Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-26-2019, 06:39 PM
Ymir's blood's Avatar
Ymir's blood Ymir's blood is offline
Coffin Creep
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The nightmare realm
Posts: XXXLXXXI
Images: 67
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition


:psst:
__________________
Much of MADNESS, and more of SIN, and HORROR the soul of the plot.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 03-27-2019, 10:56 AM
The Man's Avatar
The Man The Man is offline
Safety glasses off, motherfuckers
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sarasota, FL
Gender: Bender
Posts: MVDCCCX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I think we could do worse than select Mayor Pete as our VP candidate. He’s pretty clearly running for VP anyway.

In the meantime, Harris continues to impress me with her political acumen. She’s calling for a nationwide increase in teacher salaries, which seems to be getting the teachers’ unions on her side. Warren has by far the most detailed policy proposals, and if I were as confident she’d win, she’d be my top choice. We’re honestly spoiled for choices in this election, though. There are few candidates for whom I’d have to hold my nose to vote, though there are also quite a few I still don’t know that well. From what I’ve seen, I think Harris/Buttigieg would be a fine ticket, though.
__________________
Ceterum censeo factionem Republicanam esse delendam.



ďAll for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.Ē -Adam Smith

Foolís Goldlast.fmsoundcloudMarathon Chronicles
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (03-27-2019), SR71 (03-27-2019)
  #103  
Old 03-31-2019, 05:59 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

All About Pete in the most recent issue of Current Affairs is a long read, but a worthwhile one IMO- the author Nathan J. Robinson doesn't approach the subject lightly, if his points may seem at once pedantic (which he owns) and while speaking to Pete Buttigieg's book, mayorship, speeches, and candidacy, he connects this to much larger issues of what is leadership and what is the posturing of the privileged class in America and the pretense of leadership as noblesse oblige.

Joe Biden's claims regarding Lucy Flores' description of Biden's inappropriate touching, let alone the rabbit-hole of Creepy Uncle Joe video compilations online, make Biden's statement that he will,"...[remain] the strongest advocate I can be for the rights of women" ring pretty hollow, considering he's also had to publicly apologize for his role in the Anita Hill hearings.
A quote from former congresswoman Pat Schroeder, regarding Biden's explanation on why he didn't call on three witnesses ready to back Anita Hill's claims:
Quote:
We went to see Biden, because we were so frustrated by it. And he literally kind of pointed his finger and said, you donít understand how important oneís word was in the Senate, that he had given his word to [Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), Thomasís chief sponsor] in the menís gym that this would be a very quick hearing, and he had to get it out before Columbus Day.
Tough road ahead for a Biden candidacy.

Stacy Abrams is amassing an organizational structure that could take her for a senatorial or presidential run; on the issues she's represented and voted for so far, there's a lot of positives (though I skew a lot more left). I think her direct experience with voter suppression and the need for reform is one of many subjects she could bring into greater focus and action.

In Leaked Recording, Cory Booker says he and AIPAC President "Text Message Back And Forth Like Teenagers"
Not that this will hurt his candidacy, because the third rail of US politics re: unwavering and uncritical financial and military and political support for the Israeli right-wing government never does, amirite folks?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-01-2019), Crumb (03-31-2019), erimir (03-31-2019), Kamilah Hauptmann (03-31-2019), SR71 (04-01-2019), The Man (04-01-2019)
  #104  
Old 03-31-2019, 08:23 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

It's starting to be strange how much longer Biden is waiting to declare his candidacy.

I understand it's still a bit early historically, but also historically the winner doesn't declare last or close to last.

I think he's conflicted between what the polls say (I'm winning! It'll be easy! I want it so bad!) and serious worries about how his age, women's issues (not just the #metoo one-two of Creepy Uncle Joe and Anita Hill, but also his record on abortion), racial issues, his record on financial issues, his vote for the Iraq War, etc. will play when people start paying attention. The thing where they floated the idea that Biden might pledge to serve only one term suggests they are worried about his age, and the thing where they floated (apparently without her being on board) Abrams being his running mate from the start suggests they are seriously worried about his gender/racial issues and the optics of him just being yet another old white man.

