Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:14 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3531 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 ... 89  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24487
Deadtigers wrote:

This doesn't even get into stuff like my points to MacroSan about how Daniel Cameron's story has no sizzle by American Media standards. He went on to accuse me of DNC talking points but not refuting my point that there was no sizzle there. Or EDF calling me Bimboman-esque though there are no facts to Biden having mental decline while Bernie has had heart surgery, totally lacking proof. Same guy, also never got into the African American experience but dismissed my long and detailed post about it because he has an America black sister-in-law and is a half breed so he can speak to African American viewpoint.

And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


This is just another example of how you re-represent facts, Bimboman like in utterly obtuse ways when the don't suit your narrative, Biden's performance is there for everybody to see. The idea he isn't struggling cognitively in some way is there for all to see in his public performances, he is struggling to even appear to make sense or answer questions, regardless of his gaff ridden past.

You then obscure the clearly and honestly observable in debate by re-framing with disingenuous questions as statements, as if people and the media aren't seeing Biden's poor performances and answers for themselves, for goodness sake the media across the board have stated it. You then attempt to act as if it's some sort of fringe and peculiar point political extremists are making that no one else is. Then there is your constant need to somehow obscure observations like this as needing to be related to your race, country or origin or background, despite the utter irrelevance. Especially when you then contradict yourself by throwing out the race or background of other observers of the very same background you claim is vital when they disagree with your points. It's always "Well you guys aren't black or american. And no, other blacks or Americans don't count" without a hint of irony.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9834
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
kiwinoz wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


It was a genuine question for a number of reasons, Bloomberg is billionaire, was a republican, was the mayor of New York and will go after Bidens voters. For you is he a better candidate or not?

My opinion is that he is just another of the elite class and probably doing it to shore up his defence

Image



He will fail with Biden voters. The reason a lot of Dems hang on to Biden now is poll after poll shows he is the best suited person to peel off the Rust Belt voters off. Remember this is about 200K voters in 3 Midwest states and rural Penn. Nothing about Bloomy appeals to them. The casual anti-Semitism of not voting for a jewish guy, he is not the poor mans idea of being a billionaire like Trump (as in people who wish they were rich so they can be an asshole to everyone). He is views are essentially libertarian, though he has never classified as one. His running of NY as mayor will lose him Blacks and Latinos, once that gets out. I just don't see a lane he can squeeze in.


Last edited by Deadtigers on Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9834
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

This doesn't even get into stuff like my points to MacroSan about how Daniel Cameron's story has no sizzle by American Media standards. He went on to accuse me of DNC talking points but not refuting my point that there was no sizzle there. Or EDF calling me Bimboman-esque though there are no facts to Biden having mental decline while Bernie has had heart surgery, totally lacking proof. Same guy, also never got into the African American experience but dismissed my long and detailed post about it because he has an America black sister-in-law and is a half breed so he can speak to African American viewpoint.

And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


This is just another example of how you re-represent facts, Bimboman like in utterly obtuse ways when the don't suit your narrative, Biden's performance is there for everybody to see. The idea he isn't struggling cognitively in some way is there for all to see in his public performances, he is struggling to even appear to make sense or answer questions, regardless of his gaff ridden past.

You then obscure the clearly and honestly observable in debate by re-framing with disingenuous questions as statements, as if people and the media aren't seeing Biden's poor performances and answers for themselves, for goodness sake the media across the board have stated it. You then attempt to act as if it's some sort of fringe and peculiar point political extremists are making that no one else is. Then there is your constant need to somehow obscure observations like this as needing to be related to your race, country or origin or background, despite the utter irrelevance. Especially when you then contradict yourself by throwing out the race or background of other observers of the very same background you claim is vital when they disagree with your points. It's always "Well you guys aren't black or american. And no, other blacks or Americans don't count" without a hint of irony.



1. Speaking of narrative lets try who is being one-eyed here and go with facts.
Joe Biden
Joe Biden has a career littered with speaking gaffes.
He has run for president 3-4 times.
Claiming he has cognitively declined is subjective. As we have no doctors report, it is based each individuals determination of when someone has misspoken and when they are sunsetting.

Bernie Sanders
Has been the Junior Senator from Vermont for over 30 years (the Senior Senator has held that post for 40+ years)
-This shows how there is no real challenge when he runs.
-Vermont is one of the smallest states in the Union so unlike say Texas, he is not on a grueling schedule when he runs for Senate.
This is his second time running for president. previously he was not a front runner
He is now 4 years older and is one of the two front runners for Primary nod.
This time the race has begun in earnest much earlier and is more intense. He has never run a race like this in his life.
Bernie had a heart attack. Not something subjective, but an actual heart attack that a doctor had to operate on him.

Now you expect us to believe that just based on those stated facts, Bernie is in great shape and we shouldn't question his fitness but based on something far more subjective, Joe Biden is too out of it.

I will leave it to you and/or others to determine who is being obtuse and carrying their narrative over undeniable truths.

2. Now who is willfully misrepresenting someone's views. I got a sis-in-law that is black and lives in America too. I got a bro-in-law, similar thing, I got an uncle, I got classmates, I got co-workers and so on. So you have one source and an article and your own bullheaded opinion. I have my opinion backed up, by several people, nearly 20 times you source and several books and articles. So do you want to weigh who knows more black Americans and African Americans to form a point? I mean a sample size of 1, hell I will give 5, because I am sure you talk to the rest of her family too, is enough to fully capture the black American experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24487
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

This doesn't even get into stuff like my points to MacroSan about how Daniel Cameron's story has no sizzle by American Media standards. He went on to accuse me of DNC talking points but not refuting my point that there was no sizzle there. Or EDF calling me Bimboman-esque though there are no facts to Biden having mental decline while Bernie has had heart surgery, totally lacking proof. Same guy, also never got into the African American experience but dismissed my long and detailed post about it because he has an America black sister-in-law and is a half breed so he can speak to African American viewpoint.

