Democrats 2020

[lpetrich]

Rep. Jayapal, a leading liberal congresswoman, endorses Sanders for president - The Washington Post

Scott Wong on Twitter: "With Jayapal backing, ALL top current leaders of Congressional Progressive Caucus have now endorsed BERNIE SANDERS for president.
They are Co-Chairs Jayapal & Pocan, Vice Chair Ro Khanna & Whip Ilhan Omar.
And don’t forget Squad members @AOC & @RashidaTlaib" / Twitter

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "Rep. @PramilaJayapal has been a brilliant leader for progressive ideas. She's led the fight against Trump's racism, sexism and xenophobia. Together, we will defeat Trump and build a working class movement and transform this country so it works for all. https://t.co/sYx6zIYsrE" / Twitter

Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "I'm all in for @BernieSanders for President! Bernie has the bold passion, authenticity & clarity that working people across this country desperately need.
We are building the progressive movement that will bring justice & opportunity & transform our country. Join us! https://t.co/GnWZ6BK4R5" / Twitter

Ayanna Pressley and Katie Porter continue to endorse Elizabeth Warren, and dropout candidate Julián Castro has also endorsed her.

 

[angelo]

What will count in the end is the Dems shenanigans will no doubt backfire on them come November.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/149267/

So... some Iranians in the street are something Americans should heed, but millions of Americans in the street protesting the Orange Judas should be ignored.
Got it.

Millions?

 

[angelo]

More than 120 members of Congress sign a letter of support for terrorist org CAIR, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as a terrorist org by many Arab nations, except the Dems obviously.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/..._jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-01-20

 

[lpetrich]

What The Sanders vs. Warren Battle Is Really About | FiveThirtyEight

Just under a week later, the Warren campaign would be at war with Sen. Bernie Sanders over Warren’s claim that Sanders told her in a private 2018 meeting that he didn’t think a woman could win the 2020 presidential election. This salvo from Warren’s camp was seen as a response to reports that talking points for Sanders volunteers characterized Warren as the choice of “highly educated, more affluent people,” a demographic both key to Democratic electoral success and associated with Hillary Clinton’s supposed out-of-touch elitism. Within a few hours, what had been a cold-war battle to define the left wing of the Democratic Party had gone hot. The handshake-that-wasn’t between Sanders and Warren at Tuesday night’s debate seemed to inflame tensions even more.

BS and EW aren't far off in policy details. So it's more stylistic:

Should progressive populism be wonky and detail-oriented and appeal to college-educated former Clinton voters? Or a more contentious outsider assault on the powers-that-be from the overlooked millions of the middle and lower-middle class?

EW gets about 1/3 more college-educated voters than BS, and also somewhat more higher--income voters than BS.

 

[ZiprHead]

What will count in the end is the Dems shenanigans will no doubt backfire on them come November.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/149267/

So... some Iranians in the street are something Americans should heed, but millions of Americans in the street protesting the Orange Judas should be ignored.
Got it.

Millions?

Between 3,267,134 and 5,246,670 people participated in the marches in the U.S.,[26]

 2017 Women's March

Did that pig fly out of your butt?

 

[angelo]

Millions?

Between 3,267,134 and 5,246,670 people participated in the marches in the U.S.,[26]

 2017 Women's March

Did that pig fly out of your butt?

That many huh? Then who the f.....k voted for the Trump? What's the population of the US again? 330 million? What percentage is 3-5 million of that again?

 

[ZiprHead]

 2017 Women's March

Did that pig fly out of your butt?

That many huh? Then who the f.....k voted for the Trump? What's the population of the US again? 330 million? What percentage is 3-5 million of that again?

You mean the guy that got three million fewer votes than Clinton?

 

[southernhybrid]

For the fist time ever, the NYTImes has endorsed two candidates and they are both women.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans, and of “our chance to rewrite the rules of power in our country,” as she put it in a speech last month. In her hands, that story has the passion of a convert, a longtime Republican from Oklahoma and a middle-class family, whose work studying economic realities left her increasingly worried about the future of the country. The word “rigged” feels less bombastic than rooted in an informed assessment of what the nation needs to do to reassert its historic ideals like fairness, generosity and equality.

She is also committed to reforming the fundamental structures of government and the economy — her first commitment is to anti-corruption legislation, which is not only urgently needed but also has the potential to find bipartisan support. She speaks fluently about foreign policy, including how to improve NATO relations, something that will be badly needed after Mr. Trump leaves office.

