Official 2/19/20 democratic debate thread

[brandonbull]

remember that there are some seriously dumb people that post here.

Can't forget.

 

[brandonbull]

The US birth rate is well below replacement as well already.

Maybe not sell everybody 15 mpg Ford F-250 super duty crew cabs to commute to their office jobs in would be a better idea. Or at least make that a lot more expensive, properly reflecting on the actual costs to society and the environment, to do.

Not sure if you have priced a new F-250 super duty crew cab that people would use as a daily office driver.

 

[mect]

The other thing I would say, and have said here many times, is that the Ds biggest problem with action on CC and moving to green tech is their own messaging.

They're message constantly revolves around two ineffective tactics:

1. Declaring a giant, existential threat out in the future (but difficult to relate to in the here and now, so easy to ignore.)

2. The solution is for people to lose things. Jobs, standard of living, money, freedom.

I'm ripping Bernie because he champions that old, losing, stupid and ineffective tactic.

That's not honesty, that's political malpractice.

If Ds are serious about actually fixing the problem rather than moralizing, they cannot continue to tell people how bad they are and all the things that need to be taken away.

It has to be a positive choice. How green tech will make your life better, save you money and make you happier.

When they focus on the negative, then it makes it an easy play for the Rs to come in and promise it's all fake, don't worry, let us drill and we'll keep your gas prices low. Fuck the libs and their g@y Prius'.

I would think 40 years of being right on the science but losing all the policy battles would make Ds reconsider tactics. Obama did, and actually made some progress, but Bernie will be counterproductive.

Please provide some examples of Obama's messaging. I seem to recall him telling people they might not be able to keep their thermostats at 77 degrees, and people blowing up over that.

Edit: Additionally, I don't know where you get the impression that Sanders messaging is negative. Sanders messaging is overwhelmingly positive for everyone except the corporate elites.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I’m soooo tired of the decades old argument that we can’t go green because we will need solar panels bigger than the Earth or we will need hundreds of millions of windmills or whatever silly figure.
That’s not a reason to continue consuming irreplaceable resources (in a human time scale) a spewing god knows how much shit while doing so.
This is America, we have and can do great things. Let’s do something great.

 

[brandonbull]

No, studies don't show that liberals' belief systems will die off. There might be a shift to more conservative politics due to this, but even that is debatable. While conservatives have more kids, they are basically at replacement. While progressives have less children, we are likely to continue to grow as a country due to immigration. Immigrants tend to be more progressive. Additionally, there is a much higher crossover of children from conservative families to progressive politics compared to the other way around, as evidenced by the differences in political leaning as a function of age. So no, I don't think its clear to say that republicans are going to suddenly take over America.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ihCn3buioySlhcs_7vQeUdYmvkQ=/0x0:1800x1536/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1800x1536):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7516987/12.png

Is that why Democrats will stop at nothing to insure an unfettered influx of foreign born individuals coming to the US?

 

[Jhhnn]

What a joke. BTW who was it that selected the Superdelegates? Oh ? The DNC you say ? And who was it that decided to allow them free voting in a brokered convention? The DNC you say? And who was it that decided in 2018 to make the primaries and caucuses proportional delegates instead of winner take all? The DNC you say ? but, but, but it's up to the delegates. Yeah, sure.

So concerned!

 

[mect]

Is that why Democrats will stop at nothing to insure an unfettered influx of foreign born individuals coming to the US?

Dems don't want to prevent an influx of foreign born individuals entering our country because it is really good for our country. Or do you want the US to face what Japan, China, and Italy among other nations are facing with inverted population distributions. Everyone worries about China but for no reason. China is getting old before it can afford to be old, and they have no mechanism for bringing in young workers because of their anti-immigration stance. Do you want to be able to continue to grow GDP or not? If we cut off immigration, our population will begin declining. That will make things very uncomfortable as our population ages.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's my point they do indeed mean a great deal at "only 16%" In truth they are the powerful who have the freedom to do what the DNC wants, not the will of the voters. That's real power, not "just 16%" and they exist to aid whomever THEY choose.