And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


This is just another example of how you re-represent facts, Bimboman like in utterly obtuse ways when the don't suit your narrative, Biden's performance is there for everybody to see. The idea he isn't struggling cognitively in some way is there for all to see in his public performances, he is struggling to even appear to make sense or answer questions, regardless of his gaff ridden past.

You then obscure the clearly and honestly observable in debate by re-framing with disingenuous questions as statements, as if people and the media aren't seeing Biden's poor performances and answers for themselves, for goodness sake the media across the board have stated it. You then attempt to act as if it's some sort of fringe and peculiar point political extremists are making that no one else is. Then there is your constant need to somehow obscure observations like this as needing to be related to your race, country or origin or background, despite the utter irrelevance. Especially when you then contradict yourself by throwing out the race or background of other observers of the very same background you claim is vital when they disagree with your points. It's always "Well you guys aren't black or american. And no, other blacks or Americans don't count" without a hint of irony.



1. Speaking of narrative lets try who is being one-eyed here and go with facts.
Joe Biden
Joe Biden has a career littered with speaking gaffes.
He has run for president 3-4 times.
Claiming he has cognitively declined is subjective. As we have no doctors report, it is based each individuals determination of when someone has misspoken and when they are sunsetting.

Bernie Sanders
Has been the Junior Senator from Vermont for over 30 years (the Senior Senator has held that post for 40+ years)
-This shows how there is no real challenge when he runs.
-Vermont is one of the smallest states in the Union so unlike say Texas, he is not on a grueling schedule when he runs for Senate.
This is his second time running for president. previously he was not a front runner
He is now 4 years older and is one of the two front runners for Primary nod.
This time the race has begun in earnest much earlier and is more intense. He has never run a race like this in his life.
Bernie had a heart attack. Not something subjective, but an actual heart attack that a doctor had to operate on him.

Now you expect us to believe that just based on those stated facts, Bernie is in great shape and we shouldn't question his fitness but based on something far more subjective, Joe Biden is too out of it.


Once again you put in a false claim to frame you argument falsely. We know Biden has gaffs. No one in this thread or in the media is discussing gaffs. We are discussing debating performances.

Biden's poor performances are there to see. The observation of his form has been noticed across the board. Claiming you can only determine a performance with a health certificate is your false framing. Buried of course in lots of irrelevan statements about the size of his state seeming forgetting he ran a big race in 2016.

Likewise no one is denying Bernie had a health scare, but we can see he is clearly fine right now and performing and fighting fit, in fact he's done some of his best work since and the details released show it's an operation people do return from quite soon. There is no point you using the health scare as ammunition while you ignore the fact he's had a procedure people return from regularly and quickly . If Sanders had returned and was in poor form, showed signs of ill health etc, then your claims his health is questionable would be valid. Instead you've just question it contrary to the evidence and presented since he left hospital.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16910
eldanielfire wrote:
seeming forgetting he ran a big race in 2016.


He didn't really though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34025
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

This doesn't even get into stuff like my points to MacroSan about how Daniel Cameron's story has no sizzle by American Media standards. He went on to accuse me of DNC talking points but not refuting my point that there was no sizzle there. Or EDF calling me Bimboman-esque though there are no facts to Biden having mental decline while Bernie has had heart surgery, totally lacking proof. Same guy, also never got into the African American experience but dismissed my long and detailed post about it because he has an America black sister-in-law and is a half breed so he can speak to African American viewpoint.

And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


This is just another example of how you re-represent facts, Bimboman like in utterly obtuse ways when the don't suit your narrative, Biden's performance is there for everybody to see. The idea he isn't struggling cognitively in some way is there for all to see in his public performances, he is struggling to even appear to make sense or answer questions, regardless of his gaff ridden past.

You then obscure the clearly and honestly observable in debate by re-framing with disingenuous questions as statements, as if people and the media aren't seeing Biden's poor performances and answers for themselves, for goodness sake the media across the board have stated it. You then attempt to act as if it's some sort of fringe and peculiar point political extremists are making that no one else is. Then there is your constant need to somehow obscure observations like this as needing to be related to your race, country or origin or background, despite the utter irrelevance. Especially when you then contradict yourself by throwing out the race or background of other observers of the very same background you claim is vital when they disagree with your points. It's always "Well you guys aren't black or american. And no, other blacks or Americans don't count" without a hint of irony.



1. Speaking of narrative lets try who is being one-eyed here and go with facts.
Joe Biden
Joe Biden has a career littered with speaking gaffes.
He has run for president 3-4 times.
Claiming he has cognitively declined is subjective. As we have no doctors report, it is based each individuals determination of when someone has misspoken and when they are sunsetting.

Bernie Sanders
Has been the Junior Senator from Vermont for over 30 years (the Senior Senator has held that post for 40+ years)
-This shows how there is no real challenge when he runs.
-Vermont is one of the smallest states in the Union so unlike say Texas, he is not on a grueling schedule when he runs for Senate.
This is his second time running for president. previously he was not a front runner
He is now 4 years older and is one of the two front runners for Primary nod.
This time the race has begun in earnest much earlier and is more intense. He has never run a race like this in his life.
Bernie had a heart attack. Not something subjective, but an actual heart attack that a doctor had to operate on him.

Now you expect us to believe that just based on those stated facts, Bernie is in great shape and we shouldn't question his fitness but based on something far more subjective, Joe Biden is too out of it.

I will leave it to you and/or others to determine who is being obtuse and carrying their narrative over undeniable truths.

2. Now who is willfully misrepresenting someone's views. I got a sis-in-law that is black and lives in America too. I got a bro-in-law, similar thing, I got an uncle, I got classmates, I got co-workers and so on. So you have one source and an article and your own bullheaded opinion. I have my opinion backed up, by several people, nearly 20 times you source and several books and articles. So do you want to weigh who knows more black Americans and African Americans to form a point? I mean a sample size of 1, hell I will give 5, because I am sure you talk to the rest of her family too, is enough to fully capture the black American experience.


