Democrat Debates

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Biden's the likely democratic nominee and, therefore, your next President.

 

Embrace it.

 

No, you should read closer and understand your own narrative better.

 

Before you were "Biden has a zero chance"

 

Now you're explaining his chance.

 

So which is it?

 

Zero chance?

 

He has a chance?

 

You're inching there at a snail's pace, but I think you'll get there eventually

 

The zero chance was always to the general election. That's a guarantee. He can't win the general.

 

He has a slightly above -- though quickly reaching -- zero chance to win the nomination. He won't win NH. He won't win Iowa. That only leaves SC, and unless 44 gives him some help in SC, he'll likely lose there too. 

 

Joe's done. And it's really obvious if you look at it objectively. The party is driven by the progressive wing who sees Joe's 50+ year experience in the system as a negative, not a positive. He's the wrong color, he's the wrong gender, he's the wrong sexuality to appeal to the progressive voices whom are driving the party during the primary. That's not opinion, that's fact. They won't come out for Joe in a general, even against Trump. Thus, he has zero shot to win. 

 

But then again, no one on that stage does. 

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, snafu said:

 

You thought the part when he was asked about deportations when he was VP went over well?

The part where he said "Obama was President, I was VP" and then a few minutes later yelled into the microphone -- after it set in that he made himself look a bit foolish -- that he stood by everything Obama did for all 8 years?  That was good?

 

 

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The zero chance was always to the general election. That's a guarantee. He can't win the general.

 

He has a slightly above -- though quickly reaching -- zero chance to win the nomination. He won't win NH. He won't win Iowa. That only leaves SC, and unless 44 gives him some help in SC, he'll likely lose there too. 

 

Joe's done. And it's really obvious if you look at it objectively. The party is driven by the progressive wing who sees Joe's 50+ year experience in the system as a negative, not a positive. He's the wrong color, he's the wrong gender, he's the wrong sexuality to appeal to the progressive voices whom are driving the party during the primary. That's not opinion, that's fact. They won't come out for Joe in a general, even against Trump. Thus, he has zero shot to win. 

 

But then again, no one on that stage does. 

 

What a bunch of hilarious bulls$h1t.

 

You were CONSTANTLY pushing that he had zero chance to win the nomination, and now you're starting a slow walk back.  I'll give you that you're trying to be subtle with your slow walk so as not to be called just plain dead wrong if/when he wins the nomination, which looks only more likely after last night.

 

What on earth are you going to say if/when Trump loses the general election?

 

Bro, I like you, but for as much as you accuse others of having their heads in the sand I think you'd better pull yours out before the tide rises.

[Chef Jim]

16 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Biden's the likely democratic nominee and, therefore, your next President.

 

Embrace it.

 

No, you should read closer and understand your own narrative better.

 

Before you were "Biden has a zero chance"

 

Now you're explaining his chance.

 

So which is it?

 

Zero chance?

 

He has a chance?

 

You're inching there at a snail's pace, but I think you'll get there eventually

 

Zero chance in the general. Try to follow along. 

[jrober38]

28 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You should read closer. He's going to lose 2 out of 3 of the first primaries for sure. The third will be in doubt by then as well. 

 

Joe's done. 

 

I don't think Biden is the best candidate, but losing 2 of 3 doesn't matter. 

 

He could easily walk away from those 3 races with the most delegates, even if he doesn't get the most votes in 2 of them. 

13 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Zero chance in the general. Try to follow along. 

 

"Zero chance" despite leading Trump by 8-15 points in pretty much every poll. 

[snafu]

46 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Biden's the likely democratic nominee and, therefore, your next President.

 

Embrace it.

 

Time will tell. I don’t think you will be correct, but time will tell.

If he’s our President, so be it.  I won’t spend his entire term praying for ways to get him out of office, like so many do with the current President. 

40 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

What do those clips have to do with the questions I asked?

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

27 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I don't think Biden is the best candidate, but losing 2 of 3 doesn't matter. 

