction. I feel like I’ve only heard “unelectable” to describe Warren and Gulibrabd. And that’s Warren is wonky and on the surface very similar to Hillary. Gillibrand has enemies from Franken.

It’s also an overreaction to Bernie and Biden leading and Pete’s rise. Bernie and Biden are known to a voter base that largely isn’t paying attention. Pete has put in a lot of work to impress a lot of people. There was going to be a sleeper candidate and he occupies that lane.

Oh and voters don’t like electing senators and all the major women candidates are senators.
 
cville deac said:
If I had to bet, it'd be Kamala ends up as AG. And I don't think Warren ends up on the ticket either. I'm thinking the nominee will be Biden, Bernie or Buttigieg. I still think Klobuchar, though not charismatic, would be a good veep for Buttigieg.
Click to expand...

I'd say she may be the choice to replace RBG.

Depending on the census and LGBTQ SC decisions, we could easily see an expansion of the SC if the Dems win the WH and Senate.
 
PhDeac said:
Here you can find 25 interviews, speeches, and town halls with Pete indexed by topic.
https://www.meetpete.org/all_videos.html

Here you can find a list of topics. So if you want to know what Pete believes on any topic, you can find it and hear it straight from his mouth, not a white paper written by an aid.
https://www.meetpete.org/tags.html

Here's the first one: How do you fix segregation in our neighborhoods?

This is impressive. I've never seen anything like this. He's leaning into what put him on the map and answering critics at the same time.

I'm guessing he'll have a traditional policy page at some point, likely within weeks, but man, this is a good interim move.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
RJKarl said:
I'd say she may be the choice to replace RBG.

Depending on the census and LGBTQ SC decisions, we could easily see an expansion of the SC if the Dems win the WH and Senate.
Click to expand...

No shot. There are dozens of more qualified judicial candidates than Kamala Harris for a SCOTUS seat, even if the number of seats increases.
 
She was on the short list for Obama twice. That was before being elected to the Senate. The question becomes is she still interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top