DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
I am happy to have Joe be our nominee. And then beat Trump.
President Xi will be very happy when Joe wins.
sbenois said:
I am happy to have Joe be our nominee. And then beat Trump.
President Xi will be very happy when Joe wins.
Joe can't win Memory Bingo or the presidency.
nan said:
Joe Biden thanks his longfriend timefriend who's a friend and has been a friend in and out of public life.
https://twitter.com/BetaODork/status/1164553547960246272
The Biden Gaff-o-Meter (08/23/2019 edition)
- Can't remember the name of his own website
- Said the last two major mass shootings were in different locations.
- Keeps calling Teresa May, Margaret Thatcher
- "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids"
- "We choose truth over facts!"
- "those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president."
- undocumented immigrants need to "get in line" and we are right to "cherry-pick" the best
- "There's an awful lot of really good Republicans out there."
- "When Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King were assassinated, in the 70s—in the late 70s.”
- "My longfriend timefriend who's a friend and has been a friend in and out of public life."
Joe on his healthcare plan: “We’ll make sure it’s not quality, we’ll make sure it’s only affordable.”
https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1165003819413135360
The Biden Gaff-o-Meter (08/24/2019 edition)
- Can't remember the name of his own website
- Said the last two major mass shootings were in different locations.
- Keeps calling Teresa May, Margaret Thatcher
- "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids"
- "We choose truth over facts!"
- "those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president."
- undocumented immigrants need to "get in line" and we are right to "cherry-pick" the best
- "There's an awful lot of really good Republicans out there."
- "When Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King were assassinated, in the 70s—in the late 70s.”
- "My longfriend timefriend who's a friend and has been a friend in and out of public life."
- “We’ll make sure it’s not quality, we’ll make sure it’s only affordable.”
paulsurovell said:
The "concepts" of Bernie's plan call for all electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2050 and for the transmission of that electricity to be handled by a smart grid.
How does this conflict with "how the business of electricity and transmission is conducted"?
FYI, here's more detail about the viability of these "concepts": http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
Paul has described the goals. Implementation requires the recognition of what the infrastructure is now, and how to transition. As with Bernie's version of M4A, that transition part isn't adequately addressed.
The Stanford.edu piece is a mostly about the benefits projected from the expenditures to transition to renewables only by 2050. There is a vague wave of the hand to undefined "State planning and incentive structures" towards the end, right before the summary, as the only nod to that transition.
For instance: "Lock in in-state fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to retire under enforceable commitments. At the same time, streamline the permit approval process for WWS power generators and high capacity transmission lines." There's no recognition of the cost or the logistics of such a transition (for example, you don't just "turn off" a nuclear plant and then sell it for scrap, as if it was like a factory).
Also: "Work with local and regional governments to manage zoning and permitting issues within existing regional planning efforts or pre-approve sites to reduce the cost and uncertainty of projects and expedite their physical build-out." Again, really vague about a significant cost and logistical component of the transition.
By the way, according to the report we'll ALL be on electric heat by 2050, details to follow.
They do have a chart which assumes a transition, not bothering with such details.
paulsurovell said:
I think he's trying to figure out how to attack Bernie's concepts without looking like a climate-change denier.
Stupid, wrong, and a lame attempt at an insult.
Not that anyone should rely on what I say about my personal experience, but I was involved in the logistics, transition, litigation and implementation of the regulatory and financial structures for the change to the "competitive" electric and gas market (that is, "shop for your energy provider"). That was complicated enough. The complete revamping of the market to get to full replacement of existing sources and uses of energy is going to be multiple times more complex and contentious.
Being realistic is a virtue, not something to scoff at.
sbenois said:
I am happy to have Joe be our nominee. And then beat Trump.
President Xi will be very happy when Joe wins.
I'm not sure.
There is the disadvantage of Trump temporarily slowing the Chinese economy.
But we all know that China's long term goal is to be preeminent. Trump as president accelerates their goal with our loss of influence, alliances. Thereby, a vacuum that China will happily fill.
The Chinese leadership is conflicted.
ps - we should know by the middle/end of next year if China is invested in the re-election of Trump. A trade deal to make Trump look good, a formal peace treaty ending the Korean war, etc.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
I think he's trying to figure out how to attack Bernie's concepts without looking like a climate-change denier.
Stupid, wrong, and a lame attempt at an insult.
Not that anyone should rely on what I say about my personal experience, but I was involved in the logistics, transition, litigation and implementation of the regulatory and financial structures for the change to the "competitive" electric and gas market (that is, "shop for your energy provider"). That was complicated enough. The complete revamping of the market to get to full replacement of existing sources and uses of energy is going to be multiple times more complex and contentious.
