2020 Presidential Election

[hollodero]

(07-04-2019, 09:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: She didn't say he isn't a racist. She said she doesn't think he is a racist.

I don't consider that an overly important distinction. I mean, maybe. But I also don't think you (or anyone here) is a racist, that's how I'd put it, that's as far as I would commit to that. For I can't really know. There's only a handful of really close people I could guarantee for in that regard.

(07-04-2019, 09:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If she would have made the declarative I know you're not a racist that would have been different. She wanted to paint him as an old white man that has been insensitive to minority needs and allow others to "think" what that equates to.  

I don't think that last part really applies. Yeah she wanted to paint him as an old man somewhat insensitive to racial issues. I don't think that's fair, but I also don't think she wanted to bring others to thinking Biden's actually a racist. One step too far, imho.

(07-04-2019, 09:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It was a measured move on her part and one she could exploit because she's a relatively young woman or color and he's a old white man. Some will excuse the attack or seems Nationally applaud it but the dynamic of excusing personal attacks in Political debate is nothing new. 

It's a bit hard to avoid in a field with 20.000 candidates. Stay noble and be forgotten first. Not that I want to excuse an attack I called a bit cheap myself, but I'm not so sure whether I should rather hate the game than the player here.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2019, 11:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's not  a matter of believing something or not.  It's a matter of one saying "I do not think you are racist" and the other saying "Other say it and I don't know".

You can believe it, but you are wrong.

Oh, I knew before the discussion happened I was going to be wrong in your opinion. I've played enough Chess with Pigeons around here to know the moves. My view is they both wanted to put the thought in people's heads or neither would have said it. Folks can agree or disagree with that, but I do ask the not be hypocritical when they say should we consider the actual words or the intent, regardless the source or the message.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2019, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't consider that an overly important distinction. I mean, maybe. But I also don't think you (or anyone here) is a racist, that's how I'd put it, that's as far as I would commit to that. For I can't really know. There's only a handful of really close people I could guarantee for in that regard.



I don't think that last part really applies. Yeah she wanted to paint him as an old man somewhat insensitive to racial issues. I don't think that's fair, but I also don't think she wanted to bring others to thinking Biden's actually a racist. One step too far, imho.



It's a bit hard to avoid in a field with 20.000 candidates. Stay noble and be forgotten first. Not that I want to excuse an attack I called a bit cheap myself, but I'm not so sure whether I should rather hate the game than the player here.

And I don't think Trump believes windmills cause cancer, but just like Harris he benefits from a thought he put in people's heads. IMO there was one thing to explain Khamala's spike with the Liberals and it wasn't from a policy she proposed. It was indirectly calling an old white man a racist. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-04-2019, 11:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And as I said I applaud these innovations. Obviously the SMART Program is not designed for someone looking for a trade, but it appear Mayor Pete might be opening up such opportunities. Participation in these and other programs that help with the cost of tuition fits the bill of those looking for a hand instead of a hand out. 

And I think emphasizing this as something you do immediately after high school would expose people to various career paths (college and non college) and provide more clarity in their lives. 

-Less people going to college who can't cut it (so less debt)
-More people looking into trade options
-More people involved in their communities
-Exposure to new cultures (he said kids in urban areas would go to rural areas and vice versa)
-Service opportunities in health care and aging services would hopefully drive those costs down for those who use them

[hollodero]

(07-04-2019, 12:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I don't think Trump believes windmills cause cancer, but just like Harris he benefits from a thought he put in people's heads.

Nah, Trump just says whatever crosses his mind in front of a crowd he considers too stupid to not believe anything. Which pretty much amounts to anybody in his head.
i don't think he believes windmills cause cancer and any critique from my side about that saying is just aboutn how it's mind-boggling that anyone could say such a stupid thing. Has little to do with the content.
Also, I find it a bit odd how frantic you're trying to prove every other liberal is just like Trump really.

Had Trump said "I don't think windmills cause cancer", you'd have a valid comparison. According to your logic, that would have meant he calls windmills cancer-causing though. Otherwise he could have said "I know windmills don't cause cancer".

(07-04-2019, 12:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO there was one thing to explain Khamala's spike with the Liberals and it wasn't from a policy she proposed. It was indirectly calling an old white man a racist. 

Yeah you keep insisting she did that. I disagree with that. But I'm afraid you will call me a pigeon now too, incapable to play chess with you. So let's just leave it at that.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2019, 12:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nah, Trump just says whatever crosses his mind in front of a crowd he considers too stupid to not believe anything. Which pretty much amounts to anybody in his head.
i don't think he believes windmills cause cancer and any critique from my side about that saying is just aboutn how it's mind-boggling that anyone could say such a stupid thing. Has little to do with the content.
Also, I find it a bit odd how frantic you're trying to prove every other liberal is just like Trump really.

