Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[AdrienIer]

That's a little too simplistic. In troubled times a message that promises to make things better will usually work (whether those promises are viable or not isn't as important). It probably pushed Trump to victory, and it can't really push a centrist to victory.

[Mardoc]

Trump supporters so angry that they set their Nike sneakers on fire, just because Nike put a high profile protester on an advertising campaign.

Gotta love how they just do not get how boycotting works:


EsJeejDubba-u's are ruining Star Wars. So I'm going to watch it three times and make 5 hours of "video essays" on it. Boycott Star Wars y'all!

Gonna set my property on fire to protest Nike! 

Guys, an actual boycott means you do not buy stuff anymore, not destroy stuff you already had. When we boycotted Apartheid we didn't burn our winecellars and fruitbaskets. We just stopped buying new oranges and South African wine.

Can't wait for Ford to support BLM so we can watch these guys torch their trucks lol.

Eh, it's about as intelligent as the initial protests...it's not like taking a knee for the anthem convinced anyone either.  Just have to remember that 95% of everyone you hear about is looking for an audience, or to have fun, not for an actual effect on the world.  If they wanted to make an actual difference in policing, they'd need to do boring old fashioned local politics, supporting new candidates for boring positions like city councilmen and county supervisors (that is, the people with actual authority over the police), with boring old fashioned methods like talking to a lot of voters and donating money for flyers.  And attending boring city council meetings to learn who to support or oppose, and doing boring research on which police departments are good and bad and why...

And of course it's quite possible that someone is doing those things, but doesn't get on camera for it, so we don't debate their actions.

To win in 2020

the democratic primary

Isn't this just the well-known effect that primary and general election voters aren't looking for the same things?  That's why the moderate wing of the party always talks about 'electability' in primary season.

[AdrienIer]

.

To win in 2020

the democratic primary

Isn't this just the well-known effect that primary and general election voters aren't looking for the same things?  That's why the moderate wing of the party always talks about 'electability' in primary season.

2016 proved that 'electability' doesn't really mean anything in the US

[MJW (ya that one)]

That doesn't count. Anyone else would have won (tipping point state was less than 1%). I think her biggest problem was that the GOP got handed a ten year head start in attacking her (spending excessive money on her Senate race). She had control of the party and only lost nomination in 2008 because her campaign manager messed up the math (he thought she would win far more delegates, he didn't realize you cannot split up a delegate, on super Tuesday so didn't prepare for the following primaries).

[ipecac]

I disagree. The democratic establishment is moving to the left, including most of those considering a 2020 run. Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Warren, Harris and others are supporting progressive legislation to position themselves closer to Sanders.

The more left they move, the more redundant Sanders becomes and the more likely he'll be ejected for being an old fair-skinned man, to be replaced by some more diverse candidate like Harris. Which then splits the party in a different way.

[ipecac]

To win in 2020, the Democrats need to run a black candidate.

People vote for the candidate that feels most like themselves.

This is how the racial divide grows.

[AdrienIer]

Sanders has the advantage of being "the real deal" and of having name recognition everywhere.

I don't know if the issue of former presidents being VP has been raised before, but a Biden/Obama ticket would probably win in a landslide.

[MJW (ya that one)]

"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

[suboptimal]

"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Actually, the interaction of the 12th Amendment and the 22nd Amendment is not considered settled.  A strict reading of these amendments would say that a former two-term president becoming VP is not "elected" to the presidency if that person were to assume office, so the are not disqualified from becoming VP.  A not-so-strict reading would say that the 22nd is disqualifying for all former two-term presidents.  The Clinton 2016 campaign was given a legal opinion that having Bill as the VP candidate would not be constitutional but that's as close as we've gotten to finding out how this works.

[MJW (ya that one)]

"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Actually, the interaction of the 12th Amendment and the 22nd Amendment is not considered settled.  A strict reading of these amendments would say that a former two-term president becoming VP is not "elected" to the presidency if that person were to assume office, so the are not disqualified from becoming VP.  A not-so-strict reading would say that the 22nd is disqualifying for all former two-term presidents.  The Clinton 2016 campaign was given a legal opinion that having Bill as the VP candidate would not be constitutional but that's as close as we've gotten to finding out how this works.

I read a Washington Post article on this topic before I made my post and this attack would not work. By that logic anyone could become VP.