What is the difference?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6152
Deadtigers wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


It was a genuine question for a number of reasons, Bloomberg is billionaire, was a republican, was the mayor of New York and will go after Bidens voters. For you is he a better candidate or not?

My opinion is that he is just another of the elite class and probably doing it to shore up his defence

Image



He will fail with Biden voters. The reason a lot of Dems hang on to Biden now is poll after poll shows he is the best suited person to peel off the Rust Belt voters off. Remember this is about 200K voters in 3 Midwest states and rural Penn. Nothing about Bloomy appeals to them. The casual anti-Semitism of not voting for a jewish guy, he is not the poor mans idea of being a billionaire like Trump (as in people who wish they were rich so they can be an asshole to everyone). He is views are essentially libertarian, though he has never classified as one. His running of NY as mayor will lose him Blacks and Latinos, once that gets out. I just don't see a lane he can squeeze in.


Cheers DT, we don't agree on a few things but I think you are on the right track here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
If Bloomberg runs it's an independent run where he absolutely hates the Democrat nominee. Rich beyond belief so it'd be a Ross Perot redux.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2961
Ex-governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, has thrown his hat into the ring.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
What a party is this party amirite? :lol:

If there's ever going to be a contested convention again, this has to be the year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
Didn't realize Bloomberg had entered on the D side. Reading it up he's not entering the first 4 primaries, which I know will make some Democrats happy, it's an interesting strategy in the sense of "it's one that never works", but say the field goes down from the 19 to say 6 or 7, Bloomberg has had everyone else cull people for him. And Bloomberg has the money to self-fund. But he's banking on the field still being splintered and people's loyalties are not set yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
kiwinoz wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


It was a genuine question for a number of reasons, Bloomberg is billionaire, was a republican, was the mayor of New York and will go after Bidens voters. For you is he a better candidate or not?

My opinion is that he is just another of the elite class and probably doing it to shore up his defence

Image


He will fail with Biden voters. The reason a lot of Dems hang on to Biden now is poll after poll shows he is the best suited person to peel off the Rust Belt voters off. Remember this is about 200K voters in 3 Midwest states and rural Penn. Nothing about Bloomy appeals to them. The casual anti-Semitism of not voting for a jewish guy, he is not the poor mans idea of being a billionaire like Trump (as in people who wish they were rich so they can be an asshole to everyone). He is views are essentially libertarian, though he has never classified as one. His running of NY as mayor will lose him Blacks and Latinos, once that gets out. I just don't see a lane he can squeeze in.


Cheers DT, we don't agree on a few things but I think you are on the right track here.


The stuff about Bloomberg is pretty obvious but wrt Biden it’s bad analysis. Biden’s appeal is more with the NeverTrump crowd (who exist a lot more in places like the DC suburbs than in the midwest), definitely not “peeling off” Trump voters. He’s tied with Julian Castro at 6% with 2016 Trump voters. The impeachment thing involving his son will drive his numbers with anyone who voted for Trump into the ground. The idea that these voters exist in significant numbers in a place like rural Pennsylvania is hilarious. The place you would be looking would obviously be the Philadelphia suburbs.

This is basically the same strategy the Democrats used in 2016 btw, to flip enough neocon NeverTrumpers. The lesson we learned is there aren’t enough of them.

Quote:
Economist/YouGov Poll (11/10-12)
Category: 2016 Trump Voters (n=42)
Gabbard 21%
Sanders 15%
Yang 13%
Steyer 7%
Biden 6%
Castro 6%
Bennet 6%
Delaney 4%
Warren 3%
Buttigieg 3%
Klobuchar 3%
Bullock 2%
Messam 2%


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


It was a genuine question for a number of reasons, Bloomberg is billionaire, was a republican, was the mayor of New York and will go after Bidens voters. For you is he a better candidate or not?

My opinion is that he is just another of the elite class and probably doing it to shore up his defence

Image


He will fail with Biden voters. The reason a lot of Dems hang on to Biden now is poll after poll shows he is the best suited person to peel off the Rust Belt voters off. Remember this is about 200K voters in 3 Midwest states and rural Penn. Nothing about Bloomy appeals to them. The casual anti-Semitism of not voting for a jewish guy, he is not the poor mans idea of being a billionaire like Trump (as in people who wish they were rich so they can be an asshole to everyone). He is views are essentially libertarian, though he has never classified as one. His running of NY as mayor will lose him Blacks and Latinos, once that gets out. I just don't see a lane he can squeeze in.


Cheers DT, we don't agree on a few things but I think you are on the right track here.


The stuff about Bloomberg is pretty obvious but wrt Biden it’s bad analysis. Biden’s appeal is more with the NeverTrump crowd (who exist a lot more in places like the DC suburbs than in the midwest), definitely not “peeling off” Trump voters. He’s tied with Julian Castro at 6% with 2016 Trump voters. The impeachment thing involving his son will drive his numbers with anyone who voted for Trump into the ground. The idea that these voters exist in significant numbers in a place like rural Pennsylvania is hilarious. The place you would be looking would obviously be the Philadelphia suburbs.

This is basically the same strategy the Democrats used in 2016 btw, to flip enough neocon NeverTrumpers. The lesson we learned is there aren’t enough of them.

Quote:
Economist/YouGov Poll (11/10-12)
Category: 2016 Trump Voters (n=42)
Gabbard 21%
Sanders 15%
Yang 13%
Steyer 7%
Biden 6%
Castro 6%
Bennet 6%
Delaney 4%
Warren 3%
Buttigieg 3%
Klobuchar 3%
Bullock 2%
Messam 2%


Are they saying that poll is based on a sample size of 42 people?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
Yes. That means 2 or 3 people out of 42 picked Biden. You think that’s an anomaly?