Good news, then, that Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic center. Her vision goes beyond the incremental. Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.

The senator from Minnesota is the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness. Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a deal maker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.

I'm not claiming that these endorsements matter when it comes to the election, but I did think it was interesting to read about how the NYTimes chose these two candidates and I do agree that either of them have the potential to be a good president. I have no idea if either of them can beat Trump, but I can say. that about any of the candidates. I'd be happy to vote for either of these women if they were to become the nominee.

 

[Worldtraveller]

 2017 Women's March

Did that pig fly out of your butt?

That many huh? Then who the f.....k voted for the Trump? What's the population of the US again? 330 million? What percentage is 3-5 million of that again?

You mean the guy that got three million fewer votes than Clinton?

Let's take a note of a couple of things here that are typical of a "discussion" with a conservobot.

1) They never actually admit when they're wrong, even when they're blatantly wrong and shown with simple, incontrovertible facts.
2) They change the subject when (1) happens.
3) They play fast and loose with the 'statistics'. In this case, citing the total population of the US to downplay the numbers (and pretend they weren't just shown to be wrong, again). When a more honest take would be to cite the voting populace, and not the total population.
4) They continue to ignore the fact that the shitheel in the WH actually lost that precious popular vote.

 

[angelo]

 2017 Women's March

Did that pig fly out of your butt?

That many huh? Then who the f.....k voted for the Trump? What's the population of the US again? 330 million? What percentage is 3-5 million of that again?

You mean the guy that got three million fewer votes than Clinton?

You are aware that the Trump is in the White House and not Killery? And that the US has a democratic system to elect the President in place, and that it's called " the college" vote? Of course, that's not democratic to the watermelons because their candidate lost!"

 

[angelo]

You mean the guy that got three million fewer votes than Clinton?

Let's take a note of a couple of things here that are typical of a "discussion" with a conservobot.

1) They never actually admit when they're wrong, even when they're blatantly wrong and shown with simple, incontrovertible facts.
2) They change the subject when (1) happens.
3) They play fast and loose with the 'statistics'. In this case, citing the total population of the US to downplay the numbers (and pretend they weren't just shown to be wrong, again). When a more honest take would be to cite the voting populace, and not the total population.
4) They continue to ignore the fact that the shitheel in the WH actually lost that precious popular vote.

Unfortunately for you and your cohorts, [ in this instance] there's a Presidential election system in place that stops the bigger and much more populated states from bullying the smaller states and to stop the US from the tyranny of a one party dominance.

This is what the Dems have sunk to. And may our lord Zoroaster truly save America should these watermelons ever win absolute power.

https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/democrats-vs-people-lloyd-billingsley

 

[ZiprHead]

You mean the guy that got three million fewer votes than Clinton?

You are aware that the Trump is in the White House and not Killery? And that the US has a democratic system to elect the President in place, and that it's called " the college" vote? Of course, that's not democratic to the watermelons because their candidate lost!"

The electoral college today is nothing like what the founders envisioned. The vision was that college members would be learned individuals who would vote their conscience without outside influence and would choose a worthy and ethical individual to assure that unqualified conmen could not attain the office of the presidency. It had nothing to do with big states vs. little states. Rules and laws have since been applied to the college that it's purpose has been so bastardized it gave us the conman presently in office.

And as has been explained to you before, states don't vote.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean the guy that got three million fewer votes than Clinton?

Let's take a note of a couple of things here that are typical of a "discussion" with a conservobot.

1) They never actually admit when they're wrong, even when they're blatantly wrong and shown with simple, incontrovertible facts.
2) They change the subject when (1) happens.
3) They play fast and loose with the 'statistics'. In this case, citing the total population of the US to downplay the numbers (and pretend they weren't just shown to be wrong, again). When a more honest take would be to cite the voting populace, and not the total population.
4) They continue to ignore the fact that the shitheel in the WH actually lost that precious popular vote.

Unfortunately for you and your cohorts, [ in this instance] there's a Presidential election system in place that stops the bigger and much more populated states from bullying the smaller states and to stop the US from the tyranny of a one party dominance.