Superdelegates should not exist, period.

So, it's another Deep State conspiracy, obviously. Because the DNC isn't *real* Democrats, or something.

 

[Blackjack200]

Bloomberg missed a great opportunity to put Warren on the spot. He could have positioned a question back that she seemed to have first hand knowledge of some NDAs.

I really don't think he wanted to draw that exchange out at all.

 

[K1052]

Not sure if you have priced a new F-250 super duty crew cab that people would use as a daily office driver.

There are a bunch of King Ranch models in my apartment complex underground garage and at least three F-150 Raptors that I know of.

People absolutely do this.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I think people are making more of the "Bloomberg destroyed/annihilated/buttfucked-in-the-mouth/whatever other hyperbole by Warren" than is really there. It might be one of those "Kennedy/Nixon" if you heard it or if you saw it kind of things, where the reaction is bigger than the actual event. If you watched the debate, Warren's body language was kinda weird, like she was over-amped when speaking and then does this kind of awkward look toward Bloomberg. It felt like a non-confrontational person sort of awkwardly losing it.

Reading about it through, you'd think she was a real smooth operator and calmly and confidently dismantled Bloomberg's platform or something.

 

[pmv]

Good point, studies show that liberals' belief systems will die off since they're not having as many kids. Which means that conservatives aren't giving up their steaks and trucks anytime in the next 100 years so your "certainly be too late" sentiment is more likely to play out than not.

Before you get upset, don't blame me, blame Harvard. I'm just the messenger:

Study: Conservative baby boom will shift nation further right

A baby boom among conservatives could push the nation's politics further right in the coming decades, especially since liberals aren't having as many

www.washingtonexaminer.com

You pushed that article before, already. It's self-evidently hopeless as support for your claim (which is why it's only a second-hand interpretation of one weak study, reported in a very partisan publication and refracted through still another study).

I mean did you read your own link? That is _such _ a weak basis for concluding what you do. One study of a few thousand people on an unknown dating site finds that white conservatives prefer dating those like themselves (big surprise) and then apparently claims, in passing, that there's some evidence, somewhere, that conservatives have more children and that they stay conservative. And this unsubstantiated claim about an unsubstantiated claim about an unsubstantiated claim, refracted through two different obscure papers and a right-wing partisan non-academic journal, is supposed to outweigh all the evidence that white conservatives are shrinking as a proportion of the population, and that the population growth is in urban areas that vote more Democrat?

And then you throw in the name of 'Harvard', even though Harvard had nothing to do with it, the only reference to 'Harvard' in your link is that they published a survey of studies, and this was one in one of those - from Brown, not Harvard - and that Brown paper wasn't even the evidence for the claim in the first place, it just in turn claimed some other study somewhere else said this!

The truth is way more complicated, especially when you consider that even the definitions of 'conservative' and 'liberal' are themselves culturally-determined. Reifying them into two fixed 'teams' based entirely on current parochial US politics is very silly. Different groups can show very different types of 'conservatism', and it's context-dependent (it depends what they want to conserve!). Black Americans can be very conservative by some measures, but that doesn't mean they will vote Republican. Ditto Muslims, or Catholic Hispanics, in different ways.

What does push the US to the right is the nature of the electoral system and how it interacts with the shifting geographical distribution of the population.

 

[woolfe9998]

You pushed that article before, already. It's self-evidently hopeless as support for your claim (which is why it's only a second-hand interpretation of one weak study, reported in a very partisan publication and refracted through still another study).

I mean did you read your own link? That is _such _ a weak basis for concluding what you do. One study of a few thousand people on an unknown dating site finds that white conservatives prefer dating those like themselves (big surprise) and then apparently claims, in passing, that there's some evidence, somewhere, that conservatives have more children and that they stay conservative. And this unsubstantiated claim about an unsubstantiated claim about an unsubstantiated claim, refracted through two different obscure papers and a right-wing partisan non-academic journal, is supposed to outweigh all the evidence that white conservatives are shrinking as a proportion of the population, and that the population growth is in urban areas that vote more Democrat?