Again either way you look at it, trying to flip Trump voters to Biden or trying to find Biden voters in rural Pennsylvania ( :lol: ) or Wisconsin, it ain’t happening on a scale that will matter. He would be working to drive up turnout in exactly the same areas Hillary did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
Yes.


That's the absolute basement level of polls. I'm surprised the Economist/YouGov even published that, it just invites questions. That's horrendous quality control.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
You can poll 4200 people, Biden is way down the list of candidates who can make inroads into Trump country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
You can poll 4200 people, Biden is way down the list of candidates who can make inroads into Trump country.


It has more weight than one with 42. I can go to a website and find 42 people that support the Libertarian candidate for president over the Republican or Democrat, doesn't mean it's reflective of society at all. That is a horrendous poll.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
Flyin Ryan wrote:
I can go to a website and find 42 people that support the Libertarian candidate for president over the Republican or Democrat


That’s not the same as a major pollster with a weighted sample at all. Biden is also running in third or fourth in the Iowa polling average - there is no untapped vein of Biden voters in the midwest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
I can go to a website and find 42 people that support the Libertarian candidate for president over the Republican or Democrat


That’s not the same as a major pollster with a weighted sample at all.


Explain to me the math on a weighted sample of 42. I took a decent statistics class in college so I'd love to hear it. Then let's discuss the sampling error. :lol: I'm not arguing your point about Biden, I'm arguing that your use of that poll to support your point on Biden is wrong because that poll is complete bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
You can easily weight that number to try to get an accurate demographic representation. Most of the polls Biden does really well in oversample age 65+, by far his best demographic. In that recent Iowa poll where he was 4th he was at 5% with under 50s. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
Iowa and New Hampshire look at the moment like they'll end up being 3 to 4-way ties effectively for delegates based on the 15% threshold.

How long til we get into the contest until we see a candidate clear even 40%? The primary schedule has been made so tight, if they hit Super Tuesday and it's still wide open, I don't see how anyone clinches the nomination with the necessary majority of delegates.


Last edited by Flyin Ryan on Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
You can easily weight that number to try to get an accurate demographic representation. Most of the polls Biden does really well in oversample age 65+, by far his best demographic. In that recent Iowa poll where he was 4th he was at 5% with under 50s. :lol:


So I can take any poll on this website on any issue where 42 people submit responses, and I can weight it to be reflective of the views of "rugby fandom" you're arguing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
No that’s the same as your libertarian candidate analogy. If you find a national poll that has such a narrow demographic sample, let me know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
No that’s the same as your libertarian candidate analogy. If you find a national poll that has such a narrow demographic sample, let me know.


I found a national poll with a narrow sample. It was published by the Economist and YouGov and was based on all of 42 people. For demographics, you can alter one person either way for multiple voter descriptions and it would completely change the poll. How many black voters are in that poll that voted for Trump in 2016, maybe 1? So you're defining the voting behavior of an entire class of people off a single person's response in a poll, or at best not much more than that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34025
Huge if true:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am
Posts: 3685
Huge if true? So is Santa Claus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Bowens wrote:
No that’s the same as your libertarian candidate analogy. If you find a national poll that has such a narrow demographic sample, let me know.


I found a national poll with a narrow sample. It was published by the Economist and YouGov and was based on all of 42 people. For demographics, you can alter one person either way for multiple voter descriptions and it would completely change the poll. How many black voters are in that poll that voted for Trump in 2016, maybe 1? So you're defining the voting behavior of an entire class of people off a single person's response in a poll, or at best not much more than that.


You should contact them and ask if you’re so interested. But it’s still not the same as a random internet poll that anyone can vote in, or that attracts a particular demographic due to the content - their goal is to try to reflect the electorate. No one would release a poll of all the same gender, race or age group unless it was specifically stated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 16624
He’s getting ratio’d for it but he’s right

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1194759960686714881?s=21


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 16624
From the ft, Martin Wolf reviews a book on US capitalism.

Worth a read. The point about GAFAM looks a done deal in terms of public opinion. Really just a matter a of what shape it takes but that carries its own risks so I can see it being kicked down the road.
Quote:
It began with a simple question: “Why on earth are US cell phone plans so expensive?” In pursuit of the answer, Thomas Philippon embarked on a detailed empirical analysis of how business actually operates in today’s America and finished up by overturning much of what almost everybody takes as read about the world’s biggest economy.

Over the past two decades, competition and competition policy have atrophied, with dire consequences, Philippon writes in this superbly argued and important book. America is no longer the home of the free-market economy, competition is not more fierce there than in Europe, its regulators are not more proactive and its new crop of superstar companies not radically different from their predecessors.

Philippon, a professor at New York University, is one of a list of brilliant economists of French origin now teaching in the US. Others include the recent Nobel-prize winner Esther Duflo, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist of the IMF, and Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, both now at Berkeley.


It is not obvious, however, that these people share all that much, apart from their national origin and an inclination not to take free-market platitudes for granted. Sceptics of Philippon’s controversial thesis might assert that a French economist must be ideologically opposed to American capitalism. But Philippon insists that he believes passionately in the value of competition. Indeed, The Great Reversal contains a chapter arguing just that. Moreover, each step in his argument is based on meticulous analysis of the data.

He crisply summarises the results: “First, US markets have become less competitive: concentration is high in many industries, leaders are entrenched, and their profit rates are excessive. Second, this lack of competition has hurt US consumers and workers: it has led to higher prices, lower investment and lower productivity growth. Third, and contrary to common wisdom, the main explanation is political, not technological: I have traced the decrease in competition to increasing barriers to entry and weak antitrust enforcement, sustained by heavy lobbying and campaign contributions.”

All this is backed up by persuasive evidence. Those prices of broadband access in the US are, for example, roughly double what they are in comparable countries. Profits per passenger for airlines are also far higher in the US than in the EU.

The analysis demonstrates, more broadly, that “market shares have become more concentrated and more persistent, and profits have increased.” Moreover, across industries, more concentration leads to higher profits. Overall, the effect is large: the post-tax profit share in US gross domestic product has almost doubled since the 1990s.