Being realistic is a virtue, not something to scoff at.
Agree. Multiple times is an understatement.
Also, we are getting a very conservative judiciary. Forcing companies and industries to change to a large degree may not pass judicial muster.
The senate has been turned into a confirmation factory for conservative judges.
nan said:
Joe on his healthcare plan: “We’ll make sure it’s not quality, we’ll make sure it’s only affordable.”
https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1165003819413135360
The Biden Gaff-o-Meter (08/24/2019 edition)
- Can't remember the name of his own website
- Said the last two major mass shootings were in different locations.
- Keeps calling Teresa May, Margaret Thatcher
- "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids"
- "We choose truth over facts!"
- "those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president."
- undocumented immigrants need to "get in line" and we are right to "cherry-pick" the best
- "There's an awful lot of really good Republicans out there."
- "When Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King were assassinated, in the 70s—in the late 70s.”
- "My longfriend timefriend who's a friend and has been a friend in and out of public life."
- “We’ll make sure it’s not quality, we’ll make sure it’s only affordable.”
Here is why you guys are all wrong abut Biden:
First of all, if any of these gaffes really mattered to American voters in swing states, then Donald Trump would never be President right now. The man cannot read a briefing paper of more than one page unless there are plenty of pictures in it, and he cannot write a Twitter post without typos. I know you want these things to matter, but in today's America they don't. So it's a cute but very inconsequential list.
Second, when elected President, Biden will put a cabinet together with mostly competent people, who he will mostly listen to. And these cabinet members will re-staff their departments with mostly competent people who know what they are doing. So we will have a decent amount of adults in control of economic policy, foreign policy, military policy, and environmental policy goes. It will not all match 100% with your personal political viewpoints, but it will be the opposite of what it is today.
Third, the Constitution will be respected again, and rule of law will be restored to a certain extent. There will still be racism and bigotry in America, because that has been the case since the founding of America (and before), but Biden will not brazenly break the law and simply get away with it. His finances will be transparent, and he will not have semi-secret financial dealings with corrupt regimes.
Fourth, he will step up to Putin and Kim and Xi, and not be their useful idiot.
nan said:
Ok, here's another Michael Tracy election topic for everyone to ponder. In this one, he reveals that someone leaked an insider DNC poll, where the Democratic operatives say who they think will be the nominee. No surprise, they think Warren will win, and Harris is second (I think) and they don't even think Bernie has a chance. Tracy goes over the findings and puts them into a larger historical context and notes that in 2016 average twitter users were more predictive of the winner than the highly paid DNC consultant class. Anyway, this is good news for Warren supporters because they will give her lots of good press (as they do) and minimize her faults.
EDIT: Ok, I meant to say, Warren was first, Biden second and Harris third.
That "poll" is stupid and boring and I agree that all it proves is that those polled don't have any better clue than any of us as to the final outcome.
However I do not understand why you think Warren will get good press from the MSM since you believe they are all in the tank for Biden.
The NY Times had a long article questioning her "electability".
basil said:
Here is why you guys are all wrong abut Biden:
First of all, if any of these gaffes really mattered to American voters in swing states, then Donald Trump would never be President right now. The man cannot read a briefing paper of more than one page unless there are plenty of pictures in it, and he cannot write a Twitter post without typos. I know you want these things to matter, but in today's America they don't. So it's a cute but very inconsequential list.
Second, when elected President, Biden will put a cabinet together with mostly competent people, who he will mostly listen to. And these cabinet members will re-staff their departments with mostly competent people who know what they are doing. So we will have a decent amount of adults in control of economic policy, foreign policy, military policy, and environmental policy goes. It will not all match 100% with your personal political viewpoints, but it will be the opposite of what it is today.
Third, the Constitution will be respected again, and rule of law will be restored to a certain extent. There will still be racism and bigotry in America, because that has been the case since the founding of America (and before), but Biden will not brazenly break the law and simply get away with it. His finances will be transparent, and he will not have semi-secret financial dealings with corrupt regimes.
Fourth, he will step up to Putin and Kim and Xi, and not be their useful idiot.
I don't agree with any of your conclusions about Biden having competent people or getting us back to Democracy or his relations to Putin, etc. He has a horrible platform and he basically does what his corporate donors tell him so wealth inequality would continue and millions would continue to lack healthcare and we would continue to up our military budget for more endless war and regime changes. And his horrible environmental plan would kill us all. Biden's neoliberal policies are why we have Trump in the first place, so even if he beat him (doubtful), we would no doubt have another Trump clone winning in 2024.