And even if he thinks that he still has a great shot and his frontrunner status won't be derailed easily, the fact is that he still isn't highly likely to be the nominee. A 30% shot would be great and make him the most likely nominee... but it still means that 70% of the time he ends his career on a loss while being scrutinized like never before, whereas if he decides not to run, he could still be cool Onion Uncle Joe who missed his chance in 2016 because his son died and isn't that sad.

As it is... My current (but still tentative) ranking, which is both on electability and how good I think they'd be at presidenting (which is policy but also temperament and how I infer they'd be on staffing*) is something like...

Warren > Harris > Gillibrand > Sanders > O'Rourke > Castro > Inslee > Booker > Buttigieg > Klobuchar > Biden > Hickenlooper

And then the dregs: Yang > Delaney > Gabbard > Gravel

Inslee's a bit lower because I don't know how "electable" he is and his campaign seems less serious. Based on what I know, I think he'd be one of the best actually in office, but this is all tentative of course. O'Rourke is there because he seems to have the charisma, but on policy he's a bit of a ?. I think his "centrism" is a bit exaggerated though, he seems left of Biden and Klobuchar from what I can tell of his record and campaigning. Certainly not on the progressive edge though.

*This is one of Sanders weakest points, IMO. He seems to hire people often on the basis of how loyal/intensely they support him more so than how good they are at their jobs. Hiring people for his campaign who supported Jill Stein in 2016 is not a way to expand your support, for example, and it suggests he's prioritizing something other than effectiveness... He is a frontrunner, he should not have a shortage of quality people to hire this time, so I view that as a deliberate choice.

Last edited by erimir; 03-31-2019 at 08:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (03-31-2019), SR71 (04-01-2019), The Man (04-01-2019)
  #105  
Old 04-01-2019, 04:06 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Hiring people for his campaign who supported Jill Stein in 2016 is not a way to expand your support

No, it isn't. In fact, it's completely fucking irrelevant to anything.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:23 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

It means they're going to continue doing things that alienate other Democrats because they're more interested in purity and things like "owning the libs" than they are in expanding Sanders's base of support and making political allies.

Expanding Sanders's base is necessary for him to win the primary. Making political allies rather than alienating other Democrats will make getting his legislative agenda passed and getting his preferred appointees confirmed far easier.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (04-01-2019), The Man (04-01-2019)
  #107  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:46 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

"Owning the libs"? The fuck is that supposed to mean?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-01-2019, 08:36 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

LMGTFY
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-01-2019)
  #109  
Old 04-01-2019, 09:51 AM
JoeP's Avatar
JoeP JoeP is offline
YELLOW HAIR FAKE ANIMAL
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: England/Miisaland
Gender: Male
Posts: XXVMDXXXVII
Images: 18
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

LMGTFY

:fixed:

__________________

:roadrun:
Free thought! Please take one!

:unitedkingdom:   :southafrica:   :unitedkingdom::finland:       :eur:       :m&ms::m&ms::twix::twix: (rotated 180°):m&ms::m&ms:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-01-2019)
  #110  
Old 04-01-2019, 09:52 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Not sure what that bullshit has to do with the Sanders campaign, but hey.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-03-2019, 02:01 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Andrew Yang gets profiled in WIRED- the policy position he has that I am most interested in is his Universal Basic Income proposal; I'm reading Rutger Bregman's arguments for UBI in his book Utopia for Realists. Actually grew up in an UBI system in Alaska- Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend.