And then you throw in the name of 'Harvard', even though Harvard had nothing to do with it, the only reference to 'Harvard' in your link is that they published a survey of studies, and this was one in one of those - from Brown, not Harvard - and that Brown paper wasn't even the evidence for the claim in the first place, it just in turn claimed some other study somewhere else said this!

The truth is way more complicated, especially when you consider that even the definitions of 'conservative' and 'liberal' are themselves culturally-determined. Reifying them into two fixed 'teams' based entirely on current parochial US politics is very silly. Different groups can show very different types of 'conservatism', and it's context-dependent (it depends what they want to conserve!). Black Americans can be very conservative by some measures, but that doesn't mean they will vote Republican. Ditto Muslims, or Catholic Hispanics, in different ways.

What does push the US to the right is the nature of the electoral system and how it interacts with the shifting geographical distribution of the population.

Yeah it's quite dodgy. The differential birth rate claim is not part of the study being cited, which has to do with dating behavior. And it doesn't square with this anyway:

Total fertility rate by ethnicity U.S. 2022| Statista

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women had the highest fertility rate of any ethnicity in the United States in 2022, with about 2,237.5 births per 1,000 women.

www.statista.com

Where non-whites have higher birthrates that whites. Oops.

 

[kage69]

Watched it again. Just validates my desire to see Trump get onstage with Warren and get the mother grizzly treatment.

I can see others doing damage too, what with Trump being a fucking moron and all, but Warren will cut that treason buffoon deep. "She cold."

 

[imported_tajmahal]

How about the biggest factor? People quit acting like it's a god given right to pop out 6 kids? If everyone so concerned with the future would limit themselves to having one child then the problem probably goes away in one generation.

Maybe because it is a God given and evolutionary right to have 6 kids?

 

[cytg111]

Headache.... might actually be a migraine.... allergies acting up....or just allergy

 

[brycejones]

Is that why Democrats will stop at nothing to insure an unfettered influx of foreign born individuals coming to the US?

I think you should provide a source for Democrats seeking Russian interference in our elections since the 80s before making another baseless claim.

So where is the source?

 

[Jhhnn]

Is that why Democrats will stop at nothing to insure an unfettered influx of foreign born individuals coming to the US?

Neither will Mick Mulvaney-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mulvaney-says-us-is-desperate-for-more-legal-immigrants/2020/02/20/946292b2-5401-11ea-87b2-101dc5477dd7_story.html

But it's OK, because white people.

 

[Atreus21]

Is that why Democrats will stop at nothing to insure an unfettered influx of foreign born individuals coming to the US?

Ensure.

Wait. Actually you may be right.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Is that why Democrats will stop at nothing to insure an unfettered influx of foreign born individuals coming to the US?

Why do you hate straw so much? You're constantly punching it.

 

[SP33Demon]

I think people are making more of the "Bloomberg destroyed/annihilated/buttfucked-in-the-mouth/whatever other hyperbole by Warren" than is really there. It might be one of those "Kennedy/Nixon" if you heard it or if you saw it kind of things, where the reaction is bigger than the actual event. If you watched the debate, Warren's body language was kinda weird, like she was over-amped when speaking and then does this kind of awkward look toward Bloomberg. It felt like a non-confrontational person sort of awkwardly losing it.

Reading about it through, you'd think she was a real smooth operator and calmly and confidently dismantled Bloomberg's platform or something.

I saw a pissed off woman in Warren who adequately dismantled mini-mike. I can't stand her or her grating voice but last night she looked incredibly polished and what she said sounded genuine (despite most likely practicing it 50 times beforehand). But that is the difference between seasoned vets like Warren and newcomers like mike. They have years of public speaking in the limelight and campaigning and mike thought he could just go on stage after missing 3 debates before that. He looked like a deer in the headlights and stuttered in every single response. Like Trump tweeted, not everyone could do what he did (non-politician who took seasoned vets to task in debates).

 

[SP33Demon]

Watched it again. Just validates my desire to see Trump get onstage with Warren and get the mother grizzly treatment.

