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

[kiidcarter8]

The 53-34 per cent lead quickly dissipated for Clinton when she and Trump started making speeches.

LOL. Is that what happened?  They started making speeches and everyone realized how great Trump is?  Bet it was that first speech of his where he called Mexican immigrants “rapists” that really sealed the deal for you.

What actually happened was that Trump won the GOP nomination, and conventional Republicans fell in line.  Even then her lead in the polling was up to 8 percent less than a month before the election, before Comey tanked it.

17 months to go, yes.  But time isn’t on Trump’s side.  More days before the election mean more days for a strong economy to turn south, investigations in the House to gain steam, more revelations of his criminality to come out, or Trump’s mouth to truly get him in trouble (isn’t it amazing that the President of the United States publicly sides with the North Korean dictator who has threatened the US with nuclear weapons over the CIA and no one notices?  That shit will get magnified once there is a single opponent behind a lectern who can point to it.)

The “perfect” position for Trump would be the one you and he are pretending he is already in; 51% overall approval.  He isn’t.  Which was my original point.

I remind you that Rasmussen polling in 2016 was wrong - but to the Clinton side.

But not nearly as wrong as the polls you like to cite.

[NeedsAdjustments]

The 53-34 per cent lead quickly dissipated for Clinton when she and Trump started making speeches.

LOL. Is that what happened?  They started making speeches and everyone realized how great Trump is?  Bet it was that first speech of his where he called Mexican immigrants “rapists” that really sealed the deal for you.

What actually happened was that Trump won the GOP nomination, and conventional Republicans fell in line.  Even then her lead in the polling was up to 8 percent less than a month before the election, before Comey tanked it.

17 months to go, yes.  But time isn’t on Trump’s side.  More days before the election mean more days for a strong economy to turn south, investigations in the House to gain steam, more revelations of his criminality to come out, or Trump’s mouth to truly get him in trouble (isn’t it amazing that the President of the United States publicly sides with the North Korean dictator who has threatened the US with nuclear weapons over the CIA and no one notices?  That shit will get magnified once there is a single opponent behind a lectern who can point to it.)

The “perfect” position for Trump would be the one you and he are pretending he is already in; 51% overall approval.  He isn’t.  Which was my original point.

I remind you that Rasmussen polling in 2016 was wrong - but to the Clinton side.

But not nearly as wrong as the polls you like to cite.

A) Wrong, polling I like to cite overestimated Clinton's performance nationally by all of one point, and B)  I could remind you that Rasmussen polling had Republicans holding on to the House in 2018.  But that response like yours above would be equally irrelevant to my point.

[kiidcarter8]

You guys had better find somebody.  78?  And to be 86 end of second term?  Come on.

Drama.

Trump is only three years younger and is already exhibiting clear signs of dementia.

Not saying Biden's age would not be an issue.  But Trump in no position to highlight it.

The President was 70 when elected.  Biden will be weeks shy of 78.

If you want to call for Joe presiding only til he is 82, I will listen.  Still a bit shaky.

[kiidcarter8]

I really dont think any of you are behind Biden so point is moot here.  I think you will be working to present another candidate

[facilitatorn]

I like candidates who contrast more starkly with the decomposing shambolic fuck puppet. If it’s Joe that whoops his ass, that’s fine.

It’s not certain that republicans will let trump run.

This will help shit gibbon’s popularity

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-at-least-22-foreign-governments-have-spent-cash-at-presidents-properties?ref=home

Bribery or Emoluments, as you prefer.

[facilitatorn]

Grift and graft is the old GOP. We have to stop the monsters from selling off the future.

http://www.salon.com/2019/06/12/mitch-mcconnell-and-elaine-chaos-empire-of-corruption-is-this-what-normal-looks-like-joe-biden/

[Yankguy1]

I really dont think any of you are behind Biden so point is moot here.  I think you will be working to present another candidate

I'm "behind" anybody who can beat Trump.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I really dont think any of you are behind Biden so point is moot here.  I think you will be working to present another candidate

I'm "behind" anybody who can beat Trump.