Had Trump said "I don't think windmills cause cancer", you'd have a valid comparison. According to your logic, that would have meant he calls windmills cancer-causing though. Otherwise he could have said "I know windmills don't cause cancer".


Yeah you keep insisting she did that. I disagree with that. But I'm afraid you will call me a pigeon now too, incapable to play chess with you. So let's just leave it at that.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I've already said I believe Harris doesn't think Biden is a racist; nor have I said she called Biden a racist; because that would be a lie, so you may want to relook your evaluation of my logic.

I don't think all Liberal candidates are like Trump, nor are all Liberal supporters like Trump supporters. But IMO Khamala (1 of 20 candidates) made a Trump move and many liberals are defending/ applauding it. 

As to the back and forth, so me where I flatly called anyone wrong; however, I agree to leave it at that and apologize for any derailing. 

[GMDino]

(07-04-2019, 12:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I knew before the discussion happened I was going to be wrong in your opinion. I've played enough Chess with Pigeons around here to know the moves. My view is they both wanted to put the thought in people's heads or neither would have said it. Folks can agree or disagree with that, but I do ask the not be hypocritical when they say should we consider the actual words or the intent, regardless the source or the message.

It's not my opinion you are wrong in making that comparison between the two statements.  It is a fact that you are wrong comparing the two statements.  Harris specifically said she does not think Biden is a racist.  Trump said he didn't know if Windmills cause cancer.  It's not the source of the comment, it is what they actually said. I said she knew, one said they didn't.

Your "view" is your opinion of WHY each made the statements they did...that is your opinion and you are welcome to it but it is not the same as your incorrect comparison of the statements by Harris and Trump.

To use your analogy it would seem the pigeons are playing chess and you are playing checkers.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-04-2019, 10:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Snark aside.... Trump said he "doesn't know" if Windmills cause Cancer. What do you think he wanted to put in folks heads when he said I don't know, you tell me? Or are we just take his exact words? 

I'll answer it is the same think Harris did when she said I don't think you're a racist, then laid out all this racist stuff, she was telling the American voter...I don't know, you tell me.

Personally I don't believe either one. Windmills don't cause cancer and Biden is not a racist.

Oh, so Harris and Trump did the same thing. But, Trump didn't do the same thing as Harris.

[Arturo Bandini]

He just said windmills cause cancers because they build one in Scotland near one of his resort and the value of the thing decreased since there is this windmill.

It's always about him and only about him.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-47400641

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2019, 12:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: And I think emphasizing this as something you do immediately after high school would expose people to various career paths (college and non college) and provide more clarity in their lives. 

-Less people going to college who can't cut it (so less debt)
-More people looking into trade options
-More people involved in their communities
-Exposure to new cultures (he said kids in urban areas would go to rural areas and vice versa)
-Service opportunities in health care and aging services would hopefully drive those costs down for those who use them

Agreed. We have to do what we can to get over the mentality of you must have a college degree to excel. I can see it in STEM fields and in education (to a point). I've tried to guide both of my boys into the healthcare field. My sister is an RN and Director of Training at a medical facility and has never incurred a school debt in her life. Of course she had to start out emptying bed pans, move from facility to facility to take advantage of the paid training/education, and had to give back in commitment to the company that paid her way.    

I like Mayor Pete hope he can gain some momentum and isn't overshadowed by those making (IMO) ridiculous promises.

[hollodero]

(07-04-2019, 12:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I've already said I believe Harris doesn't think Biden is a racist; nor have I said she called Biden a racist; because that would be a lie

Yeah right... you did not say she called Biden a racist, you indeed said she "indirectly" called him a racist though. I do not consider that word "indirect" to cause a qualitatively important distinction (and it sure is not meant to make her look less nefarious).

But right, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Else we would do wrong things all the time.

