It's going to be a circus.
Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.
Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.
Talk about that junk here.
It's a case where we can Do Good and Do Well at the same time.
Here is a critical, thoughtful, leftist analysis of the differences between Sanders and Warren. it’s written by a volunteer for Warren’s senate run but still comes out in favor of Sanders. It does a good job crystallizing the difference between the two.
It also cracked the door on Cory Booker’s disturbing support of private and charter schools: my perception is that charter schools are literally stealing money and futures from children so I cannot support anyone - even someone like Booker - who supports the DeVos method of getting rich by destroying public schools.
And don’t worry, I have time to post another 10-20 Jacobin articles before the election. 
Here is a critical, thoughtful, leftist analysis of the differences between Sanders and Warren. it’s written by a volunteer for Warren’s senate run but still comes out in favor of Sanders. It does a good job crystallizing the difference between the two.
It also cracked the door on Cory Booker’s disturbing support of private and charter schools: my perception is that charter schools are literally stealing money and futures from children so I cannot support anyone - even someone like Booker - who supports the DeVos method of getting rich by destroying public schools.
And don’t worry, I have time to post another 10-20 Jacobin articles before the election. :)
Keep em coming please.
I have respect for Sanders making more people interested in social democratism, and I in all likelihood agree more with Sanders than Warren, but uh, yeah, I think I'll take careful reasoning over the force of mass movement.
The choice between Warren and Sanders may very well determine if that president confronts those interests with careful reasoning and principled advocacy or the force of a mass movement.
Considering the polarization in US, I guess I understand the desire for a mass movement to break the current system. Still, who knows what comes after. Certainly might not the the changes the mass movement wanted.
How much does everyone think the Pocahontas stuff would hurt Warren as a candidate?
How much does everyone think the Pocahontas stuff would hurt Warren as a candidate?
In the primaries, unqualified shrug is my best guess.
If she is the nominee I an certain it would roll back around, but it would not really move any voters. It would be more of one avenue of scorn piled on from right wing media just reinforcing whatever stereotype those who listen to right wing media will have about Warren.
If she is the nominee for VP then a lesser case of the above scenario, as I presume a VP nominee drives less of the discussion.
Plus doesn't she have the support of a couple of Native American tribes?
Realistically? Just enough for Trump to win.
#darkesttimeline
But then, you can presumably find similar bad judgement calls from all other candidates, which Trump and Putin can make into facebook memes. Probably worse ones too. Doesn't seem like it should make Warren a worse candidate than others.
How much does everyone think the Pocahontas stuff would hurt Warren as a candidate?
I'm not sure. She seems to be owning up to the mistake of falling for Trump's trap in getting the DNA test, and all the issues that surround that. But what she really needs to do is just say, flat out, that she should never have taken the test. What she is saying, is that she is not a person of color, not a tribe member. I think she needs to to issue a full statement about the test and why it was wrong to take it and use it for political purposes.
And then she just needs to ignore it, because Trump and the deplorables will never stop using it against her. She needs a definitive admission and apology that can serve as the easy thing for her supporters to point to, not to bring up repeatedly.
It's a tough call. because it is an easy go to strategy to just repeat the worst things over and over, ignoring all later apologies and explanations. And Trump and the GOP are masters using crap issues to create signature lines in their speeches. The trick is not to feed into that narrative. You have to be the voice of reason and patience in the face of Trump's ridiculousness. The middle voters still tend to avoid chaos.
One of Hillary's biggest issues was making the campaign about Trump herself. My advice would have been to never utter Trump's name during the entire campaign, and just let the surrogates do the dirty work. She should have presented herself as above it. I'm afraid Warren is too willing to get in the mud with Trump.
One of the reasons I really like Amy Klobuchar is that she is much more about the job than the political attacks. I think she is the perfect antidote to Trumpism. She is effective without grandstanding.
Her speech on the Republican conduct during the Kavanaugh hearing was spot on and powerful.
Plus doesn't she have the support of a couple of Native American tribes?
Some, but she really pissed off other tribes both for doing it in the first place, and how she handled it.
Sanders will be 79 in 2020. The life expectancy for American men is 78.69 years.
Surely we can find another candidate who actuaries say won't likely die during their first term or, at best, suffer from serious cognitive decline because they're an octogenarian in one of the most demanding and stressful jobs on the planet.
I say this as someone who's watching my parents--who are the same age as Sanders--physically and mentally decline at a quite frankly terrifying rate.
Perhaps Sanders is secretly a superman who won't be affected in the least by his advanced age. Personally, I doubt it.