 

He could easily walk away from those 3 races with the most delegates, even if he doesn't get the most votes in 2 of them. 

 

Only if he shows in SC. Which he won't do without help from 44. 

40 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

What a bunch of hilarious bulls$h1t.

 

You were CONSTANTLY pushing that he had zero chance to win the nomination, and now you're starting a slow walk back.

 

It's not a walk back. Zero shot to win was specifically about the general. Over the course of conversations that line has blurred, sure, but that's always been my original position. In the end it's irrelevant, because he has zero chance to beat Trump (none of them can). 

 

41 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

What on earth are you going to say if/when Trump loses the general election?

 

Bro, I like you, but for as much as you accuse others of having their heads in the sand I think you'd better pull yours out before the tide rises.

 

My head was pulled out of the sand in 2016. You're still trying to catch up -- and you can -- if you let go of the partisanship and look at things objectively.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

My understanding is:

1. The idea is the extra $1k allows people to pursue careers they are passionate about, even if they traditionally pay less or the pay is volatile. $1k on its own is way below poverty. Not exactly enabling people to not work at all. So, back to the question, I don't think it creates jobs overall, but it makes some careers more viable.

2. Maybe more people could afford to go to the gym, or even a personal trainer, with the extra income. Maybe a family gets stronger because they can finally afford a vacation.

3. Assuming his stance hasn't changed, part of the deal is that to qualify for the $1k you cannot be subsidized under any other government programs. So it could, in theory, get some people to stop gaming the system for disability, unemployment, etc. Which would also cover part of it's cost.

 

Lord knows if it'll work in practice, but I can understand the sentiment and appreciate the stuff in point 3. He commented specifically about how this was free and clear and the impact that can have mentally vs being on disability and potentially even dreading getting better because you'd lose disability. So then you almost want to be disabled, if that makes sense. 

To stop people from gaming the system, you would have to shoot them right after you gave them the $1000 and take it back. See comments like "you would almost want to be disabled, if that makes sense.".  

 

The pitch is based on the theory that if enough people think a vote for Randy Andy is a vote for $12,000, maybe enough people want the $12k that Randy Andy carries the day. And heck if they can pull off "disabled" it's like Christmas every day. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

“Zero chance" despite leading Trump by 8-15 points in pretty much every poll. 

 

Absolutely. Come on man. Polls don’t me crap.  Joe is losing his marbles and at his age that ***** doesn’t improve over time. Just the opposite of course 

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The zero chance was always to the general election. That's a guarantee. He can't win the general.

 

He has a slightly above -- though quickly reaching -- zero chance to win the nomination. He won't win NH. He won't win Iowa. That only leaves SC, and unless 44 gives him some help in SC, he'll likely lose there too. 

 

Joe's done. And it's really obvious if you look at it objectively. The party is driven by the progressive wing who sees Joe's 50+ year experience in the system as a negative, not a positive. He's the wrong color, he's the wrong gender, he's the wrong sexuality to appeal to the progressive voices whom are driving the party during the primary. That's not opinion, that's fact. They won't come out for Joe in a general, even against Trump. Thus, he has zero shot to win. 

 

But then again, no one on that stage does. 

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Zero chance in the general. Try to follow along. 

2 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Time will tell. I don’t think you will be correct, but time will tell.

If he’s our President, so be it.  I won’t spend his entire term praying for ways to get him out of office, like so many do with the current President. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

50 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Try to rebut anything I laid out, or explain why you think the progressive wing of the party will ever get behind a 70+ year old white man who has been in office longer than most of them have been alive. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that.

 

These are the same people who thought Hillary Clinton was too conservative and tainted by her experience in the system. Joe's got Hillary beat in spades on the amount of time in public office, let alone the federal system. Why would they ever get behind him?

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Try to rebut anything I laid out, or explain why you think the progressive wing of the party will ever get behind a 70+ year old white man who has been in office longer than most of them have been alive. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that.

 

These are the same people who thought Hillary Clinton was too conservative and tainted by her experience in the system. Joe's got Hillary beat in spades on the amount of time in public office, let alone the federal system. Why would they ever get behind him?

