-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
????
uh, you asked for an answer and you got one.
and who has been smearing her for this...?
that is not how you steered this conversation, nor how anybody has replied, and you know it. You're either exaggerating to the highest degree on purpose or trolling with this.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
Typical possession was not a state criminal offense, and it certainly wasn't a felony. In other words, that stat about "marijuana related arrests" doesn't address the question that I (very clearly) asked, nor does it contradict my original comment. Tbh, it obfuscates a bunch of potentially important and interesting details, but I digress.
The fact that you put those 2 quotes side by side and couldn't spot the obvious difference makes me think that you're just trolling. Please respect that this is a serious thread, gatodelfuego.
And I'm not sure what the "???" confusion is about. You quoted me saying you couldn't find a source that Kamala jailed people for marijuana possession. Your second snippet is from TCR's comment which A) wasn't even your response, and B) was posted after the original quote. Are you confused that I don't own a time machine or...?
Last edited:
If you seriously think prosecutor is not a political office then I really don't know what to say. Quite literally the most nonsense take in this forum, and that includes the Trump thread. It's elected by people on a ballot, and they have discretion on how to enforce the laws passed by politicians. The only people who think law enforcement is removed from politics are people whose privilege shields them from the consequences of not following laws and/or laws that uphold racism, classism, etc. Do you think judges should be apolitical too?
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
I said it isn't supposed to be, which is indeed true according to the American Bar Association. Plus, it was one tiny sidenote that had absolutely nothing to do with the overall point, so I don't know why you decided to pick it out in the first place. Nice job calling me out on something I never said, though! Really contributed to the discussion!
Last edited:
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
Immaculately good at smearing
mikedawg i find it very interesting you of all people are calling others out for sarcastically “contributing to the discussion”
do you have anything to add of your own comments that isnt simply regurgitated from the top page of reddit.com/r/Kamala ? it seems whenever you do its just in a condescending navelgazing manner, which hardly befits discussion in a serious setting.
edit: to be clear if you only get your news sources and talking points from reddit then just be clear about it so people can understand you dont know how to critically think, rather than giving off an aura of political savvyness. we know whenever pressed you just go to your candidates subreddit and type in a guiding word as if its a journal database, so you can just pull the poll numbers or arguments straight from either the last few days post or from the comments. based on the look of it id say you just recently subscribed to r/Marianne2020 too
do you have anything to add of your own comments that isnt simply regurgitated from the top page of reddit.com/r/Kamala ? it seems whenever you do its just in a condescending navelgazing manner, which hardly befits discussion in a serious setting.
edit: to be clear if you only get your news sources and talking points from reddit then just be clear about it so people can understand you dont know how to critically think, rather than giving off an aura of political savvyness. we know whenever pressed you just go to your candidates subreddit and type in a guiding word as if its a journal database, so you can just pull the poll numbers or arguments straight from either the last few days post or from the comments. based on the look of it id say you just recently subscribed to r/Marianne2020 too
Last edited:
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
This user has received a 6 month reply ban in this thread
The irony of writing this to preface a comment entirely dedicated to calling someone out. Ok, buddy.
And I didn't call him out for sarcastically contributing. I called him out for not contributing.... and I was response to him calling me out.
This is even more hypocritical considering your record of pointless (and completely unfunny) one-liner comments throughout this thread, like "mikedawg is the Mike Pence of hating Bernie Sanders" and "don't judge until you've walked a day in mikedawg's clown shoes". At this point, I'm pretty sure that your long, whiney post about how we should ban reactions was entirely driven by the fact that your own childish attempts to call people out never receive positive feedback.
This is also the second time in this thread that you've dedicated a comment to calling me condescending, but I guess there's nothing wrong with reusing material. I think it would be best if you try to keep discussion on topic though instead of fishing for those likes. Just a suggestion.
I'm sorry? Which of my comments was regurgitated from /r/Kamala? That one tweet, which has nothing to do with Reddit? What kind of weak ass call out is that? This is almost as fucking moronic as gato calling me a wall street shill for owning $200 worth of stocks.
And again, the hypocrisy of complaining that I'm not contributing to discussion while you derail a thread to (poorly) fish for fake internet points.