I can see others doing damage too, what with Trump being a fucking moron and all, but Warren will cut that treason buffoon deep. "She cold."

One of her main complaints is that she's too soft and I agree. What she did to bloomberg wouldn't happen to Trump b/c he would interrupt the shit out of her and she'd allow it - he'd never allow her to finish a diatribe against himself and just stand there and take it like a fool (bloomberg). I mean look at them raising their hands like a bunch of obedient kids in a classroom last night wanting to be called on by the moderator. You think Trump plays by those rules?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I saw a pissed off woman in Warren who adequately dismantled mini-mike. I can't stand her or her grating voice but last night she looked incredibly polished and what she said sounded genuine (despite most likely practicing it 50 times beforehand). But that is the difference between seasoned vets like Warren and newcomers like mike. They have years of public speaking in the limelight and campaigning and mike thought he could just go on stage after missing 3 debates before that. He looked like a deer in the headlights and stuttered in every single response. Like Trump tweeted, not everyone could do what he did (non-politician who took seasoned vets to task in debates).

The above commentary brought to you by the Ministry of Truth and Revelation.

 

[Victorian Gray]

One of her main complaints is that she's too soft and I agree. What she did to bloomberg wouldn't happen to Trump b/c he would interrupt the shit out of her and she'd allow it - he'd never allow her to finish a diatribe against himself and just stand there and take it like a fool (bloomberg). I mean look at them raising their hands like a bunch of obedient kids in a classroom last night wanting to be called on by the moderator. You think Trump plays by those rules?

More commentary brought to you by the Ministry of Truth and Revelation.

Please refrain from repetitive use of non-responsive meme responses.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[SP33Demon]

You pushed that article before, already. It's self-evidently hopeless as support for your claim (which is why it's only a second-hand interpretation of one weak study, reported in a very partisan publication and refracted through still another study).

I mean did you read your own link? That is _such _ a weak basis for concluding what you do. One study of a few thousand people on an unknown dating site finds that white conservatives prefer dating those like themselves (big surprise) and then apparently claims, in passing, that there's some evidence, somewhere, that conservatives have more children and that they stay conservative. And this unsubstantiated claim about an unsubstantiated claim about an unsubstantiated claim, refracted through two different obscure papers and a right-wing partisan non-academic journal, is supposed to outweigh all the evidence that white conservatives are shrinking as a proportion of the population, and that the population growth is in urban areas that vote more Democrat?

And then you throw in the name of 'Harvard', even though Harvard had nothing to do with it, the only reference to 'Harvard' in your link is that they published a survey of studies, and this was one in one of those - from Brown, not Harvard - and that Brown paper wasn't even the evidence for the claim in the first place, it just in turn claimed some other study somewhere else said this!

The truth is way more complicated, especially when you consider that even the definitions of 'conservative' and 'liberal' are themselves culturally-determined. Reifying them into two fixed 'teams' based entirely on current parochial US politics is very silly. Different groups can show very different types of 'conservatism', and it's context-dependent (it depends what they want to conserve!). Black Americans can be very conservative by some measures, but that doesn't mean they will vote Republican. Ditto Muslims, or Catholic Hispanics, in different ways.

What does push the US to the right is the nature of the electoral system and how it interacts with the shifting geographical distribution of the population.

There are other studies but I haven't bothered linking them due to time. Yes, conservatives have more kids, yes millenials were more conservative than genX and yes GenZ are more conservative than millenials. How many surveys and studies do we need to prove that every generation is getting more conservative? Also, no it's not just "white conservatives" because like you said it's way more complicated than that. For example, Hispanics culturally are conservative (frown upon welfare, pro-family, pro-religious) and I just read a study that purported by Gen3 the majority don't even identify as Hispanic anymore. So that means that white Hispanics will most likely identify as whites. And the birthrate of Hispanics is the highest in the country, last I checked. This is why Democrats are incredibly naive for thinking that Hispanics will always vote blue, it's simply not the case. 1st gen? That's a good bet because they're undereducated and struggling. But later generations there is no guarantee...