 

Try?

 

Try to rebut anything you said???

 

You rebut yourself in your ridiculous presumption that the extremists control the Democratic party.

 

Do you notice your 2nd paragraph?

 

Notice who you mention?

 

Yet, who was the Democratic nominee in 2016?

 

Now, this is not surprising considering what we've seen happen to the Republicans, but the winner of the Democratic nomination is almost certainty one of the left of center nominees, not Bernie or Warren.

Edited September 14, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[Deranged Rhino]

In other words... you can't. 

 

Without the progressive turnout, no one on the left can win the general. 

(which is the point)

 

Joe doesn't drive that excitement. He's incapable of it.

[Doc Brown]

57 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

In other words... you can't. 

 

Without the progressive turnout, no one on the left can win the general. 

(which is the point)

 

Joe doesn't drive that excitement. He's incapable of it.

All he has to do is be slightly more likable than Hillary as the thought of another Trump four years alone will increase turnout as many people stayed home assuming Hillary would win.  If the election was held today between Biden and Trump it would be a coin flip.

[Kevbeau]

The publicized polls don’t mean *****. They can’t accurately quantify bias in their margin of error at this point. Analytic models like measured consistency and/fluctuations that they can assign value to. They’re probably trying to attempt to normalize the 2016 results as it would introduce a shitstorm of noise.

[BuffaloHokie13]

9 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

To stop people from gaming the system, you would have to shoot them right after you gave them the $1000 and take it back. See comments like "you would almost want to be disabled, if that makes sense.".  

 

The pitch is based on the theory that if enough people think a vote for Randy Andy is a vote for $12,000, maybe enough people want the $12k that Randy Andy carries the day. And heck if they can pull off "disabled" it's like Christmas every day. 

You don't have to pull of "disabled" for the 'freedom dividend' and you can't be on disability and also collect the $1k. That's the point.

 

Worth watching the whole thing here, as Ben pushes back on his points, but I've got it queued up to the relevant part if that's more helpful.

 

[RochesterRob]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

All he has to do is be slightly more likable than Hillary as the thought of another Trump four years alone will increase turnout as many people stayed home assuming Hillary would win.  If the election was held today between Biden and Trump it would be a coin flip.

  The 2020 election will not be the same as the 2016 election so the dynamics will be different.  The stock market is up and in many areas unemployment is down.  Trump has not started any new wars.  The 2020 Dems nominee will have to talk on how they will trump Trump in those respects.  2016 was the Dems best window for holding the Presidency through 2020 and they let Clinton run roughshod over the party.  Most likely because she had dirt on anybody that mattered.  Bernie's "I don't give a damn about your E-mails" line told any thinking American that the outcome of the nomination process was already predetermined.  These same Americans will have to wonder given Biden's health that the Democratic Party if the finger is once again being placed on the scale in favor of Biden.

[Nanker]

18 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Wait not every household but every adult over the age of 18??  Oh cool Andy couple questions.

 

1.  How will this create millions of jobs?  I'm 18 and you give me $1,000 a month my reply.  ***** finding a job!

2.  What do you mean when you say "make children and families stronger?"  I got stronger over the past few years.  I joined a gym

3.  The helping people transition is the only thing that makes any kind of sense.  But my question is why do I have to pay for their transition?  Why why why why why????

 

I'm sick of this handout *****.  

 

 

I hope people realize that their $1,000 per month government handout will be taxed by Federal, State, and where applicable Local Municipalities. Nor should they forget they’ll pay unemployment insurance taxes and FICA, and Medicare taxes.

 

It might also push some seniors over the Medicare Income Rate Adjustment Amount (IRMAA) which is the means testing barometer that is used for Part B and Part D. You earn “too much”, you have to pony up to the man. 

 

The government’s generosity is boundless. 

[SoCal Deek]

You know they’re completely out of ideas when the best they can come up with is ‘OK how about we just give everyone $1,000 per month’!  ?