There are a number of reasons for the increase in market concentration. In manufacturing, competition from China played a role by driving weaker domestic competitors out of the market. For the rest of the economy, we need other explanations. In the 1990s, superstar companies, including the retail giant Walmart, drove the rate of investment and productivity growth upwards. The reverse happened in the 2000s, however: rising market concentration drove the profits of entrenched companies up and both the investment rate and productivity growth down.

Line chart of Gross operating surplus divided by sales or production* showing Profit margins in the US and EU
This malignant form of increased concentration reflects significantly diminished entry of new businesses and greater tolerance of merger activity. In other words, the US economy has seen a significant reduction in competition and a corresponding rise in monopoly and oligopoly.

To drive the argument home, the book turns to comparisons with the EU. Many readers will laugh: after all, isn’t the EU an economic disaster? When one compares changes in real gross domestic product per head, the answer, however, is: not really.

From 1999 to 2017 real GDP per head rose by 21 per cent in the US, 25 per cent in the EU and 19 per cent even in the eurozone, despite the damage done by its ineptly handled financial crisis. Levels of inequality and trends in income distribution are also less adverse in the EU, so increases in incomes have been more evenly shared.

In short, comparisons between the EU and the US are justifiable. These show that neither profit margins nor market concentration have exploded upwards in the EU as they have done in the US. The share of wages and salaries in the aggregate incomes — so-called “value-added” — of business has fallen by close to 6 percentage points in the US since 2000, but not at all in the eurozone. This destroys the hypothesis that technology is the main driver of the downward shift in the share of labour incomes. After all, technology (and international trade, as well) affected both sides of the Atlantic roughly equally.

Note that Philippon is making a narrow claim about differences in product market competition. The EU economy is not stronger in all respects, he stresses. On the contrary, “The US has better universities and a stronger ecosystem for innovation, from venture capital to technological expertise.”

Nevertheless, competition in product markets has become far more effective in the EU over the past two or three decades. This reflects purposeful deregul­ation within the single market — ironically, given the tragedy of Brexit, a UK-driven policy innovation that originated with Margaret Thatcher — and a more aggressive and independent competition policy. The two sides of the Atlantic have switched their focus on the need to preserve and promote competition.

Line chart of % change year-on-year, normalised to 0 in 2001 showing Difference in the mark-up of prices over the cost of labour
One fascinating proposition is that the EU has established more independent regulators than either its individual members or the US would do (or have done). This is a healthy result of mutual distrust within the EU. Individual states abhor the idea of being vulnerable to the whims of fellow members when it comes to regulation and so prefer fully independent institutions. This is particularly beneficial to countries with weak national regulators. The independence of its regulators also makes returns to lobbying relatively low in the EU.

The evidence is clear. The higher an EU member country’s product market regulation in 1998, the bigger the sub­sequent decline in such regulation. The effect is also far stronger for members of the EU than for non-EU members.

These developments reflect differences in politics. Lobbying, both against deregulation and for favourable regul­ation, is much fiercer in the US. Overall, evidence strongly supports the notion that this lobbying, which is inevitably dominated by big companies, works. Why else would people pay for it?

If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you

Former US Congressman Mick Mulvaney
The data on the role of money in US politics are even more dramatic. Members of Congress spend about 30 hours a week raising money. The Supreme Court’s perverse 2010 “Citizens United” decision held that companies are persons and money is speech. That has proved a big step on the journey of the US towards becoming a plutocracy.

As former representative Mick Mulvaney (a man gaining a reputation for beguiling honesty) stated in April 2018, “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.” One can indeed get the best congressperson money can buy.

Corporate lobbying is two to three times bigger in the US than the EU. Campaign contributions are 50 times larger in America than in the EU.

The Great Reversal also examines the situation in three crucial industries: finance, healthcare and “Big Tech”.

On finance, the startling finding is that the cost of intermediation — how much bankers and brokers charge for taking in savings and transferring them to end users — has remained around two percentage points for a century. All those computers have made no difference. This then is a rent-extraction machine. That really has to change.

There are two things about America that most outsiders will never understand: its gun laws and its healthcare system. The US spends far more on healthcare (not much below a fifth of GDP) and yet has far worse health outcomes than any other high-income country. How has this happened?

The answer is that the system creates rent-extracting monopolies from top to bottom: doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and pharmaceutical businesses all feed at this overflowing trough.

Finally, Philippon sheds light on what he calls the “GAFAMs” (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft). He demonstrates that the economic weight of these titans of tech is no bigger than that of the giants of the past. But their links to the economy as a whole are far smaller. It is no surprise, therefore, that their impact on productivity growth has also been relatively modest.

The author convincingly challenges the view that these businesses’ mono­poly positions are the natural product of economies of scale and network effects. So something can and should be done. In rising order of radicalism, these would be: preventing dominant comp­anies from acquisitions or forcing them to divest; limiting their ability to exploit dominant positions by imposing interoperability with other networks and data portability; and breaking them up.

The Great Reversal also notes the rise of monopsony — the monopoly power of buyers — in labour markets, via restrict­ive contracts, occupational licensing and restrictions on entry. Deregulation needs to focus on such barriers.

As economists have known since Adam Smith, business on its own will pursue restraints on competition, and with great enthusiasm. The outcome is rentier capitalism, which is both inefficient and politically illegitimate. The difficulty, however, is that it can be far too easy for incumbents to buy the political and regulatory protection it desires.

What should the US want? The answers, suggests Philippon, are: free entry; regulators prepared to make mistakes when acting against monopoly; and protection of transparency, privacy and data ownership by customers. The great obstacle to action in the US is the pervasive role of money in politics. The results are the twin evils of oligopoly and oligarchy.

Donald Trump is in so many ways a product of the defective capitalism described in The Great Reversal. What the US needs, instead, is another Teddy Roosevelt and his energetic trust-busting. Is that still imaginable? All believers in the virtues of competitive capitalism must hope so.




Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
Quote:
There are a number of reasons for the increase in market concentration. In manufacturing, competition from China played a role by driving weaker domestic competitors out of the market. For the rest of the economy, we need other explanations. In the 1990s, superstar companies, including the retail giant Walmart, drove the rate of investment and productivity growth upwards. The reverse happened in the 2000s, however: rising market concentration drove the profits of entrenched companies up and both the investment rate and productivity growth down.


There was a good article on this a few weeks ago.

Quote:
In the Reagan era, Walmart had already become the most important chain store in America, surpassing the importance of A&P at the height of its power. But it was during the Clinton administration that the company became a trading giant. First, the corporation jumped in size, replacing the auto giant GM as the top private employer in America, growing to 825,000 employees in 1998 while planting a store in every state. The end of antitrust enforcement in the retail space meant that Walmart could wield its buying power to restructure swaths of industries and companies, from pickle producers to Procter & Gamble. Clinton allowed Walmart to reorder world trade itself. Even in the mid-1990s, only a small percentage of its products were made abroad. But the passage of NAFTA—which eliminated tariffs on Mexican imports—as well as Clinton's embrace of Chinese imports, allowed Walmart to force its suppliers to produce where labor and environmental costs were lowest. From 1992 to 2000, America's trade deficit with China jumped from $18 billion to $84 billion, while it went from a small trade surplus to a $25 billion trade deficit with Mexico. And Walmart led the way. By 2003, consulting firm Retail Forward estimated more than half of Walmart merchandise was made abroad.


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evjk ... corruption


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9834
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
paddyor wrote:
He’s getting ratio’d for it but he’s right

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1194759960686714881?s=21



It is part of my problem with Bernard Brothers and other progressives and far left people. Ideals don't mean shit without the power to enact them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9834
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens, the all important White Working Class is what Biden succeeds at.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... c8a8d19a1/

Yes, it is not about peeling off Trump voters, the die hard 35% are beyond hope. The GOP has lost the suburbs under Trump and are now dependent on x-burbs and rural along with the rich elites. Biden's appeal is to guys like FR, so yes a never Trumper but also the mythical Obama-Trump voter. Also I say rural PA because look at the area Connor Lamb won? Was that not Rural? He only won Penn because he got places like Erie and all the small towns in Western PA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9834
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

This doesn't even get into stuff like my points to MacroSan about how Daniel Cameron's story has no sizzle by American Media standards. He went on to accuse me of DNC talking points but not refuting my point that there was no sizzle there. Or EDF calling me Bimboman-esque though there are no facts to Biden having mental decline while Bernie has had heart surgery, totally lacking proof. Same guy, also never got into the African American experience but dismissed my long and detailed post about it because he has an America black sister-in-law and is a half breed so he can speak to African American viewpoint.

And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


This is just another example of how you re-represent facts, Bimboman like in utterly obtuse ways when the don't suit your narrative, Biden's performance is there for everybody to see. The idea he isn't struggling cognitively in some way is there for all to see in his public performances, he is struggling to even appear to make sense or answer questions, regardless of his gaff ridden past.

You then obscure the clearly and honestly observable in debate by re-framing with disingenuous questions as statements, as if people and the media aren't seeing Biden's poor performances and answers for themselves, for goodness sake the media across the board have stated it. You then attempt to act as if it's some sort of fringe and peculiar point political extremists are making that no one else is. Then there is your constant need to somehow obscure observations like this as needing to be related to your race, country or origin or background, despite the utter irrelevance. Especially when you then contradict yourself by throwing out the race or background of other observers of the very same background you claim is vital when they disagree with your points. It's always "Well you guys aren't black or american. And no, other blacks or Americans don't count" without a hint of irony.



1. Speaking of narrative lets try who is being one-eyed here and go with facts.
Joe Biden
Joe Biden has a career littered with speaking gaffes.
He has run for president 3-4 times.
Claiming he has cognitively declined is subjective. As we have no doctors report, it is based each individuals determination of when someone has misspoken and when they are sunsetting.

Bernie Sanders
Has been the Junior Senator from Vermont for over 30 years (the Senior Senator has held that post for 40+ years)
-This shows how there is no real challenge when he runs.
-Vermont is one of the smallest states in the Union so unlike say Texas, he is not on a grueling schedule when he runs for Senate.
This is his second time running for president. previously he was not a front runner
He is now 4 years older and is one of the two front runners for Primary nod.
This time the race has begun in earnest much earlier and is more intense. He has never run a race like this in his life.
Bernie had a heart attack. Not something subjective, but an actual heart attack that a doctor had to operate on him.

Now you expect us to believe that just based on those stated facts, Bernie is in great shape and we shouldn't question his fitness but based on something far more subjective, Joe Biden is too out of it.

I will leave it to you and/or others to determine who is being obtuse and carrying their narrative over undeniable truths.

2. Now who is willfully misrepresenting someone's views. I got a sis-in-law that is black and lives in America too. I got a bro-in-law, similar thing, I got an uncle, I got classmates, I got co-workers and so on. So you have one source and an article and your own bullheaded opinion. I have my opinion backed up, by several people, nearly 20 times you source and several books and articles. So do you want to weigh who knows more black Americans and African Americans to form a point? I mean a sample size of 1, hell I will give 5, because I am sure you talk to the rest of her family too, is enough to fully capture the black American experience.


What is the difference?


I am a Black American in short hand as I am black and an American citizen but specifically I am Ghanaian American. African American is reserved for Daniel Cameron, Don King, Ben Carson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9834
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

This doesn't even get into stuff like my points to MacroSan about how Daniel Cameron's story has no sizzle by American Media standards. He went on to accuse me of DNC talking points but not refuting my point that there was no sizzle there. Or EDF calling me Bimboman-esque though there are no facts to Biden having mental decline while Bernie has had heart surgery, totally lacking proof. Same guy, also never got into the African American experience but dismissed my long and detailed post about it because he has an America black sister-in-law and is a half breed so he can speak to African American viewpoint.

