Who will the Democratic nominee be?

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. interesting article ;thanks for posting that @DieChecker

One thought though: the CNN article stated that Bernie's plans would  "...would increase government spending as a share of the economy far more than the New Deal under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson...."

Well... perhaps.. but.. where either of those BAD things ? 

Depends on if those Presidents were able to pay for that spending (they did). Bernie says he'll spend, but has little idea where the money is to come from.

"Tax the Rich!", only goes so far. Especially if the rich move to a more tax friendly nation (in comparison to Bernie America), like France.

[Space Commander Travis]

5 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I am genuinely amazed on the stubbornness of all these candidates. How more people have not dropped out yet is crazy to me. 

Does Warren, Pete, Gabbard, Klobuchar, and Steyer honestly see a path to victory 

To be quite honest I didn't know that Katyusha, Kobuchka, whatever her name is, was in it. 

[Uncle Sam]

In a surprising change in the polls, a new front runner has imerged!

Edited February 25, 2020 by Uncle Sam

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I am genuinely amazed on the stubbornness of all these candidates. How more people have not dropped out yet is crazy to me. 

Does Warren, Pete, Gabbard, Klobuchar, and Steyer honestly see a path to victory 

I dont know. I thought half would drop after Vermont.

Steyer obviously has zero chance. Gabbard also.

Warren, Pete, and Klobucher, are all probably jockeying for high numbers so they can get a Cabinet job, or other top position.

[spartan max2]

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I dont know. I thought half would drop after Vermont.

Steyer obviously has zero chance. Gabbard also.

Warren, Pete, and Klobucher, are all probably jockeying for high numbers so they can get a Cabinet job, or other top position.

It's interesting to me, because these people not dropping out (other then Warren) is how Bernie wins.

[+OverSword]

I accidentally watched a few minutes of the debate. Looked like Biden was on top and Bernie was discovering talking up about Cuba is a mistake if you’re running for president.

[spartan max2]

9 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I accidentally watched a few minutes of the debate. Looked like Biden was on top and Bernie was discovering talking up about Cuba is a mistake if you’re running for president.

I only watched towards the end. But it looks like the strategist must have told Biden to start being more aggressive and forceful.

[+OverSword]

21 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I only watched towards the end. But it looks like the strategist must have told Biden to start being more aggressive and forceful.

Yeah. Reminded me a bit of trump 

[spartan max2]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yeah. Reminded me a bit of trump 

Another thing I noticed is the Bloomberg dosen't really seem like a strong debater.

I've never seen him debate tell this one. But it wasn't too impressive. 

[acidhead]

51 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I accidentally watched a few minutes of the debate. Looked like Biden was on top and Bernie was discovering talking up about Cuba is a mistake if you’re running for president.

I watched the whole thing...as usual.  Bernie was indeed pinned throughout on the Cuba comment.  His excuse was Obama said similar thing while they both denounced it's governments. 

On aside note, Bernie's twitter just posted this new sticker in return for a donation.

LOL 

 https://secure.actblue.com/donate/bernie-fight-for-me-sticker?refcode=tw192025

[acidhead]

 

[acidhead]

 

[Vorg]

18 minutes ago, acidhead said:

 

I actually played the video to see what he said. Geez. That's 31,612 killed per day in America. I had no idea 

[+DieChecker]

11 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

It's interesting to me, because these people not dropping out (other then Warren) is how Bernie wins.

I saw an article where all the Moderates agreed that all but one o ggv them should quit so they can combine their followers, so one of them can win over Bernie. And then none of them quit.

[+DieChecker]

25 minutes ago, acidhead said:

 

Well, he got close. The number is supposed to be 1.5 million  over 50 years, not 13 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

So a hundredth as many, over four times as long a time span.

Doubtless the "fact checkers" just didnt catch that. If it's not Trump the fact checkers arent trying to do real time checking apparently.

And... about 60% of those deaths were suicide, where theres no proof they wouldn't have just killed themselves some other way.

[Space Commander Travis]

Meanwhile, the recommended strategy for the Demcorats will come as no surprise at all to anyone who can see what the Party is really like: 

Jesse Watters said on "The Five" Tuesday that the key to defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2020 presidential race is not to attack his throngs of supporters but instead to deconstruct his entire socialist platform and his personal background.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jesse-watters-bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-fool

So vicious personal attacks then. *big green tick* 

"That's dumb politics and dumb policy," he said, adding that Sanders has a history of being a "weirdo" who created "erotic writings" decades ago and was once reportedly kicked out of a "hippie commune."

I mean, holy ****, don't these idiots understand that that surely'd be a selling point for anyone?

[Space Commander Travis]

This is perhaps the best bit: Watters said Sanders' Democratic rivals should find it easy to cast the 78-year-old as "anti-Hillary" and "anti-Obama"

No, really? "Anti-Hillary"? I think many people, including very many Democrats, would see that as a positive selling point.

who is running on a platform that takes away every American's preferred health care coverage.

Does he mean having to buy compulsory insurance? That's every American's preferred system?  