[*bfine32*]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/us/politics/july-democratic-debate-participants.html
Second debate has been scheduled and 14 already qualify:
Joseph R. Biden Jr
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julián Castro
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O’Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warre
Marianne Williamson
Andrew Yang

It appears 7 more have a good chance of meeting the criteria:
John Delaney
John Hickenlooper
Tim Ryan
Michael Bennet
Steve Bullock
Bill de Blasio
Eric Swalwell

It's not looking good for my man Seth Moulton, So I'll be pulling for Mayor Pete and Klobuchar

[BmorePat87]

(07-05-2019, 01:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/us/politics/july-democratic-debate-participants.html
Second debate has been scheduled and 14 already qualify:
Joseph R. Biden Jr
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julián Castro
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O’Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warre
Marianne Williamson
Andrew Yang

It appears 7 more have a good chance of meeting the criteria:
John Delaney
John Hickenlooper
Tim Ryan
Michael Bennet
Steve Bullock
Bill de Blasio
Eric Swalwell

It's not looking good for my man Seth Moulton, So I'll be pulling for Mayor Pete and Klobuchar

This will be the last chance for many because the 3rd debate in 2 months is gonna be brutal. Only 6 qualified for the increased criteria of 130k donors and 2% in 4 polls:

Pete, Biden, Harris, Warren, Beto, Sanders

Yang has 130k donors, but not the polling. Booker has the polling, but needs 20k more donors. 

https://nypost.com/2019/07/04/next-round-of-dem-debates-expected-to-host-same-20-candidates/

[BmorePat87]

Eric Swalwell drops out. Apparently he couldn't carry the torch.

Billionaire and "Impeach Trump" campaign financier Tom Steyer is apparently about to announce his run.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/08/warren-rakes-in-19-million-despite-no-fundraisers-1400058

Warren outraised Bernie with no fundraisers this quarter.

2nd quarter hauls:
Buttigieg $24.8m
Biden $21.5m
Warren $19m
Sanders $18m
Harris $12m

[Yojimbo]

(07-08-2019, 07:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/08/warren-rakes-in-19-million-despite-no-fundraisers-1400058

Warren outraised Bernie with no fundraisers this quarter.

2nd quarter hauls:
Buttigieg $24.8m ~300k donors
Biden $21.5m ~250k donors
Warren $19m ~380k donors
Sanders $18m - unknown second quarter, 525k first quarter
Harris $12m ~280k donors

Do we rank them by money or by people?

[*bfine32*]

(07-08-2019, 07:31 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Do we rank them by money or by people?

I think your edit shows why poor folk like Bernie. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-08-2019, 07:31 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Do we rank them by money or by people?

Bernie's million figure is total donations, not donors. From what I can tell, his campaign didn't release total donor numbers for this quarter, unlike the last quarter. 

A number some campaigns will be looking at right now is new donors. Bernie benefits from a national donor base from 2016 whereas Warren built hers up from scratch, with about 308,000 of her 384,000 donors being first time contributors. That's a great number for her to look at as she continues to do well in national polling.

Bernie started with a pretty big base in the 1st quarter, over half a million, drawing $18m then as well. It's likely that, given that his average donation number is about $2 less this quarter, he didn't draw many new donors in, banking off his already existing pool of donors, which is still higher than the others. 

That may not be enough to last him as the field narrows and if he has another poor showing at a debate while newcomers like Harris, Warren, and Buttigieg have stand out performances. 

[Yojimbo]

(07-08-2019, 08:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Bernie's million figure is total donations, not donors. From what I can tell, his campaign didn't release total donor numbers for this quarter, unlike the last quarter. 

A number some campaigns will be looking at right now is new donors. Bernie benefits from a national donor base from 2016 whereas Warren built hers up from scratch, with about 308,000 of her 384,000 donors being first time contributors. That's a great number for her to look at as she continues to do well in national polling.

Bernie started with a pretty big base in the 1st quarter, over half a million, drawing $18m then as well. It's likely that, given that his average donation number is about $2 less this quarter, he didn't draw many new donors in, banking off his already existing pool of donors, which is still higher than the others. 

That may not be enough to last him as the field narrows and if he has another poor showing at a debate while newcomers like Harris, Warren, and Buttigieg have stand out performances. 

You are right I misread that. Do you know if the numbers of donors they give are just for the quarter or is that the total for the entire campaign?

Secondly, he did gain a bunch of new donors this year. They have reported that 46% of the 525k donors were new to his campaign this year.

[BmorePat87]

(07-08-2019, 08:41 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: You are right I misread that. Do you know if the numbers they give are just for the quarter or is that the total for the entire campaign?

Secondly, he did gain a bunch of new donors this year. They have released that 46% of donors were new to his campaign this year.

The ones I used are just for the quarter, but campaigns are distinguishing between the two. Hard to interpret what that 46% means without knowing how many total donors they were the 2nd quarter. Warren and Buttigieg had numbers near 80%, but they had less donors in the 1st quarter. In all reality, it could be the same total number of donors. 

With the Sanders campaign not giving specifics, it seems more likely that their total donor numbers didn't improve much.