Q1 fundraising reports trickling in.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-03-2019), SR71 (04-06-2019), The Man (04-03-2019)
  #112  
Old 04-04-2019, 08:03 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCMXXII
Images: 2
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Ugh, Tim Ryan. Fuck right off.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (04-08-2019), SR71 (04-06-2019), The Man (04-06-2019)
  #113  
Old 04-05-2019, 03:23 PM
godfry n. glad's Avatar
godfry n. glad godfry n. glad is offline
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMMCMXII
Images: 12
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I'm not particularly excited about Harris, given her history with prosecutorial misconduct in CA.
__________________
:wcat: :ecat:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (04-05-2019)
  #114  
Old 04-06-2019, 10:11 PM
godfry n. glad's Avatar
godfry n. glad godfry n. glad is offline
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMMCMXII
Images: 12
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

So...What's all the flap on Gabbard?
__________________
:wcat: :ecat:
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-08-2019, 03:42 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Rolling Stone covers Q1 fundraising here.

Sanders:
Quote:
With the backing of more than 500,000 donors, and contributions averaging about $20 a pop, Sanders pulled down more than $18 million in the first months of his 2020 bid. Nearly 90 percent of the money was raised from contributions of less than $200, his campaign said.
Harris:
Quote:
More than $12 million. The Harris campaign touted 218,000 donations (from 138,000 donors) and said that 98 percent of contributions were less than $100, with an average online donation of $28.
Beto O'Rourke: $9.4 million Q1 with 218,000 donations; averages not released.
Buttigieg raised $7 million Q1 and hasn't yet declared- exploratory. 160,000 donors; roughly 66% of donations under $200.
Cory Booker raised $5 million, and has not released info on his donor base.
Andrew Yang:
Quote:
$1.7 million in the first quarter from 80,000 donors, who gave an average of about $18 apiece.
Elizabeth Warren:
Quote:
Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator, has reportedly transferred $10 million to her presidential campaign from her Senate war chest, giving her the resources to remain competitive, despite a rumored slow start to fundraising. Prioritizing small-dollar, grassroots contributions, Warren has vowed not to hold special meet-and-greets for big donors — a decision that prompted the resignation of her finance chief.
Inslee and Hickenlooper each raised around $1 million; no info from Gabbard.

Why focus on fundraising? Because the candidate that spends the most usually wins.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-08-2019), Kamilah Hauptmann (04-08-2019), SR71 (04-11-2019), The Man (04-08-2019)
  #116  
Old 04-08-2019, 03:47 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad View Post
So...What's all the flap on Gabbard?
Tulsi Gabbard: Everything you need to know about the 2020 candidate
Tulsi Gabbard is running for president in 2020. Here's everything we know about the candidate and how she stacks up against the competition.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-08-2019), SR71 (04-11-2019)
  #117  
Old 04-08-2019, 03:57 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Ryan Grimm at The Intercept on the Bernie Sanders tax returns story:
Quote:
Why hasn't Bernie Sanders just released his damn tax returns already?

It’s a question that’s something of a Rorschach test for Democratic primary voters. For veterans of the great war of 2016, who’ve been in the trenches battling Sanders for years, it’s exhibit A of his hypocrisy, evidence of a man who claims the moral high ground but is hiding something from the public — perhaps something disqualifyingly corrupt.

There’s no evidence for this allegation, which fails to consider that Sanders has been filing rather detailed federal financial disclosures as a member of Congress since the early 1990s. For supporters of Sanders, meanwhile, the entire issue is a distraction, a way for the corporate media and centrist Democrats to undermine Sanders with trivial, horse-race nonsense.

The truth, though, is likely much simpler: By failing to release his tax returns despite repeated promises to do so any minute now, Sanders is being the stubborn curmudgeon he’s always been.
We'll see if he releases them April 15th, as he committed to on The Daily Show.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (04-11-2019)
  #118  
Old 04-08-2019, 09:41 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
I simply adore Mayor Pete. I don't know or care anything about his policy positions but I am kind of an easy demographic for a multilingual gay 30-something liberal.

