US Politics, October 2018: next week will be even longer

I think the goal is pretty much to get her into the spotlight and establish her as a frontrunner, which it basically has succeeded at doing

Yeah, Warren is totally capable, but I am starting to feel like we are just so completely regressive that people will find fault with any female candidate for the stupidest of reasons. Like not displaying good executive skills to her past underlings.

Gillibrand is great, but I don't know if it's her time.

Does she need to be menopausal?

Otm. Anyway, I once sold Elizabeth Warren business cards and I made a typo and she had me reorder them and was suitably but not excessively put out. I’ll personally vouch for her executive skills.

I think Harris or Gillibrand would both do better as women vs Trump, they dont have the schoolmarm vibe Warren does. She’s great in the Senate imo, but I dont see her turning out all the demos the Dems are gonna need to win.

Also, who cares if she’s a good candidate against Trump?

― rb (soda)

me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, Harris and Gillibrand are definitely hotter but not too hot to be offputting.

You think gillibrand is more charismaric than warren? That’s absurd. Harris I can kind of see, but I still think warren is the better candidate

getting really bad 2004 vibes lately. like Trump, Bush barely won* by a fluke, and he ran against a stodgy, awkward guy that was good on paper but a lousy candidate, and then Bush won for real. can't overestimate the advantage Trump has being an incumbent

Like not displaying good executive skills to her past underlings.

― Yerac, Monday, October 15, 2018 5:33 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you obviously don't think "harris was a bad boss" is disqualifying but don't be disingenuous about the critiques of her time in that position.

I don’t think “underling” is a good word for employee or worker

I’m not concerned with the viability of a candidate’s optics, persona, or press package because none of that matters in 2020. Either you’re with Trump or you’re against Trump. And Warren is a good, smart person with strong values and a clear vision who has capably represented me, both geographically and politically, for a while now. Consider it naive, but I think that makes her a phenomenal candidate.

Yeah, Harris and Gillibrand are definitely hotter but not too hot to be offputting.

can we not

I made the assumption that the person thought she was a bad boss because of whatever. Most dudes who have to work for a women are more than likely to think they are a bad boss for the most innocuous of reasons. So I was making fun of the stupidity of it all.

a candidate’s optics, persona, or press package because none of that matters in 2020

franky I think you're very wrong, and running against Trump means these are the *only* things that matter (in terms of the election. Not so much in terms of governing, policy, etc.)

xpost, the hot comment was sarcasm because of the schoolmarm comment.

Did we know it was a dude?

trump will have the incumbency advantage until the inevitable stock market crash and fucking morons like mnuchin, ross and kudlow running the recovery efforts

yeah, it was a guy from the follow up.

getting really bad 2004 vibes lately. like Trump, Bush barely won* by a fluke, and he ran against a stodgy, awkward guy that was good on paper but a lousy candidate, and then Bush won for real. can't overestimate the advantage Trump has being an incumbent

well, also, 9/11

, Bush barely won* by a fluke, and he ran against a stodgy, awkward guy that was good on paper but a lousy candidate,

Warren is a better candidate now than Kerry ever was, and I suppose I'm in the minority who thought Kerry was terrific as a senator.

well, also, 9/11

― iatee, Monday, October 15, 2018 5:44 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and an ongoing war that people were actually thinking about

the hot comment was sarcasm because of the schoolmarm comment.

this was not a reference to her appearance, but to her recent strategy of responding to an utterly ridiculous, irrelevant, and deliberately provocative assertion with a well-reasoned and scientifically valid riposte. This is the kind of reaction that literally screams *NNNNNNEEEEERRRRRD* in our current media landscape, and it is not a winning strategy.

I’m not concerned with the viability of a candidate’s optics, persona, or press package because none of that matters in 2020.

pragmatically it absolutely does, it's like 90% of this thing

Either you’re with Trump or you’re against Trump. And Warren is a good, smart person with strong values and a clear vision who has capably represented me, both geographically and politically, for a while now. Consider it naive, but I think that makes her a phenomenal candidate.

― rb (soda), Monday, October 15, 2018 1:42 PM (thirty-four seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Personally, sure. but evaluating candidates w/o any regard to how they'd perform against Trump is just asking to be devastated all over again. 2004 sucked so much

well, also, 9/11

― iatee, Monday, October 15, 2018 5:44 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and an ongoing war that people were actually thinking about

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, October 15, 2018 5:48 PM (thirty-nine seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

pretty sure trump is going to start some shit with iran in a couple months for this exact reason

well, also, 9/11

― iatee

by 2004 p much all of the good will gained after 9/11 had evaporated bc of Iraq

Warren is a better candidate now than Kerry ever was, and I suppose I'm in the minority who thought Kerry was terrific as a senator.