But, let's put all that aside and assume you are right --
So, you are basically saying that you can be senile and still be president and that senility should not stop you from voting for someone because other people, who were not elected will be running things and we can trust them?
So the horrendous and wealthy John Delaney, who has been campaigning for two years, and spent $24 million of his own money is finally getting some of the attention he seeks. Eleven people showed up to his last rally, double the number from just months ago.
John Delaney draws 11 people to 2020 event – does he truly think he can win?
Article above. Video below.
No one doubts that Bernie's concept of ending fossil fuel generation of electricity will be "more complex and contentious" than previous reforms. But only a climate-change denier would doubt that failure to adopt Bernie's concept will be catastrophic.nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
I think he's trying to figure out how to attack Bernie's concepts without looking like a climate-change denier.
Stupid, wrong, and a lame attempt at an insult.
Not that anyone should rely on what I say about my personal experience, but I was involved in the logistics, transition, litigation and implementation of the regulatory and financial structures for the change to the "competitive" electric and gas market (that is, "shop for your energy provider"). That was complicated enough. The complete revamping of the market to get to full replacement of existing sources and uses of energy is going to be multiple times more complex and contentious.
Being realistic is a virtue, not something to scoff at.
nan said:
So the horrendous and wealthy John Delaney, who has been campaigning for two years, and spent $24 million of his own money is finally getting some of the attention he seeks. Eleven people showed up to his last rally, double the number from just months ago.
John Delaney draws 11 people to 2020 event – does he truly think he can win?
Article above. Video below.
Bernie is one of the most popular. All the "cool kids" think he's the best. He's a top contender.
John isn't popular at all.
So obviously, the cool kids have to taunt him.
Conclusion: Bernie bros as a group seem to be stuck in the "middle school" stage of emotional development.
But thanks for the video, so next time that "Humanist Report" guy is cited, we can say, "Isn't he that clown who thinks he's the Biff Tannen of politics?"
paulsurovell said:
No one doubts that Bernie's concept of ending fossil fuel generation of electricity will be "more complex and contentious" than previous reforms. But only a climate-change denier would doubt that failure to adopt Bernie's concept will be catastrophic.nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
I think he's trying to figure out how to attack Bernie's concepts without looking like a climate-change denier.
Stupid, wrong, and a lame attempt at an insult.
Not that anyone should rely on what I say about my personal experience, but I was involved in the logistics, transition, litigation and implementation of the regulatory and financial structures for the change to the "competitive" electric and gas market (that is, "shop for your energy provider"). That was complicated enough. The complete revamping of the market to get to full replacement of existing sources and uses of energy is going to be multiple times more complex and contentious.
Being realistic is a virtue, not something to scoff at.
It would help if the purported responses to what I wrote actually read like they were addressing what I wrote.
Otherwise, that's just being childish.
sbenois said:
Idiotic video. Even the folks at the Epoch Times are laughing at it.
It's just a waste of time. Still going after John Delaney like that is a useful as still going after Tulsi Gabbard.
nan said:
basil said:
Here is why you guys are all wrong abut Biden:
First of all, if any of these gaffes really mattered to American voters in swing states, then Donald Trump would never be President right now. The man cannot read a briefing paper of more than one page unless there are plenty of pictures in it, and he cannot write a Twitter post without typos. I know you want these things to matter, but in today's America they don't. So it's a cute but very inconsequential list.
Second, when elected President, Biden will put a cabinet together with mostly competent people, who he will mostly listen to. And these cabinet members will re-staff their departments with mostly competent people who know what they are doing. So we will have a decent amount of adults in control of economic policy, foreign policy, military policy, and environmental policy goes. It will not all match 100% with your personal political viewpoints, but it will be the opposite of what it is today.
Third, the Constitution will be respected again, and rule of law will be restored to a certain extent. There will still be racism and bigotry in America, because that has been the case since the founding of America (and before), but Biden will not brazenly break the law and simply get away with it. His finances will be transparent, and he will not have semi-secret financial dealings with corrupt regimes.
Fourth, he will step up to Putin and Kim and Xi, and not be their useful idiot.
I don't agree with any of your conclusions about Biden having competent people or getting us back to Democracy or his relations to Putin, etc. He has a horrible platform and he basically does what his corporate donors tell him so wealth inequality would continue and millions would continue to lack healthcare and we would continue to up our military budget for more endless war and regime changes. And his horrible environmental plan would kill us all. Biden's neoliberal policies are why we have Trump in the first place, so even if he beat him (doubtful), we would no doubt have another Trump clone winning in 2024.