While I wouldn’t endorse it as the message for any one candidate (see Warren slowly moving up the polling on the basis of strong policy proposals) you cant deny that this will be THE dynamic of 2020, and why a relative little known candidate with zero cable presence like Corey Booker can beat Trump by five points in a national head-to-head poll right now.

[Yankguy1]

I really dont think any of you are behind Biden so point is moot here.  I think you will be working to present another candidate

I'm "behind" anybody who can beat Trump.

While I wouldn’t endorse it as the message for any one candidate (see Warren slowly moving up the polling on the basis of strong policy proposals) you cant deny that this will be THE dynamic of 2020, and why a relative little known candidate with zero cable presence like Corey Booker can beat Trump by five points in a national head-to-head poll right now.

Yep.  And if I can add another cliché to the mix, Democrats can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or even the "okay") in the general election.   I thought HRC was a mediocre candidate (not because I disagreed with her policies, but because she has never been good at defining herself),  and while that didn't stop me for voting for her, I believe, unfortunately, that the perceived mediocrity stopped a goodly amount of people from doing the same.. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

I really dont think any of you are behind Biden so point is moot here.  I think you will be working to present another candidate

I'm "behind" anybody who can beat Trump.

While I wouldn’t endorse it as the message for any one candidate (see Warren slowly moving up the polling on the basis of strong policy proposals) you cant deny that this will be THE dynamic of 2020, and why a relative little known candidate with zero cable presence like Corey Booker can beat Trump by five points in a national head-to-head poll right now.

Yep.  And if I can add another cliché to the mix, Democrats can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or even the "okay") in the general election.   I thought HRC was a mediocre candidate (not because I disagreed with her policies, but because she has never been good at defining herself),  and while that didn't stop me for voting for her, I believe, unfortunately, that the perceived mediocrity stopped a goodly amount of people from doing the same..

Clinton was, as we’ve said before, a perfect candidate for President who was terrible at being a candidate for President.  Everything she told America about Trump was true, that he was dangerously unqualified, ignorant and incurious about policy, and inappropriately beholden to Russian interests.  But she lacked the fire and inspiration to get people to listen.  Now Americans have had two and a half years of a Trump Administration and that message has gotten through.  Which is another reason why kiidcarter8’s argument of “look at how much ground Trump made up in 2016” doesn’t hold up.  The con job Trump implemented can’t work four years later because Americans know now who he is, what kind of President he would be.  If the Rasmussen polling was right, this wouldn’t be a big problem for him going in to 2020.

It isn’t.

[whiskeypriest]

I really dont think any of you are behind Biden so point is moot here.  I think you will be working to present another candidate

I'm "behind" anybody who can beat Trump.

While I wouldn’t endorse it as the message for any one candidate (see Warren slowly moving up the polling on the basis of strong policy proposals) you cant deny that this will be THE dynamic of 2020, and why a relative little known candidate with zero cable presence like Corey Booker can beat Trump by five points in a national head-to-head poll right now.

Yep.  And if I can add another cliché to the mix, Democrats can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or even the "okay") in the general election.   I thought HRC was a mediocre candidate (not because I disagreed with her policies, but because she has never been good at defining herself),  and while that didn't stop me for voting for her, I believe, unfortunately, that the perceived mediocrity stopped a goodly amount of people from doing the same..

Clinton was, as we’ve said before, a perfect candidate for President who was terrible at being a candidate for President.  Everything she told America about Trump was true, that he was dangerously unqualified, ignorant and incurious about policy, and inappropriately beholden to Russian interests.  But she lacked the fire and inspiration to get people to listen.  Now Americans have had two and a half years of a Trump Administration and that message has gotten through.  Which is another reason why kiidcarter8’s argument of “look at how much ground Trump made up in 2016” doesn’t hold up.  The con job Trump implemented can’t work four years later because Americans know now who he is, what kind of President he would be.  If the Rasmussen polling was right, this wouldn’t be a big problem for him going in to 2020.