I am also glad that we are getting the Mayor Pete surge out of our system early this cycle. Obviously as Democrats our natural impulse is simply to crave defeat, so the faster we can play-act these fantasy candidates and move on, the better. Hopefully Beto will be the next one we move past.
Iím not sure why you are so dismissive of Mayor Peteís chances. Sure, heís a long shot, but Ö did anyone think, at this time in early 2015, that Drump was going to even run, much less be elected? What about Jimmy Carter in April 1975? Was he on anyoneís radar? JFK, while on the radar in April 1959 (he had run for but lost an open convention vote for Adlaiís Stevensonís running mate in 1956) was also considered a long shot to win the 1960 nomination.

An interesting trend is that Democrats tend to go for new, or relatively new, and young, or relatively young, candidates for president: FDR in 1932, JFK in 1960, Carter in 1976, Bill Clinton in 1992, Barack Obama in 2008,

I tend to agree that Beto is a Bright Shiny Thing, though Iím open to being proven wrong. Mayor Pete? He strikes me as a man of considerable substance, who currently is kicking the living shit out of Mike Dunce.

Could the U.S. elect a gay married man in his late thirties? Could the U.S. elect a black man?

Surely he will be almost unanimously opposed by the Confederate States of America, which never died but in fact lived on and ended up annexing the Rocky Mountain states. But then, the Idiot Horde of the CSA will vote against any Democrat.

Mayor Pete would run up staggering margins in many blue states, particularly the coasts. I canít see him losing a single state that Hillary won. Of course the Electoral College is the key, and the election will be decided in the Rust Belt, as it was in 2016. Could Mayor Pete carry those states? I think so. Hell, given who he is, he could potentially even carry Confederate Indiana! At least, unlike Hillary Clinton, he would have enough goddamn sense to actually campaign in the Rust Belt states. Even Hillary isnít stupid enough to blame the ďVichyĒ New York Times for losing.

Bear in mind that I predicted, in this forum, in January 2016, that Drumpf would be elected president ó so heed my evil prophetic powers! :muahaha:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-09-2019)
  #119  
Old 04-08-2019, 10:59 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:49 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

On the other hand, davidm also predicted that Trump would not appoint Scalias. And that Trump would be neutral* between Israel and Palestine. That Trump wouldn't try to gut entitlements while Democrats in Congress would be willing to. And that his administration would not attack LGBT rights.

I don't see much to heed there.

*Or at least, probably no worse than Obama/Clinton
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kael (05-05-2019), The Man (04-09-2019)
  #121  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:39 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Peter Daou on Democratic Party politics and his view of it currently, after having worked for Hillary Clinton on her presidential campaigns in both 2008 and 2016. Link is to his own website.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-09-2019, 01:30 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
On the other hand, davidm also predicted that Trump would not appoint Scalias. And that Trump would be neutral* between Israel and Palestine. That Trump wouldn't try to gut entitlements while Democrats in Congress would be willing to. And that his administration would not attack LGBT rights.

I don't see much to heed there.

*Or at least, probably no worse than Obama/Clinton
Actually, you little lying liar, I did not predict any of those things. I said those things were possible -- that we needed to wait and see. Even the possibility of these things were denied by many. I was more open-minded about the possibility that Trump would actually do some of the things that he said he would. I did not predict anything that you have shoved into my mouth, in your blatant and pathetic dishonesty.

I challenge you to show a single post in which I predicted any of these things.

You can't do it!

It's just like when you claimed that I said that the media can do no wrong -- when I had said just the opposite. But facts didn't stand in the way of your lying then, did they? :chin: And they won't stand in the way of you lying now.

You and theMan have become the things that you claim to hate -- serial liars, just like your hero Donald Trump.

Sad! :cry:

But Donald Trump will be thrilled with your votes in 2020!
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-09-2019, 01:41 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

C'mon, Erimir. Show me where and when I predicted the things you have shoved into my mouth!

Post proof or retract!