But congrats! You got a like from a 17 year old Trump-supporting Pokemon fan! Something exciting to tell your therapist, I guess
Please, ol' wise TCR, show me which of my comments came from Kamala's tiny subreddit. I'm dying to know. The vast majority of my comments in this thread haven't even been about Kamala Harris, so it really just feels like you're projecting.
Like I've said previously: I really appreciate the attention, but your obsession with me is unhealthy and a bit overbearing. Please stop.
-----
In other news: does anyone have any predictions for the debates? It seems like Tulsi has been gearing up to go after Kamala, but that's probably an awful idea, especially since Kamala doesn't even have a huge base to pull from right now. Plus, Joe Biden is standing right there.
Last edited:
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
1st night: Bernie and Warren most likely won’t go after one another. They’re friends and support mostly similar policies. Bernie’s probably going to have to counterpunch against Delaney, Hickenlooper, and Ryan, so he’ll probably be preoccupied with that. Warren imo should go after Buttigieg and Beto, as her policy chops make her well equipped to attack them on lack of policy. I hope Bernie and Warren do well here, and I hope Marianne uses her small candidate status to go after people like Hickenlooper, Ryan, and Delaney.
Night 2: I hope everybody dogpiles on Biden. He’s the worst frontrunner, and he is still #1 in the polls rn so everyone could gain by going after him. It’s not like it’s hard, there’s a lot to go after. Hopefully, De Blasio and Tulsi serve as progressive attack dogs since they’re both super low in the polls rn anyway. I agree that Tulsi looks like she’s going to go after Kamala, which is good. She hasn’t really faced much scrutiny for her record yet, and she (Kamala) is gaining support rn so that could be potentially good for Tulsi’s campaign. There’s a lot of people who have shown that they’re aggressive debaters this night, Kamala, de Blasio, Castro, Bennet, and Tulsi can be, so sparks are probably going to fly. As opposed to night one, which has a lot of non-aggressive debaters like Bernie, Warren, Beto, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. Imo, whoever isn’t aggressive in night 2 isn’t going to stand out so people like Booker, Gillibrand, and Yang probably are going to fade into the background.
Other random thoughts:
- I’m not as big of a fan of this lineup as I was the last one. While it is more well-balanced in terms of the frontrunners, I don’t like how Bernie and Warren are the same night and I don’t like how there’s one night of all white people and one diverse night.
- I hope Biden gets his ass handed to him so he drops enough in the polls so the other frontrunners pass him. I can handle even Kamala way better than Biden
- I hope more people drop out after this debate. The field really needs to start to thin, this is still way too many candidates that have no chance.
- Fuck yes, I won’t have to listen to whiny Swalwell anymore! I still have to listen to Delaney, but one fucking annoying candidate is out.
- Bullock has a super soothing voice. I probably won’t like what he’s saying, but I hope he gets a lot of time just for that.
I've been following this for some time, but haven't really responded.
Am I the only one who doesn't care who the Democrats nominate as long as they don't just hand the anthropomorphic orange a victory?
I mean, of course we would like to see a more progressive candidate nominated. But the reality is really 'radical'* progressives are just going to help lead to a horrible eventuality. Democrats and other progressives are just not going to vote for Trump, obviously. Centrists however, are perfectly capable of not voting at all if they don't like either candidate. Given that the uneducated moronic masses are going to be motivated for Trump, low turnout from moderates is basically going to hand him a second term.
I support a Biden nomination beacuse I just want anything but Trump in office, and he offers the easiest path to that end. He might not be the most progressive, but he meets the requirements to swing moderates. That being said, it would be great if he could use his coattails to bring in some other more left candidates into the VP so he can set them up for a future progressive bid, say Harris, Warren, etc. But honestly, anything but Trump.
If Democrats hand POTUS an easy victory just beacuse they wanted to show how left and hip they are, the fault is going to entirely on them. This is an easy victory and should push Repubs out.
*Radical as in not as widely accepted by the majority. Obviously these policies that have been labeled radical are just common sense and human decency, but they have to be labeled as such since they repel voters.
Am I the only one who doesn't care who the Democrats nominate as long as they don't just hand the anthropomorphic orange a victory?