Within the last year I had to put my last two living grandparents in nursing homes and they'd just passed 80. The decline in their abilities happened in a matter of months. Going from normal daily living to not being able to care for themselves took one fall and one blood infection to put two people in a nursing home with one dying within months and the other likely not far behind. Yes, I'm probably being ageist, but at there's a reason so many places have stuck with a retirement age of around 65. There comes a point when most people's faculties simply aren't up to the job. I'm all for our elder statesmen acting as consultants and advisors to those in power but having 80+ year olds in charge of every major branch of the government does not inspire a lot of confidence in me. Heck, with Trump we've got crazy racist grampa in charge who can't remember what he said five minutes ago and gets confused in the middle of making a point. A guy like that should not be in charge of making snap life or death decisions that could affect all of humanity.
You are right but baby boomers vote and they are 70+.
So unless millennials get off their bitts and vote the best liberals can home for is a baby boomer with leftist leanings
You are right but baby boomers vote and they are 70+.
So unless millennials get off their bitts and vote the best liberals can home for is a baby boomer with leftist leanings
You probably don't want to go there because Boomers opted for Trump over Hillary in 2016. In 2016 the 45-64 age group opted for Trump over Clinton 52% to 44% and the 65+ age group went Trump 52% to 45%. And this is with Boomers supposedly leaning slightly more Democratic as a generation.
The reason for this is very likely racial: Boomer and older generations represent 40% of all white people in the country and Trump's campaign was tailor made for them.
But there's hope. Because in 2016 Gen X'ers and Millennials cast slightly more votes than Boomers and older generations (69.6 million vs. 67.9 million votes). And this gap will increase each election cycle as older, whiter voters die off and younger, more diverse voters hit the polls.
If you accept the logic that running a Boomer candidate (Sanders is technically a member of the even older Silent Generation) will win over more Boomers voters because they'll better identify with them, then it makes more sense for Democrats to go after younger (and more numerous) voters with a candidate that is more like them than their Gamgam or Peepaw.
A younger Democratic candidate would also present voters with a striking difference to Trump, who's not getting any younger, fitter, or less orange.
I don't really see a problem with age provided that we also have an excellent candidate for VP in case there are any unexpected health problems.
We really can't use 45 as a comparison to how an "old person" would act as President since he never really seemed to have all his marbles anyway, even as a younger person.
We really can't use 45 as a comparison to how an "old person" would act as President since he never really seemed to have all his marbles anyway, even as a younger person.
I'm old enough to remember Reagan's second term when it was exceptionally clear that he wasn't all there mentally. And while some people might argue that he wasn't diagnosed with Alzheimer's until after he left office, I tend to view that in the same manner as the letter from Trump's doctor claiming he was the healthiest president ever. The only difference was Trump did that for his ego and 80s Republicans lied about Reagan's health because they feared how the Soviet Union would respond to a dotard in chief.
Whether or not it becomes an issue in the campaign, I'd encourage you all to read through some of the articles here on Warren, DNA testing, and tribal membership from a Native American perspective.
Personally, I'm bothered enough by this issue and by Warren's poor historical stance on queer issues that I don't anticipate supporting her in the primaries. I would support her in the general election, however.
Whether or not it becomes an issue in the campaign, I'd encourage you all to read through some of the articles here on Warren, DNA testing, and tribal membership from a Native American perspective.
Personally, I'm bothered enough by this issue and by Warren's poor historical stance on queer issues that I don't anticipate supporting her in the primaries. I would support her in the general election, however.
For me, I am uncomfortable with her previous affiliation as a Republican and her neoliberal outlook on how wealth inequality can be managed. She is a law professor, as was Obama and Clinton before. Im not sure why every single democrat president in my lifetime has been a law professor and im not entirely sure that it’s what we need.
I hope that my coolness toward Warren isn’t read as misogyny, and I hope that it isn’t subconscious misogyny. I’ll continue to self crit on the issue.
I’m also wary of Sanders age, but 80 isn’t that old for rich people with top end healthcare. It’s much less of a concern for me than Warren’s policy issues. Again, to reiterate, I would be ecstatic to have either candidate in the 2020 general election, but I haven’t ordered from the menu yet so I can be both picky and unrealistic.
Some more thoughts on the pros and cons of law professors as Presidents.
She is a law professor, as was Obama and Clinton before. I'm not sure why every single democrat president in my lifetime has been a law professor and I'm not entirely sure that it’s what we need.
I'm guessing because none of them were rich, and law school is the quickest way for a smart person who isn't rich to get rich?
edit: looking back at the Republicans, the last three were born rich, and if I'm reading Wikipedia right, Nixon and Ford both went almost straight from law school to being recruited into Republican politics.
Seth wrote:She is a law professor, as was Obama and Clinton before. I'm not sure why every single democrat president in my lifetime has been a law professor and I'm not entirely sure that it’s what we need.
I'm guessing because none of them were rich, and law school is the quickest way for a smart person who isn't rich to get rich?
edit: looking back at the Republicans, the last three were born rich, and if I'm reading Wikipedia right, Nixon and Ford both went almost straight from law school to being recruited into Republican politics.