And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


This is just another example of how you re-represent facts, Bimboman like in utterly obtuse ways when the don't suit your narrative, Biden's performance is there for everybody to see. The idea he isn't struggling cognitively in some way is there for all to see in his public performances, he is struggling to even appear to make sense or answer questions, regardless of his gaff ridden past.

You then obscure the clearly and honestly observable in debate by re-framing with disingenuous questions as statements, as if people and the media aren't seeing Biden's poor performances and answers for themselves, for goodness sake the media across the board have stated it. You then attempt to act as if it's some sort of fringe and peculiar point political extremists are making that no one else is. Then there is your constant need to somehow obscure observations like this as needing to be related to your race, country or origin or background, despite the utter irrelevance. Especially when you then contradict yourself by throwing out the race or background of other observers of the very same background you claim is vital when they disagree with your points. It's always "Well you guys aren't black or american. And no, other blacks or Americans don't count" without a hint of irony.



1. Speaking of narrative lets try who is being one-eyed here and go with facts.
Joe Biden
Joe Biden has a career littered with speaking gaffes.
He has run for president 3-4 times.
Claiming he has cognitively declined is subjective. As we have no doctors report, it is based each individuals determination of when someone has misspoken and when they are sunsetting.

Bernie Sanders
Has been the Junior Senator from Vermont for over 30 years (the Senior Senator has held that post for 40+ years)
-This shows how there is no real challenge when he runs.
-Vermont is one of the smallest states in the Union so unlike say Texas, he is not on a grueling schedule when he runs for Senate.
This is his second time running for president. previously he was not a front runner
He is now 4 years older and is one of the two front runners for Primary nod.
This time the race has begun in earnest much earlier and is more intense. He has never run a race like this in his life.
Bernie had a heart attack. Not something subjective, but an actual heart attack that a doctor had to operate on him.

Now you expect us to believe that just based on those stated facts, Bernie is in great shape and we shouldn't question his fitness but based on something far more subjective, Joe Biden is too out of it.


Once again you put in a false claim to frame you argument falsely. We know Biden has gaffs. No one in this thread or in the media is discussing gaffs. We are discussing debating performances.

Biden's poor performances are there to see. The observation of his form has been noticed across the board. Claiming you can only determine a performance with a health certificate is your false framing. Buried of course in lots of irrelevan statements about the size of his state seeming forgetting he ran a big race in 2016.

Likewise no one is denying Bernie had a health scare, but we can see he is clearly fine right now and performing and fighting fit, in fact he's done some of his best work since and the details released show it's an operation people do return from quite soon. There is no point you using the health scare as ammunition while you ignore the fact he's had a procedure people return from regularly and quickly . If Sanders had returned and was in poor form, showed signs of ill health etc, then your claims his health is questionable would be valid. Instead you've just question it contrary to the evidence and presented since he left hospital.


False Framing? is that your word for fact you refuse to accept. Some believe Donald Trump has experienced cognitive decline, others believe he is a genius. I have said with no medical diagnosis, it is subjective and lends itself to partisanship and personal bias (whether it be for a party or liking another candidate or a juicy click bait article). Like how you say no one is denying Bernie had a health scare? Its because you can't!! It actually happened, we are not watching a few minutes of video and then one person screams he is fine and another says he needs the old folks home. There is no room for that.

Also, I bolded the part where I highlight Bernie ran 4 years ago. You seem to be so foaming at the mouth to defend Bernand, you missed my point about him being 4 years older, this being a more intense race, starting far earlier than before and he is now a frontrunner as opposed to chopped liver (he started out as an also ran before gaining steam and becoming a legit contender, so don't accuse me of downplaying his run in 2016).

My argument is more the unrepentant hypocrisy of people saying that Joe is too old and senile while saying Bernie had routine heart surgery and is back better than ever. One is an opinion, the other is a fact. So if we are talking about health of candidates, one has a written record that requires concern, the other doesnt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10579
Deadtigers wrote:
Bowens, the all important White Working Class is what Biden succeeds at.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... c8a8d19a1/

Yes, it is not about peeling off Trump voters, the die hard 35% are beyond hope. The GOP has lost the suburbs under Trump and are now dependent on x-burbs and rural along with the rich elites. Biden's appeal is to guys like FR, so yes a never Trumper but also the mythical Obama-Trump voter. Also I say rural PA because look at the area Connor Lamb won? Was that not Rural? He only won Penn because he got places like Erie and all the small towns in Western PA.


So it’s not about peeling off Trump voters but he will be going after Obama-Trump voters? Ok. You know Bernie does really well in districts that went Obama to Trump right? He’s kicking everyone else’s ass in those areas in fundraising. https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sa ... g-counties

Lamb’s district is mostly Pittsburgh suburbs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24487
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

This doesn't even get into stuff like my points to MacroSan about how Daniel Cameron's story has no sizzle by American Media standards. He went on to accuse me of DNC talking points but not refuting my point that there was no sizzle there. Or EDF calling me Bimboman-esque though there are no facts to Biden having mental decline while Bernie has had heart surgery, totally lacking proof. Same guy, also never got into the African American experience but dismissed my long and detailed post about it because he has an America black sister-in-law and is a half breed so he can speak to African American viewpoint.

And then KiO asks me my thoughts on Bloomberg, what is the point, since I have lived under Bloomberg as NYC Mayor for almost a decade. That kind of experience shaping my opinion of him is totally invalid because it based on previous experience, which this thread has shown, doesnt mean a thing.

I have said it before, I wouldn't go to your countries and tell you, you don't know what the phuck your talking about and your just bias when talking about your national politics.