There is a search function here. Use it, or I will!
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-09-2019, 02:27 AM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMDCCXIII
Images: 8
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
On the other hand, davidm also predicted that Trump would not appoint Scalias. And that Trump would be neutral* between Israel and Palestine. That Trump wouldn't try to gut entitlements while Democrats in Congress would be willing to. And that his administration would not attack LGBT rights.

I don't see much to heed there.

*Or at least, probably no worse than Obama/Clinton
Actually, you little lying liar, I did not predict any of those things. I said those things were possible -- that we needed to wait and see. Even the possibility of these things were denied by many. I was more open-minded about the possibility that Trump would actually do some of the things that he said he would. I did not predict anything that you have shoved into my mouth, in your blatant and pathetic dishonesty.

I challenge you to show a single post in which I predicted any of these things.

You can't do it!

It's just like when you claimed that I said that the media can do no wrong -- when I had said just the opposite. But facts didn't stand in the way of your lying then, did they? :chin: And they won't stand in the way of you lying now.

You and theMan have become the things that you claim to hate -- serial liars, just like your hero Donald Trump.

Sad! :cry:

But Donald Trump will be thrilled with your votes in 2020!
I generally don't like getting into this, as I like you all, but...

2016 Presidential Race - Page 33 - Freethought Forum

You repeatedly state that the "Lesser of two evils" is Trump. In that post, you claim that Trump might be the lesser of two evils on Israel, and that he wouldn't gut entitlements.

I didn't bother to find it, but I do remember you thought he wouldnít appoint another Scalia. I actually would have been happier with another Scalia compared to his picks. If you really think you didn't make that claim, I will attempt to find it.

I don't think erimir is misrepresenting what you wrote. If you were attempting nuance there, you didn't achieve it.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (04-09-2019), Kael (05-05-2019), The Man (04-09-2019)
  #125  
Old 04-09-2019, 05:13 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
C'mon, Erimir. Show me where and when I predicted the things you have shoved into my mouth!

Post proof or retract!

There is a search function here. Use it, or I will!
Damn david, you only waited 11 minutes between those posts. I was eating dinner. Don't worry, I love quoting the words you would love to disavow and showing you to be dishonest and projecting like you're trying to beat Trump at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Actually, you little lying liar, I did not predict any of those things. I said those things were possible -- that we needed to wait and see. Even the possibility of these things were denied by many. I was more open-minded about the possibility that Trump would actually do some of the things that he said he would. I did not predict anything that you have shoved into my mouth, in your blatant and pathetic dishonesty.

I challenge you to show a single post in which I predicted any of these things.
Your posts do not at all sound like you're merely pointing out theoretical possibilities that others dismiss as impossibilities, but rather that you find many of these to be likely outcomes.

specious_reasons identified one of the two posts I was referring to. But just to make it clearer, here are the quotes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
[davidm predicted that Trump's] administration would not attack LGBT rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
davidm predicted that Trump would not appoint Scalias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I will add that I think Trump, if elected, will do nothing to impede gay or transgender rights and will not appoint Scalias to the Supreme Court.
Sure, you didn't say you were certain of these things. But they do not sound like you regard them as unlikely. "I think that Trump will do X" suggests you consider that at minimum more likely than not! But it usually implies more certainty than that. I'd say it counts as a prediction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
[davidm predicted] that Trump would be neutral* between Israel and Palestine.