Sanders is still is not rich by Senator standards, especially for his age. He only recently passed $1 million in personal net worth through book sales. In the 2016 election his net worth was $800 K. That's not much better than a 50-ish IT professional with a 401(k) and good health.
Yeah but he's not a Democrat, as many Democrats love to remind us ; D
cheeze_pavilion wrote:Seth wrote:She is a law professor, as was Obama and Clinton before. I'm not sure why every single democrat president in my lifetime has been a law professor and I'm not entirely sure that it’s what we need.
I'm guessing because none of them were rich, and law school is the quickest way for a smart person who isn't rich to get rich?
edit: looking back at the Republicans, the last three were born rich, and if I'm reading Wikipedia right, Nixon and Ford both went almost straight from law school to being recruited into Republican politics.
Sanders is still is not rich by Senator standards, especially for his age. He only recently passed $1 million in personal net worth through book sales. In the 2016 election his net worth was $800 K. That's not much better than a 50-ish IT professional with a 401(k) and good health.
That was 1m of earning in 2016, not Net Worth. We'd have a better idea if he'd ever released his taxes, though.
JeffreyLSmith wrote:cheeze_pavilion wrote:Seth wrote:She is a law professor, as was Obama and Clinton before. I'm not sure why every single democrat president in my lifetime has been a law professor and I'm not entirely sure that it’s what we need.
I'm guessing because none of them were rich, and law school is the quickest way for a smart person who isn't rich to get rich?
edit: looking back at the Republicans, the last three were born rich, and if I'm reading Wikipedia right, Nixon and Ford both went almost straight from law school to being recruited into Republican politics.
Sanders is still is not rich by Senator standards, especially for his age. He only recently passed $1 million in personal net worth through book sales. In the 2016 election his net worth was $800 K. That's not much better than a 50-ish IT professional with a 401(k) and good health.
That was 1m of earning in 2016, not Net Worth. We'd have a better idea if he'd ever released his taxes, though.
Note the second link I shared. His book sales were what pushed his net worth past $1 million for the first time. Prior to that he was one of the few Senators who was not a millionaire. I think that's significant for someone of his age.
Tanglebones wrote:JeffreyLSmith wrote:cheeze_pavilion wrote:Seth wrote:She is a law professor, as was Obama and Clinton before. I'm not sure why every single democrat president in my lifetime has been a law professor and I'm not entirely sure that it’s what we need.
I'm guessing because none of them were rich, and law school is the quickest way for a smart person who isn't rich to get rich?
edit: looking back at the Republicans, the last three were born rich, and if I'm reading Wikipedia right, Nixon and Ford both went almost straight from law school to being recruited into Republican politics.
Sanders is still is not rich by Senator standards, especially for his age. He only recently passed $1 million in personal net worth through book sales. In the 2016 election his net worth was $800 K. That's not much better than a 50-ish IT professional with a 401(k) and good health.
That was 1m of earning in 2016, not Net Worth. We'd have a better idea if he'd ever released his taxes, though.
Note the second link I shared. His book sales were what pushed his net worth past $1 million for the first time. Prior to that he was one of the few Senators who was not a millionaire. I think that's significant for someone of his age.
Well, self-reportedly not a millionaire 
Here's a 2016 piece about Sanders and tax returns that's the best I could find quickly: LINK
tl;dr: he "released the 1040 two-page summary page of his 2014 tax returns, but not the full returns"
There was some talk about a possible scandal over his wife and some university funds.
also, I never thought about it, but he's collecting Social Security. On second thought, a *lot* of politicians probably are!
That's not much better than a 50-ish IT professional with a 401(k) and good health.
I picked the wrong kind of IT professional to be, apparently.
JeffreyLSmith wrote:That's not much better than a 50-ish IT professional with a 401(k) and good health.
I picked the wrong kind of IT professional to be, apparently.
ClockworkHouse wrote:JeffreyLSmith wrote:That's not much better than a 50-ish IT professional with a 401(k) and good health.
I picked the wrong kind of IT professional to be, apparently.
pennywise.jpg
I knew I would regret posting that comparison. Can I Ctrl-Z the last page?
Now I want a movie called CTRL-Z about IT professionals who must save the world from zombies or something it's not really a well-formed idea just you know sometimes I go on a typing bender and thirty words later I'm all like what am I even writing right now anyway there's a joke I don't have the wherewithal nor skill to make have fun.
Now I want a movie called CTRL-Z about IT professionals who must save the world from zombies or something it's not really a well-formed idea just you know sometimes I go on a typing bender and thirty words later I'm all like what am I even writing right now anyway there's a joke I don't have the wherewithal nor skill to make have fun.
That's a hilarious idea. I'm surprised it's not already an indie game.
Pages