This is just another example of how you re-represent facts, Bimboman like in utterly obtuse ways when the don't suit your narrative, Biden's performance is there for everybody to see. The idea he isn't struggling cognitively in some way is there for all to see in his public performances, he is struggling to even appear to make sense or answer questions, regardless of his gaff ridden past.

You then obscure the clearly and honestly observable in debate by re-framing with disingenuous questions as statements, as if people and the media aren't seeing Biden's poor performances and answers for themselves, for goodness sake the media across the board have stated it. You then attempt to act as if it's some sort of fringe and peculiar point political extremists are making that no one else is. Then there is your constant need to somehow obscure observations like this as needing to be related to your race, country or origin or background, despite the utter irrelevance. Especially when you then contradict yourself by throwing out the race or background of other observers of the very same background you claim is vital when they disagree with your points. It's always "Well you guys aren't black or american. And no, other blacks or Americans don't count" without a hint of irony.



1. Speaking of narrative lets try who is being one-eyed here and go with facts.
Joe Biden
Joe Biden has a career littered with speaking gaffes.
He has run for president 3-4 times.
Claiming he has cognitively declined is subjective. As we have no doctors report, it is based each individuals determination of when someone has misspoken and when they are sunsetting.

Bernie Sanders
Has been the Junior Senator from Vermont for over 30 years (the Senior Senator has held that post for 40+ years)
-This shows how there is no real challenge when he runs.
-Vermont is one of the smallest states in the Union so unlike say Texas, he is not on a grueling schedule when he runs for Senate.
This is his second time running for president. previously he was not a front runner
He is now 4 years older and is one of the two front runners for Primary nod.
This time the race has begun in earnest much earlier and is more intense. He has never run a race like this in his life.
Bernie had a heart attack. Not something subjective, but an actual heart attack that a doctor had to operate on him.

Now you expect us to believe that just based on those stated facts, Bernie is in great shape and we shouldn't question his fitness but based on something far more subjective, Joe Biden is too out of it.


Once again you put in a false claim to frame you argument falsely. We know Biden has gaffs. No one in this thread or in the media is discussing gaffs. We are discussing debating performances.

Biden's poor performances are there to see. The observation of his form has been noticed across the board. Claiming you can only determine a performance with a health certificate is your false framing. Buried of course in lots of irrelevan statements about the size of his state seeming forgetting he ran a big race in 2016.

Likewise no one is denying Bernie had a health scare, but we can see he is clearly fine right now and performing and fighting fit, in fact he's done some of his best work since and the details released show it's an operation people do return from quite soon. There is no point you using the health scare as ammunition while you ignore the fact he's had a procedure people return from regularly and quickly . If Sanders had returned and was in poor form, showed signs of ill health etc, then your claims his health is questionable would be valid. Instead you've just question it contrary to the evidence and presented since he left hospital.


False Framing? is that your word for fact you refuse to accept. Some believe Donald Trump has experienced cognitive decline, others believe he is a genius. I have said with no medical diagnosis, it is subjective and lends itself to partisanship and personal bias (whether it be for a party or liking another candidate or a juicy click bait article). Like how you say no one is denying Bernie had a health scare? Its because you can't!! It actually happened, we are not watching a few minutes of video and then one person screams he is fine and another says he needs the old folks home. There is no room for that.


I think we can all agree anyone who think Trump is a genius is a blinkered partisan conservative. That doesn't mean Trump doesn't have some acute instincts.

Quote:
Also, I bolded the part where I highlight Bernie ran 4 years ago. You seem to be so foaming at the mouth to defend Bernand, you missed my point about him being 4 years older, this being a more intense race, starting far earlier than before and he is now a frontrunner as opposed to chopped liver (he started out as an also ran before gaining steam and becoming a legit contender, so don't accuse me of downplaying his run in 2016).


My argument is more the unrepentant hypocrisy of people saying that Joe is too old and senile while saying Bernie had routine heart surgery and is back better than ever. One is an opinion, the other is a fact. So if we are talking about health of candidates, one has a written record that requires concern, the other doesnt.[/quote]

No one is saying Joe is too old. It's the evidence of how poor he is in debates and how slow he is in registering things. We are basing it off what we see, not their ages. And as for written record, out of the two Bernie is the one that will have doctors states he is fine to return to work. Biden as far as we are aware doesn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16910
eldanielfire wrote:
out of the two Bernie is the one that will have doctors states he is fine to return to work. Biden as far as we are aware doesn't.


:roll: :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5165
paddyor wrote:
He’s getting ratio’d for it but he’s right

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1194759960686714881?s=21


Before GoE and Flyin Ryan get mad this is true of everywhere, not just the US. Even in NZ where politics has always been pretty happily centrist you’ve got left wing activist decrying anything even remotely conservative as Trump-like these days. There’s, of course, value in both left and right as imagine how terrible the world would be if it was in a constant state of revolution, or conversely if it was in a constant state of stagnation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24487
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
out of the two Bernie is the one that will have doctors states he is fine to return to work. Biden as far as we are aware doesn't.


:roll: :roll:


You don't think Sanders Doctor's cleared him to return to work?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9062
Location: Indiana
paddyor wrote:
He’s getting ratio’d for it but he’s right

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1194759960686714881?s=21


He is right. The Democrats are so dead right now in rural areas, small towns, and small cities.

The only person running that seems to even acknowledge this is Buttigieg, who perhaps not coincidentally is someone that's not been a part of Washington for a decade plus.

Had to look up ratioed. Learned a new word today.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3531 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 ... 89  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assfly, backrow, Bobless, danny_fitz, de_Selby, Edinburgh01, Google Adsense [Bot], HighKingLeinster, Jensrsa, JONESA3, Lemoentjie, Liathroidigloine, Luckycharmer, Mullet 2, MunsterMan!!!!!, nardol, ovalball, Petros, PornDog, Raggs, RodneyRegis, Rowdy, Rugby2023, Santa, sturginho, tc27, Tez, Toddyno7, Varsity Way, Wilderbeast, Yer Man, youngsidd and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group