The point of the electoral college was to protect the nation from a Trump like candidate being elected because they didn't completely trust the will of the people. The Senate exists to protect small states from the large ones, population wise. But feel free to continue whatever ignorance you feel necessary.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Unfortunately for you and your cohorts, [ in this instance] there's a Presidential election system in place that stops the bigger and much more populated states from bullying the smaller states and to stop the US from the tyranny of a one party dominance.

The point of the electoral college was to protect the nation from a Trump like candidate being elected because they didn't completely trust the will of the people. The Senate exists to protect small states from the large ones, population wise. But feel free to continue whatever ignorance you feel necessary.

Again, with the ahistorical BS from angelo.

Why is it that a smaller state having more influence is more democratic than a state with a large population?

Please explain, in your own words, what makes this a more democratic arrangement.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unfortunately for you and your cohorts, [ in this instance] there's a Presidential election system in place that stops the bigger and much more populated states from bullying the smaller states and to stop the US from the tyranny of a one party dominance.

The point of the electoral college was to protect the nation from a Trump like candidate being elected because they didn't completely trust the will of the people. The Senate exists to protect small states from the large ones, population wise. But feel free to continue whatever ignorance you feel necessary.

Again, with the ahistorical BS from angelo.

Why is it that a smaller state having more influence is more democratic than a state with a large population?

Please explain, in your own words, what makes this a more democratic arrangement.

You asking me? This was a Constitutional Convention issue. The smaller states didn't want Virginia running the country based on issues that affected Virginia. The colonies were united, eventually, against the British, but they still wanted their own autonomy. When the Articles of Confederation officially went feet up after Shay's Rebellion, there was a known need for a centralized government having more authority. But who controlled that was important.

Regarding how we elect Presidents, going popular vote would hardly be controversial. Yes, Trump won more territory, but when you look at where people live, it tightens up quickly. It is rare that the popular winner doesn't win the Electoral College. And oddly enough, after Tilden v Hayes or Cleveland v Harrison, you'd have thought they'd get rid of the electoral college, as the democratic experiment had worked. But they didn't and now the Republicans have lost the popular vote all but one time since 1988, yet have held the White House three times.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Given the election of 2016 and how that went down, why have we seen no popular movement to do away with or change the electoral college system? I rarely see this proposed or reported on even on the most left wing media.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Given the election of 2016 and how that went down, why have we seen no popular movement to do away with or change the electoral college system? I rarely see this proposed or reported on even on the most left wing media.

1) Amending the Constitution is harder than squeezing an egg through the eye of a needle.

2)

...the Republicans have lost the popular vote all but one time since 1988, yet have held the White House three times.

...so one party certainly doesn't want it to go away.

 

[ZiprHead]

Again, with the ahistorical BS from angelo.

Why is it that a smaller state having more influence is more democratic than a state with a large population?

Please explain, in your own words, what makes this a more democratic arrangement.

You asking me? This was a Constitutional Convention issue. The smaller states didn't want Virginia running the country based on issues that affected Virginia. The colonies were united, eventually, against the British, but they still wanted their own autonomy. When the Articles of Confederation officially went feet up after Shay's Rebellion, there was a known need for a centralized government having more authority. But who controlled that was important.

Regarding how we elect Presidents, going popular vote would hardly be controversial. Yes, Trump won more territory, but when you look at where people live, it tightens up quickly. It is rare that the popular winner doesn't win the Electoral College. And oddly enough, after Tilden v Hayes or Cleveland v Harrison, you'd have thought they'd get rid of the electoral college, as the democratic experiment had worked. But they didn't and now the Republicans have lost the popular vote all but one time since 1988, yet have held the White House three times.

Land mass vs. population.

 

[lpetrich]

Given the election of 2016 and how that went down, why have we seen no popular movement to do away with or change the electoral college system? I rarely see this proposed or reported on even on the most left wing media.

I agree that Americans sometimes seem remarkably passive by other nations' standards.

National Popular Vote - that is a workaround: if enough states agree, they will award their electoral-college votes to the popular-vote winner.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Given the election of 2016 and how that went down, why have we seen no popular movement to do away with or change the electoral college system? I rarely see this proposed or reported on even on the most left wing media.

I agree that Americans sometimes seem remarkably passive by other nations' standards.

National Popular Vote - that is a workaround: if enough states agree, they will award their electoral-college votes to the popular-vote winner.

Except there is no legal repercussion if someone breaks that pact. So the NPV is dubious at best, even if enough votes sign on.