Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

I like it.

Its actually 2 separate anti-Trump factions within one party.

Nice job, Times.

'separate'

97% match with Warren
93% match with Klobuchar

Even Joe came in at 92%. Bloomberg''s at 81%.

[kiidcarter8]

Of course they match

Its anti-Trump

Bloomberg has a "no, not him" response from many.  Biu most would take any Democrat - even "any guy off 5th Avenue", according to one talking head actually getting paid

heh

[kiidcarter8]

An interesting question to Democrats would be, "if I told you Republicans would win the presidential in 2020 but it wouldnt be Trump, who would you want it to be?"

[josh]

Of course they match

Its anti-Trump

You have to stop.

It's not "anti-Trump." There are policies that each candidate supports that are independent of Trump's existence - or, perhaps, more to the point, Trump is anti-Obama.

That you cannot be bothered to look at the policies of the Democratic Party's candidates for the presidency only means that you are ignorant (or continuing to troll).

That you cannot be bothered to look at the differences among the candidates doesn't mean there aren't any, even if there are few.

The questions are insufficiently nuanced to capture the gaps in how they feel about climate change action beyond nuclear power. The gradations on how to handle pre-k education are lost on the questionaires. Pro-choice vs. pro-life is way too broad. Etc.

But Klobuchar is not especially moderate as the Democratic Party goes, even if she is hardly far left by any other standard. I'm to the left of any of the candidates, including those who have dropped out.

[josh]

An interesting question to Democrats would be, "if I told you Republicans would win the presidential in 2020 but it wouldnt be Trump, who would you want it to be?"

Not that interesting. Of those declared, I would take Weld in a heartbeat.

I align with Kasich at 28% and Romney at 24%. Ron Paul and Mark Sanford are at 20%. Weld wasn't on their list for some reason, but I am pretty comfortable with my position.

[Hairy Lime]

  WASHINGTON (AP) — The New York Times has endorsed not one but two candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar from the party’s moderate wing and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren from the progressive wing.

The paper said Sunday it had chosen the two most effective candidates from the moderate and progressive sides of the party — without stating a preference for either approach. It praised Warren as “a gifted story teller” and Klobuchar as “the very definition” of Midwestern charisma and grit.   

https://apnews.com/c96d7fbf44fda339af5b4dd545eabed6

People finally catching up with Klobucharisma!

[kiidcarter8]

Not that interesting. Of those declared, I would take Weld in a heartbeat.


No shit

Not really what I was after

Who did you favor in 2016 primary?

[facilitatorn]

The 2016 GOP field was entirely populated by kooks, crooks, and slimy grifters.

Warren would make a fine 2020 GOP nominee if the party could find its moral compass and return to its roots. Weld would be a good choice if they only wanted to fake it.

[facilitatorn]

http://apnews.com/d62eab2291688a96acc7a3bb48a3eec2

Trump staffing decisions are remarkably consistent.

[barton]

  WASHINGTON (AP) — The New York Times has endorsed not one but two candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar from the party’s moderate wing and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren from the progressive wing.

The paper said Sunday it had chosen the two most effective candidates from the moderate and progressive sides of the party — without stating a preference for either approach. It praised Warren as “a gifted story teller” and Klobuchar as “the very definition” of Midwestern charisma and grit.   

https://apnews.com/c96d7fbf44fda339af5b4dd545eabed6

People finally catching up with Klobucharisma!

Indeed!  Though my spouse,  who likes Amy too,  has put me on notice that I need to dial back the puns.   She was not impressed by "swing high,  sweet Klobu-chariot..." 

[barton]

Not that interesting. Of those declared, I would take Weld in a heartbeat.


No shit

Not really what I was after

Who did you favor in 2016 primary?

Kasich was the least odious.   And he didn't endorse Trump later,  which most of the rest of them did.   

I've heard Marco Rubio was the most caring.   

[josh]

Not that interesting. Of those declared, I would take Weld in a heartbeat.


No shit

Not really what I was after

Who did you favor in 2016 primary?

It was what you asked.

Of the 2016 "selection" of candidates, I would likely have supported Kasich or Christie, if there were no other options but the GOP slate.

[LarryBnDC]

An interesting question to Democrats would be, "if I told you Republicans would win the presidential in 2020 but it wouldnt be Trump, who would you want it to be?"

No.

See you at the polls.

BTW- If the choice was between Trump and.a potted plant I’m going with the plant.

[josh]

(CNN)About half of Americans say the Senate should vote to convict President Donald Trump and remove him from office in the upcoming impeachment trial (51%), according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, while 45% say the Senate should vote against conviction and removal.

Nearly seven in 10 (69%) say that upcoming trial should feature testimony from new witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment inquiry. And as Democrats in the Senate seek to persuade at least four Republican senators to join them on votes over allowing witnesses in the trial, the Republican rank and file are divided on the question: 48% say they want new witnesses, while 44% say they do not.

That last bit might be enough to push a few GOP senators over the hump and into voting to have witnesses.

[josh]