I mean, of course we would like to see a more progressive candidate nominated. But the reality is really 'radical'* progressives are just going to help lead to a horrible eventuality. Democrats and other progressives are just not going to vote for Trump, obviously. Centrists however, are perfectly capable of not voting at all if they don't like either candidate. Given that the uneducated moronic masses are going to be motivated for Trump, low turnout from moderates is basically going to hand him a second term.
I support a Biden nomination beacuse I just want anything but Trump in office, and he offers the easiest path to that end. He might not be the most progressive, but he meets the requirements to swing moderates. That being said, it would be great if he could use his coattails to bring in some other more left candidates into the VP so he can set them up for a future progressive bid, say Harris, Warren, etc. But honestly, anything but Trump.
If Democrats hand POTUS an easy victory just beacuse they wanted to show how left and hip they are, the fault is going to entirely on them. This is an easy victory and should push Repubs out.
*Radical as in not as widely accepted by the majority. Obviously these policies that have been labeled radical are just common sense and human decency, but they have to be labeled as such since they repel voters.
Interesting that you decide to be rude after he no longer could respond. Took a lot of courage to do that buddy. -_-
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
I respectfully disagree. I think you’re coming from a good place, wanting Trump to lose, but I think you’re going about it wrong.
1. We already had a moderate candidate in 2016 and look how that turned out.
2. The “radical” policies aren’t called that because a majority of the public doesn’t like them. Medicare for All, Free College, a living wage, a Green New Deal, ending the wars, legalizing marijuana, etc. The list goes on and on of “radical” politicies that have >50% support among the American public.
3. To get more specific, the dems need to win the rust belt states they lost in order to win. The polls show that Bernie does the best in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Annecdotally, I live in Michigan and know a lot of Trump voters that wouldn’t vote for Biden, but would vote for Bernie. Take that with a grain of salt of course, but the polls back that up.
4. If we have another neoliberal president that just makes small changes, well that’s how we got Trump. President Biden would probably lead to someone even worse than Trump. People are sick and tired of the status quo and that’s why they voted for Trump. By now, Trump has proven himself to be part of the old status quo. If we send out an anti-establishment populist, people will know stuff is going to change. If we nominate an establishment candidate, people will know nothing will change either way and will probably vote for Trump and his fiery rhetoric at least over Mr “nothing would fundamentally change”.
5. Final point. Democrats/progressives are also likely to not turn out to vote if they don’t like either candidate. This is going to be an election based on turnout. The democrat mainly just needs to excite the base. What excites the base? You know the policies I listed above as liked by the American people? They’re even more popular among Democrats and left-leaning independents. I’d argue that even if those policies repel centrists (which they don’t) we don’t need them to win. Half the country doesn’t vote, right? We just need someone who can turn out the non-voting democrat base. And yes, those policies do that.
Agree on things covered here.
More progressive views I think are the right direction, as the loss of Hillary in 2016 likely makes the public more concerned about a more moderate companions effectiveness, especially against the giant cheeto demon. I think a more progressive candidate will be able to speak to the people and bring in more votes next year.
While I don't fully support his policies like others do. I hesitantly put my support towards Sanders, mostly from the area of thinking that the Native American ordeal would be milked during campaign by the right for Warren, and I simply don't know enough about the others. He was extremely popular in 2016 as the only on to compete with Hillary, and his charisma and extremely favorable policies (although I doubt they'd pass in their current state) are the best shot to get Trump out of the seat and begin fixing some problems right now.
I support Sanders over Warren as well, despite not really agreeing with 100% of his policies (although I suppose I'd hesitantly put Warren as my second pick), but I don't think the Native American ordeal is going to affect Warren at all, really. For one, she's already apologized for it and offered what is, as far as I'm concerned, a perfectly valid explanation (by the one drop rule, she is Native American, and it's perfectly reasonable that she never questioned exactly how much.) I think most people who would hold that against her are the kinds of people who weren't going to vote for her in the first place. She has some baggage, but it's nowhere near as damning as the baggage Hillary carried.
My issue with her is more that she genuinely strikes me as yet another status-quo corporate Dem candidate, and I don't think that's what we need right now. People seem to hate the very idea of populism, possibly because it's what got Trump elected, but the fact of the matter is populism is a potent tool that either side can wield, and just like any other tool, it can be used constructively or destructively. Unfortunately, you can't fight a populist candidate (no matter how phony that populism is) with a status-quo candidate and expect to win, and I am very hesitant to say that I think Warren realistically could beat Trump. I think we need a populist candidate who supports progressive policies, and I think Sanders fits that description the best of what the Democratic party is currently offering.