*Or at least, probably no worse than Obama/Clinton
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Trump says he will be “neutral” in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Hillary is an unabashed fan of the vile Bibi Netanyahu and best buds with the odious Henry Kissinger. Lesser of two evils: Trump.
It sure sounds like you're saying Trump will be better than Clinton on this issue. Being charitable, I put it as "or at least, probably no worse".
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
[davidm predicted that] Trump wouldn't try to gut entitlements while Democrats in Congress would be willing to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Trump has indicated, defying Republican dogma (as he has defied it on the Iraq war and free trade orthodoxy) that he has no interest in cutting entitlements. Hillary will try to cut them in her typical Clinton-style triangulating with Republicans, striking some kind of nonsense budget deal. This is because Hillary is not a New Deal Democrat, but rather a New Democrat (read: Republican lite). The first of the New Democrats (as opposed to the New Deal Democrats) was Bill Clinton, and the second was Barack Obama. Hillary aspires to be the third. The New Democrats have sold out the legacy of the four New Deal Democratic presidents (F.D.R., Truman, JFK and LBJ) and will continue to conspire with Republicans to betray and dismantle their legacy. Trump, I’m betting, won’t do that. Lesser of two evils: Trump.
Now, you could argue that you weren't predicting that Schumer or Pelosi or any particular Democrat would be willing to gut entitlements, but only that the "New Democrats" would. But either way you expressed it without hedges, you said a certain subset of Democrats "will" conspire with Republicans to cut entitlements. But given that no Democrats in Congress whatsoever voted for any of the GOP ACA repeal bills that would gut Medicaid, it would seem that either you were very much wrong in that prediction, or you were making a statement about a type of Democrat that doesn't hold any offices in which case why the fuck were you bothering to talk about it? If no Democrats in Congress met that description, who exactly would be the ones in Congress helping Clinton cut entitlements? It's laughable to suggest it wasn't a prediction about at least some Congressional Democrats.

Meanwhile, Trump was very much pushing any and all of those entitlement-gutting bills, so you very much lost that bet.

Again, did you say you were 100% certain? No. But you certainly seemed to be saying these were probable outcomes. In some cases, quite likely outcomes! As we know, people typically "bet" on things they regard as likely, not things they view as mere possibilities!

But if that's enough to save your case, then I'd note I never said Hillary Clinton was certain to win the election, so you have no basis for saying I was wrong about that! I only ever endorsed the 538 forecast (perhaps a little more optimistic on the basis of other forecasters tending to be more bullish on her chances), which always allowed a far from negligible chance of a Trump victory. And, at any rate, being wrong about one outcome (the binary outcome of Clinton or Trump) is not as bad as being wrong about many things.

BUT that's even taking you at face value and assuming these posts themselves are the only evidence! Even then, it's very bad for you. But I replied with arguments as to why these statements were wrong and you replied back, in ways that do not at all imply you were proposing these as mere possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Dismissing my list of all the ways that Trump may in fact be the lesser of two evils with respect to Clinton with :rolleyes: is pretty unpersuasive. In fact, I shall take that as your concession that you have no answer to these points.
I see no protestation that you were merely suggesting these were possibilities. In fact, you continue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I am simply pointing out that given what he has said on certain key issues, vs. what Clinton has said (which is often different from what she has said in the past), there is no reason to think that Clinton is necessarily the lesser of two evils on those particular issues.
If there's no reason to think that Clinton is the lesser of two evils, it certainly doesn't sound like you thought Trump was merely possibly the lesser, but that he was probably the lesser.

That's what you said at the time. A few days later you did add a bunch of hedges that were not present in your original post (and only the "lesser of two evils" post, not the one about Trump not appointing Scalias or impeding LGBT rights), but this was only after being challenged repeatedly by me, mickthinks, The Man, and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
No, indeed, even if you support the "lesser of two evils" voting idea, it's not at all clear who the lesser evil is here.
This is from the second post (the one that starts by saying Trump won't appoint Scalias). The plain meaning of saying it's not "at all clear" is that you think it's not a mere possibility that Trump is the lesser evil, but that there's a significant chance that he's not. Otherwise it would be at least somewhat clear that Clinton was the lesser evil.

I think it's pretty clear your original post was suggesting that Trump was at least probably the lesser of two evils on those particular issues (and possibly the lesser overall!). Yet you suggest it was merely to counter the idea that it was an impossibility. I don't think that's what was intended at all. And I don't think it's possible to maintain that you predicted none of those things, even under a strict interpretation of what counts as a prediction.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (04-09-2019), Kael (05-05-2019), The Man (04-09-2019)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.93579 seconds with 16 queries