It isn’t.

I do not think kid appreciates the dynamic of his data. It is one thing for the fox to chase down the hound. Trump is the hound: all of the factors that helped him gain on Clinton from where he was 18 months out work against him now. Most of the factors that worked against Clinton are now his. Everyone knows who he is as president, and a majority do not like him.

18 months is a long time, though. Obligatory anything can happen comment here.

[LarryBnDC]

They had also better hope RON SILVER is available to manage the winning candidate's campaign.

To quote my Aunt Josephine who loved to update us on the actors who were on her TV screen, for instance “Van Johnson? He’s dead!”

[NeedsAdjustments]

I do not think kid appreciates the dynamic of his data.

Anyone who exclusively cites a single polling source because it tells them what they want to hear and gives them something to post on a message board to “own the libs”,and not because of its proven accuracy has already shown that they do not appreciate their data.  He is in his Fox News bubble waving the foam finger for Trump.

18 months is a long time, though. Obligatory anything can happen comment here.

I’m not trying to predict what will happen, and won’t.  Just don’t tell me the fundamentals have Trump in the “perfect” position going in to 2020, or that a 51% approval rating makes total sense with all the other information we have (other polling, the 2018 election, current head-to-heads, reports re: Trump’s own internal polling…) That just isn’t true. 

McConnell is keeping the Russians in the game for a reason.

[LarryBnDC]

All Rasmussen Reports' survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that ensures appropriate geographic representation. Typically, calls are placed from 5 pm to 9 pm local time during the week. Saturday calls are made from 11 am to 6 pm local time and Sunday calls from 1 pm to 9 pm local time.
To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.

Fewer than 40% of households have both landlines and cell phones. Less than 7% have only landlines.

Rasmussen is a consistent outlier.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Playing the Race Card can be costly.
It also can be confusing.

Item one

A Lorain County, Ohio, jury on Friday nuked Oberlin College with an $11 million verdict, finding that the school and its dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, had libeled and harmed local business Gibson’s Bakery over a 2016 incident in which the store had had three shoplifters arrested. The trio, who pled to the charges in 2017, were black Oberlin students who quickly instigated protests — abetted by very willing school officials, acting in their formal roles — claiming Gibson’s was a racist business.
The facts of the story are laid out here https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/10/oberlin-college-gibsons-bakery-libel-million-racist/?utm_term=.8e16819364c5
This week the second phase of the trial, for punitive damages, could add another $20 million to the judgement against Oberlin.
It should be noted that the three students at the heart of the original altercation admitted guilt and declared there was nothing racist in the actions of the store employees.

Item 2


Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said on Tuesday that limiting women’s access to reproductive health care is akin to being racist.

During an interview with The Des Moines Register on Tuesday, the presidential hopeful said it’s simply wrong to “deny women basic human rights” such as access to safe and affordable reproductive health care. Gillibrand likened appointing judges who oppose abortion to supporting judges who hold racist beliefs. 

“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have, as a society, decided that the other side is not acceptable,” Gillibrand said.

“Imagine saying that it’s OK to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic,” she continued. “Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America ... I don’t think those are political issues anymore.”

Gillibrand pointed to the fact that church and state are separated by law in the U.S. And yet, she added, the conservative right is turning religious anti-abortion rhetoric into law. 

How is advocating pro-life for babies racist since the overriding  goal is to let all children live, regardless of the color of their skin?
In New York City in the state where Gillabrand is a Senator 54% of black pregnancies ended in abortions. For all other ethnic groups, including Asians and Hispanics, births exceeded abortions by wide margins. Nationally black women who make up 13% of the female population accounted for 36% of abortions.
Abortion is a tough subject for a number of reasons but Gillabrand does nothing to advance solutions by claiming that those who favor pro-life laws are racist.