Last edited:
maybe if u start a food truck or something u can get ur debt repaid
this applies to like 5 ppl
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
Food trucks are such a scam. The appeal used to be that it was quality food for a low price, but when you are essentially a restaurant in terms of price but also on wheels it totally defeats the purpose.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Look, I’m not American, but I don’t see how you guys can support Bernie after he committed a triple homicide last night. Think of what the Delaney, Ryan, and Tapper families must be going through right now.
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
Bernie and Warren were the clear winners of that debate. They both had straight fire lines - especially when Warren said to Delaney "I dont understand why anyone would run for president just to name all the things we cant do."
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
Last night’s debate was the best one so far. And it’s not even close. Bernie and Warren were both pretty much perfect here, working together to fight off the bad candidates and even the moderators. There was a ton of great lines, especially from Bernie. This is the kind of debate performance we need.
How the candidates did (in my opinion of course):
DOMINATION Tier:
Bernie Sanders: especially during the heathcare debate, he was amazing. This was a huge step up from his Debate 1 performance. If he continues doing this well, he might be able to consistently overtake Biden in the polls and claim his frontrunner status.
Elizabeth Warren: Also did insanely well. She didn’t fall for the obvious bait of attacking Bernie, which was great. She also had some great lines and did some well-deserved attacking. She really showed herself to be strong here, and she honestly might be my #2 now after two really strong performances.
Good Tier:
Marianne Williamson: was bad in the healthcare portion, pretty good everywhere else. She spent a lot more time on policy and less on attacking plans and the power of love, so that’s good.
Pete Buttigeg: ok, I don’t like him on a policy level, but he’s a really good speaker. Good at sounding intelligent and good at making good arguments. I’m not a fan of him, but this debate really showed off his strengths
Who? Tier:
Beto O’Rourke: an improvement over his last performance when he got dunked on by everyone, but just kind of faded into the background here.
Amy Klobuchar: just and boring and unnoteworthy (is that a word?) as last time. She’s really good at making everyone forget she’s there.
Loser Tier:
John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock: these are all the same candidate and they all suck
John Delaney: by far the biggest loser, he’s annoying, bad on policy, and said so many factually wrong things. Hopefully I never have to hear his voice again, it’s really annoying
How the candidates did (in my opinion of course):
DOMINATION Tier:
Bernie Sanders: especially during the heathcare debate, he was amazing. This was a huge step up from his Debate 1 performance. If he continues doing this well, he might be able to consistently overtake Biden in the polls and claim his frontrunner status.
Elizabeth Warren: Also did insanely well. She didn’t fall for the obvious bait of attacking Bernie, which was great. She also had some great lines and did some well-deserved attacking. She really showed herself to be strong here, and she honestly might be my #2 now after two really strong performances.
Good Tier:
Marianne Williamson: was bad in the healthcare portion, pretty good everywhere else. She spent a lot more time on policy and less on attacking plans and the power of love, so that’s good.
Pete Buttigeg: ok, I don’t like him on a policy level, but he’s a really good speaker. Good at sounding intelligent and good at making good arguments. I’m not a fan of him, but this debate really showed off his strengths
Who? Tier:
Beto O’Rourke: an improvement over his last performance when he got dunked on by everyone, but just kind of faded into the background here.
Amy Klobuchar: just and boring and unnoteworthy (is that a word?) as last time. She’s really good at making everyone forget she’s there.
Loser Tier:
John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock: these are all the same candidate and they all suck
John Delaney: by far the biggest loser, he’s annoying, bad on policy, and said so many factually wrong things. Hopefully I never have to hear his voice again, it’s really annoying
Bernie and Warren could not defend any of their downright radical proposals when questioned by the other candidates...you're joking with yourselves if you honest to god think they were good. They were defenseless. Period.
...then there was that point where Chris Matthews questioned Warren, if you consider dodging and shouting a defense I suppose.
Sorry, but these debates are a pathetic joke so far.
...then there was that point where Chris Matthews questioned Warren, if you consider dodging and shouting a defense I suppose.
Sorry, but these debates are a pathetic joke so far.