[bee]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Well, he got close. The number is supposed to be 1.5 million  over 50 years, not 13 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

So a hundredth as many, over four times as long a time span.

Doubtless the "fact checkers" just didnt catch that. If it's not Trump the fact checkers arent trying to do real time checking apparently.

And... about 60% of those deaths were suicide, where theres no proof they wouldn't have just killed themselves some other way.

 

what's a decimal point and a few naughts between friends enemies....

Biden is a joke and obviously invisible where Fact Checkers are concerned...

The Democrat Elite must have bruises from all the Face Palms... 

 

 

[bee]

44 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

"That's dumb politics and dumb policy," he said, adding that Sanders has a history of being a "weirdo" who created "erotic writings" decades ago and was once reportedly kicked out of a "hippie commune."

I mean, holy ****, don't these idiots understand that that surely'd be a selling point for anyone?

 

TOO MUCH INFORMATION.....!!!!!!

 

 

[bee]

4 hours ago, acidhead said:

 

 

More Face Palms from the Democrat Elite... like.... OMG Mike SHUT UP..
(unless they want this to be a reason to be grateful to him and vote for him..)

Bloomberg seems to be telling the Democrat Voters... "You owe me..."

ie... it's down to me Trump lost control of the House... now it payback time... vote for me to be President.. 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by bee

[ExpandMyMind]

On 2/23/2020 at 7:48 AM, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

And besides, in foreign policy, the only thing that's any concern to me, he seems no different at all to all of the others. 

Sanders has been outspoken against US foreign policy throughout his entire political career.

The first Gulf War:

The Iraq war:

Last night:

And unrelated, but also backing up his entire political philosophy, Sanders arrested for protesting segregation:

I have no idea why those links aren't embedding, but I'm genuinely surprised that you didn't know this. Going by your entire posting history on here, you should be Sanders' biggest fan.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Saru
Fixed links - if the embedding doesn't work, try recopying the link and pasting it in fresh.

[ExpandMyMind]

On 2/24/2020 at 3:37 AM, DieChecker said:

So those 20 oil companies combined produce just a bit more then China does. 

Yes, per capita, but they have 10 times the number of citizens. A QUARTER (28% actually) of CO2 comes from Chinese industries, with little regulation, and 10% industrial growth year over year, and you ask why I bring them up?

So if a tremendous portion of the world's pollution comes from one nation, if they happen to have super overcrowding, it's all good?

The Paris Accords said that China should reduce output of CO2 by 60%. That was like 4 years ago, has it happened? Have they reduced at all?

This is my point though. Per capita should be looked at more importantly than straight output. If you have a tiny country of 1 million that puts out as much Co2 as, say, Canada, are you going to say, 'Well, they're not too bad since Canada's total output isn't the biggest in the world'?

Per capita is by far the most important way to look at this, and China is fairly low and getting lower because they're actually investing in renewable energy in a massive way. And they're not overcrowded at all. They are ranked 60th on the list of most densely populated. Just because they are a large country rather than a bloc like the EU doesn't mean they're somehow disproportionately contributing to Co2 emissions.

And, yes, they are well on the way to meeting those Paris Accords recommendations:

Quote

Reductions of 15% to 40% in output across key industries have been recorded.

https://www.smart-energy.com/industry-sectors/energy-grid-management/corona-covid-19-heavily-reduces-chinas-carbon-footprint/

[acidhead]

Go Bernie 

 

[spartan max2]

@Farmer77 @ExpandMyMind

I forget which one of you was trying to bet me that Sanders would get the nomination.

I'm glad I didn't make the bet though, he definitely seems to be headed that way. 

Unless there are a significant amount of candidates dropped out before super Tuesday.

[+DieChecker]

40 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

This is my point though. Per capita should be looked at more importantly than straight output. If you have a tiny country of 1 million that puts out as much Co2 as, say, Canada, are you going to say, 'Well, they're not too bad since Canada's total output isn't the biggest in the world'?

Per capita is by far the most important way to look at this, and China is fairly low and getting lower because they're actually investing in renewable energy in a massive way. And they're not overcrowded at all. They are ranked 60th on the list of most densely populated. Just because they are a large country rather than a bloc like the EU doesn't mean they're somehow disproportionately contributing to Co2 emissions.

And, yes, they are well on the way to meeting those Paris Accords recommendations:

https://www.smart-energy.com/industry-sectors/energy-grid-management/corona-covid-19-heavily-reduces-chinas-carbon-footprint/

So the fact the government of China has 25% of all CO2 coming out of their nation doesnt concern you?

As to a small nation of big polluters. I'm indeed not worried about them. I'm worried of worldwide output. Because we're talking about the world.

You seem to have forgotten the context in your quote. Maybe you thought I'd not read it?

From your link...

Quote

Reductions of 15% to 40% in output across key industries have been recorded.

In China alone, COVID-19 is estimated to have cut carbon emissions by 400 million tonnes, which is said to be the same amount of carbon emitted by the country in the first two weeks after its lunar year in 2019.

Reductions mainly due to the Corona Virus!!! Not due mainly to cutting back. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by DieChecker