But, let's put all that aside and assume you are right --
So, you are basically saying that you can be senile and still be president and that senility should not stop you from voting for someone because other people, who were not elected will be running things and we can trust them?
You can put words in my mouth and continue your hysteria about Biden (and frankly, every candidate besides your own) as much as you want, I am just explaining why he is ahead of everyone else in the polls.
The swing-vote people that decide Presidential elections have mostly moderate views. You may not like it, but they are. So Biden has a good chance to win, because he is a moderate Democrat. All this stuff about "gaffes" and "neo-liberalism" doesn't mean anything in a general election. Bidens big problem is that he is old, and looks frail. That is what Trump is going to attack him on. Do you really believe Trump is going to attack Biden because of his gaffes, or because he is a corporate democrat, or he promotes wealth inequality, or whatever else you are bringing up?
STANV said:
That "poll" is stupid and boring and I agree that all it proves is that those polled don't have any better clue than any of us as to the final outcome.
However I do not understand why you think Warren will get good press from the MSM since you believe they are all in the tank for Biden.
The NY Times had a long article questioning her "electability".
They are for Biden, but they also push Warren because they want to stop Sanders. The people polled were part of the "consultant class" and DNC think tanks--the people who would be irrelevant and maybe unemployed if Sanders' won. Bottom line is they want to keep the gravy train going and so they will help Warren. Sanders and his Revolution would definitely create huge changes to DNC power structures. They are going all out to get him, and the fact that they don't think he has a chance at the nomination makes you wonder what kind of backstage tricks they know about or if they are in denial. As Sanders remains a top contender, the worse the attacks will be. The earlier strategy of "be nice and show unity or Trump will win" has not worked, so now they are taking the gloves off.
Establishment Dems Are Openly Bullying Progressives. Good.
Were Sanders to drop significantly in the polls, I think they would lose interest in Warren. They are not really for Warren except as a "lesser evil" choice for Bernie, so they will continue to cast doubts about her, especially when they can pump up their other favorite establishment candidates such as Harris and Buttigieg.
This is seen in that New York Times article on Warren's electability:
(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/us/politics/elizabeth-warn-2020-campaign.html)
The article seemed to be mostly about arguing for middle of the road politics, as we see here on MOL. They give multiple reasons why people don't think Warren is electable, but they keep coming back to the leftist policies and interview people who reject her in favor of Harris or Buttigieg. They don't even go into people who are choosing between Warren and Sanders, which happens quite a bit. They pretend that the real problem is that Warren is too left. Then they say Warren is dealing with this concern by handing out "Win with Warren" signs, a clear sign that this is not a serious article and sort of a smear article, although I do think Warren has some personality negatives that do affect people's choices. I come from Massachusetts and that's what a lot of my friends and family say. So, I think there is some concern about her temperament in facing Trump, but the stuff about her being too left is hogwash.
nohero said:
Bernie is one of the most popular. All the "cool kids" think he's the best. He's a top contender.
John isn't popular at all.
So obviously, the cool kids have to taunt him.
Conclusion: Bernie bros as a group seem to be stuck in the "middle school" stage of emotional development.
But thanks for the video, so next time that "Humanist Report" guy is cited, we can say, "Isn't he that clown who thinks he's the Biff Tannen of politics?"
The video is silly, but it just shows him laughing as he's reading the Guardian article that I also posted. The entire content is mostly a reading of the Guardian article. How come you did not call out the Guardian for publishing that instead of picking on the guy (the messenger) who read it?
nan said:
nohero said:
Bernie is one of the most popular. All the "cool kids" think he's the best. He's a top contender.
John isn't popular at all.
So obviously, the cool kids have to taunt him.
Conclusion: Bernie bros as a group seem to be stuck in the "middle school" stage of emotional development.
But thanks for the video, so next time that "Humanist Report" guy is cited, we can say, "Isn't he that clown who thinks he's the Biff Tannen of politics?"
The video is silly, but it just shows him laughing as he's reading the Guardian article that I also posted. The entire content is mostly a reading of the Guardian article. How come you did not call out the Guardian for publishing that instead of picking on the guy (the messenger) who read it?
I didn't read the article and I didn't watch the video. I doubt that the only thing Biff did was "read from the article".
nohero said:
I didn't read the article and I didn't watch the video. I doubt that the only thing Biff did was "read from the article".
OK, so you admit that you pretend you have reviewed the material you are commenting on. Noted.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
The "concepts" of Bernie's plan call for all electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2050 and for the transmission of that electricity to be handled by a smart grid.
How does this conflict with "how the business of electricity and transmission is conducted"?