― You like queer? I like queer. Still like queer. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

I agree and I liked Kerry but he was a lousy campaigner (which is what I meant in the first place, should've clarified)

Nah

Re: Iran

i don't think Warren has played the shit Trump has flung her way particularly well and i do agree w/Shakey on his last point. I think Obama is a pretty good example of a guy who dealt w/far worse and still simply casually brushed it off publicly, which i think frustrated the right; he wasn't a perfect strategist by any means as president but during his two presidential runs he never really played the game they tried to engage him in, he played his own game. You can't really beat Trump at his game, no more than you can win an argument w/a troll on the internet. Your answers to their bad faith questions will always be wrong.

Trump will not get a 9/11 bump by starting a war for no reason. 9/11, like Trump's own victory, was a reality warping event that basically erased the calendar and changed the orientation of everything. to get the kind of bump that Bush had in 2001 something of equal and devastating magnitude would have to occur. we are too used to perpetual war for something like invading Iran to have that kind of impact.

No one knows what will play well with the electorate, although recent evidence shows that economic justice is a popular message and Warren is the candidate with the best record to push that.

Xp shakey/nostradamus

well Obama released his birth certificate while he was killing Bin Laden, so I assume Warren's gonna drop a body on the doorstep tomorrow

i'm not saying i don't think Warren could win, since i can see Trump becoming so tiresome to many more people after a couple more years of his empty shtick and his personal attacks losing impact, and the Dems will be smarter this time around about certain states.

trump wouldn't "start" a war, it would be forced upon us by an evil country that just happens to filled with people that aren't white OR christian. bush/cheney didn't invade Iraq, they were forced to confront the destabilizer of the middle east who had WMDs (and connections to 9/11, i bet, maybe?! that's what i heard!). gulf of tonkin, etc

I just don't trust dudes like Bolton and Pompeo running foreign policy.. also Trump is cynical as hell and twice as stupid =|

on the subject of war, did we all see the 60 minutes interview where mattis was said to be "kind of a Democrat" who "might leave"

like a good american, i saw the headline

there would have to be some kind of catalyzing event to get people behind any kind of military action.

like when iraq attacked us on 9/11

Because of course...
Painting of Trump among past presidents seen at White House

Obama was the kind of guy that casually brushed things off so well and for so long that ... even out of office he remains a rallying cry villain for the right wing, who see his policies and ideas and targets simply because he was the one behind them. His attitude did serve him really well personally in the face all of sorts of shit, but he seriously underestimated or at least failed to adequately counter the amount of vitriol on the right or figure out a way to establish a bulwark against its spread. Must have been all those lattes.

like when iraq attacked us on 9/11

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver

missing the point obviously but remember Michael Moore being booed at the Oscars for saying "we live in fictitious times" in March 2003 and then how hard public opinion had shifted just a year and a half later. he still won

You can't really beat Trump at his game, no more than you can win an argument w/a troll on the internet. Your answers to their bad faith questions will always be wrong.

exactly and that's what's so maddening about this. like, even if Warren had completely made the Native American thing up for college admissions purposes or whatever at the end of the day it's the sort of thing that wouldn't even register on the Trump scale. the dude literally stole from the 9/11 fund, has dodged hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, and had to settle an 8-figure fraud lawsuit as he was being inaugurated. none of these things have gotten a tenth of the coverage as "Pocahontas" has. we're now barreling towards a political landscape where Republicans don't have to produce their tax returns nor divest from their businesses but if you're Democrat you have to provide a racial purity test.

yeah, all the democrats are being asked for dna tests

you get the point

IDK, in this case I found calling Trump's bluff to be effective, although it's hard to say why exactly. Generally agree about the whole beating Trump at the facts game thing.

missing the point obviously but remember Michael Moore being booed at the Oscars for saying "we live in fictitious times" in March 2003 and then how hard public opinion had shifted just a year and a half later. he still won

― flappy bird, Monday, October 15, 2018 6:26 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if i'm missing the point it's because i don't know what this post is supposed to mean in relation to your contention that we need a legitimately (as opposed to falsely) catalyzing event to get people behind a war

The only end is violence. This will not change through voting.