FYI, here's more detail about the viability of these "concepts": http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdfPaul has described the goals. Implementation requires the recognition of what the infrastructure is now, and how to transition. As with Bernie's version of M4A, that transition part isn't adequately addressed.
@nohero states the obvious, but what he doesn't say is whether he supports the goals of ending fossil fuel generation of electricity and converting to 100% clean energy by 2050.
nohero said:
The Stanford.edu piece is a mostly about the benefits projected from the expenditures to transition to renewables only by 2050. There is a vague wave of the hand to undefined "State planning and incentive structures" towards the end, right before the summary, as the only nod to that transition.
The Stanford piece estimates the numbers of clean energy generators [ Wind, Water (wave, hydroelectric), Solar and Geothermal ] needed to replace fossil fuel generation and the resources needed to produce those clean generators. In short, the technological / resource viability of transitionng to a 100% clean energy economy. There is a list of initial steps presented, including a ban on new oil, gas, coal or nuclear power plants after 2020, as well as numerous incentives for the public and local governments.
nohero said:
For instance: "Lock in in-state fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to retire under enforceable commitments. At the same time, streamline the permit approval process for WWS power generators and high capacity transmission lines." There's no recognition of the cost or the logistics of such a transition (for example, you don't just "turn off" a nuclear plant and then sell it for scrap, as if it was like a factory).
OK, no discussion of the costs or logistics of streamlining WWS (Wind, Water, Solar) power generators, but surely @nohero agrees that this is a necessary goal. And where does @nohero see anything about "turning off" nuclear plants and "selling them for scrap"?
nohero said:
Also: "Work with local and regional governments to manage zoning and permitting issues within existing regional planning efforts or pre-approve sites to reduce the cost and uncertainty of projects and expedite their physical build-out." Again, really vague about a significant cost and logistical component of the transition.
Again, does @nohero see this as a necessary step toward ending the burning of fossil fuels?
nohero said:
By the way, according to the report we'll ALL be on electric heat by 2050, details to follow.
Heat pump technology already makes this a viable proposal, and tax credits and subsidies can make it financially beneficial.
nohero said:
They do have a chart which assumes a transition, not bothering with such details.
Yes they do.
sbenois said:
I am happy to have Joe be our nominee. And then beat Trump.
One way or the other you are going to be disappointed.
nan said:
So the horrendous and wealthy John Delaney, who has been campaigning for two years, and spent $24 million of his own money is finally getting some of the attention he seeks. Eleven people showed up to his last rally, double the number from just months ago.
There were 5 1/2 people at his last one? LOL.
sbenois said:
nohero said:
sbenois said:
Idiotic video. Even the folks at the Epoch Times are laughing at it.
It's just a waste of time. Still going after John Delaney like that is a useful as still going after Tulsi Gabbard the Warmonger.
Fixed that for you.
Big Nasty makes Little Nasty's post nastier.
nan said:
Were Sanders to drop significantly in the polls, I think they would lose interest in Warren. They are not really for Warren except as a "lesser evil" choice for Bernie, so they will continue to cast doubts about her, especially when they can pump up their other favorite establishment candidates such as Harris and Buttigieg.
although I do think Warren has some personality negatives that do affect people's choices. I come from Massachusetts and that's what a lot of my friends and family say. So, I think there is some concern about her temperament in facing Trump, but the stuff about her being too left is hogwash.
I do not know if anyone would lose interest in Warren if Bernie dropped significantly in the polls. I doubt it but in any event it would be stupid. So far Warren has risen constantly. She persists and it seems to pay off.
As to "personality negatives" who doesn't have those other than someone totally scripted and totally phony.
Nevertheless I would like to know what those supposed "personality negatives" are and whether they would be perceived as negative in a Male candidate.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:
nohero said:
sbenois said:
Idiotic video. Even the folks at the Epoch Times are laughing at it.
It's just a waste of time. Still going after John Delaney like that is a useful as still going after Tulsi Gabbard the Warmonger.
Fixed that for you.
Big Nasty makes Little Nasty's post nastier.
Thank you for your insult.
sbenois said:
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:
nohero said:
sbenois said:
Idiotic video. Even the folks at the Epoch Times are laughing at it.
It's just a waste of time. Still going after John Delaney like that is a useful as still going after Tulsi Gabbard the Warmonger.
Fixed that for you.
Big Nasty makes Little Nasty's post nastier.
Thank you for your insult.
I don't know why you get top billing ...
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
There is no hidden motivation here. I'm afraid Biden might win and then lose to Trump. He's a terrible candidate with no platform, a horrible history easily accessible on YouTube, big-dollar donors and a melting brain. If you are not preoccupied with the menace that is Biden, you should be.