yang is not the only non-white or person of color candidate

12/13/2019 10:39:12 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/andrew-yang-qualifies-for-december-debate-and-set-to-be-only-non-white-candidate-on-stage

Quote :

"With the addition of Yang, the debate stage is set to showcase six white candidates and one Asian candidate."

The only one on the debate stage next week.
Actually Pete is also considered as minority b/c he's LGBT.

[Edited on December 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM. Reason : add another note]

12/13/2019 10:41:33 AM

and while it is good to have a diverse range of candidates, most people aren't going to vote based on those personal characteristics.

12/13/2019 10:44:44 AM

This is a much more offensive title
https://www.newsweek.com/andrew-yang-democrats-primary-debate-diversity-1477053

Quote :

"ANDREW YANG IS THE ONLY PERSON OF COLOR TO QUALIFY FOR THE DEMOCRATS' DECEMBER DEBATE"

12/13/2019 10:48:52 AM

Speaking of minorities. Biden's losing his lead in his one sure state.

Quote :

"Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s Democratic opponents are eating into his lead in Mr. Biden’s “firewall” state of South Carolina, according to a Post and Courier-Change Research poll released on Thursday. Mr. Biden was the top choice of 27% of likely Democratic primary voters, followed by Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont at 20% and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 19%, according to the poll. It’s the first time since February that Mr. Biden hasn’t had a double-digit lead in the state in Post and Courier-Change polls."

Something MSM won't talk about.

12/13/2019 11:10:21 AM

isn't the source of that quote, the washington times, MSM?

12/13/2019 11:26:06 AM

So from next debate it will be five 60+ old folks with two under 45 minorities. Four rounds are already set next Jan&Feb.

12/13/2019 11:56:07 AM

I don't know but I consider MAIN stream to be NYT WAPO ABC CNN CBS FOX NBC. Washington times is a relatively small, regional paper but a lot of people think its big because it sounds like the two papers in the list above. Also, its important to keep in mind that CNN often publishes a lot of the articles it buries but doesn't put links to them on the website. That way, when people search for a story, they can still drive traffic to their site, but when people go to cnn.com, they only get the stories tailored to their agenda.

12/13/2019 3:47:07 PM

Quote :

" NYT WAPO ABC CNN CBS FOX NBC"

Add WSJ and MSNBC, and you have all the news sites you need to draw conclusions

[Edited on December 13, 2019 at 6:33 PM. Reason : MS]

12/13/2019 6:33:18 PM

No you also need Breitbart and horosho's right wing blogs a

12/13/2019 8:13:23 PM

^^Its quite telling that you think that. Your conclusions will basically be entirely corporate establishment aligned, american centric and will have complete disregard for leftist perspective. and thats what we see from most of the users here

A lot of stories are never mentioned by any of those organizations and a lot of stories are overblown. Your entire scope is the binary world the establishment wants you to see. A lot of the stories you'd see on sites like jacobinmag or commondreams are buried on all of those sites as if they aren't even happening.

A lot of the stories you'd see on rt that would show something negative happening in america would never make it on any of those sites. The protesters marching on downing street was a pretty big event but completely blacked out meanwhile we consume a steady stream of the protests in hong kong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=4IHqQpV_8RE&feature=emb_logo
This South Korean preemptive strike propaganda video didn't make it to any MSM because it disrupts the narrative they've worked so hard on that DPRK is the sole dangerous, provocative, aggressive actor in the region.

I could go on and on but this is really telling because you guys with a narrow worldview have basically only heard about 30% of the major stories and if I can handpick your news everyday, I can control the way you see the world.

[Edited on December 14, 2019 at 1:42 PM. Reason : corporate media ]

12/14/2019 1:42:11 PM

Lol, of course he likes russian state media in addition to his right wing blogs

12/14/2019 4:36:31 PM

I really don't know what to make of this article: the Evil Corporate Gay Mayor from South Bend - "Mayo Pete".

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/how-pete-buttigieg-has-drawn-the-fury-of-the-online-left/ar-BBY2D49?ocid=ientp

12/16/2019 4:13:17 PM

It's garbage. Pete is failing because he's an empty shell of a candidate and what plans he does have are obviously shit in comparison to Sanders and Warren.

12/16/2019 4:16:03 PM

^ at the same time he's the only major candidate in the race that's younger than 70 years old and is not a creature of Washington (plus he's gay, which considering this is the Democratic Party that gives him 10 points for checking an identity politics box)

South Bend is an hour and a half from me. I'm very skeptical of Buttigieg running for national office as he noticeably skipped trying to build any kind of statewide base before going national (this is just not the presidential race but his run for DNC Chair as well). His accomplishments in South Bend are not that different from my own mayor in a city double the size of South Bend and is also a Democrat. That said, I am laughing at all the idiocy displayed in that article.

12/16/2019 4:21:43 PM

I think a lot of people wanted Pete to happen because he's young, a very good public speaker, and seemed progressive at first. Unfortunately, if you're a Bernie or Warren type voter, he just doesn't live up...at all. If you look at the poll avg, he seems to be losing numbers to both of them.

And people joke about him being a CIA/McKinsey prop...but it doesn't seem out of the question when you look at his history and then how much money he's raised.

[Edited on December 16, 2019 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2019 4:27:38 PM

To me wolves in sheeps clothes are worse than wolves in wolves clothes and that is why he is problematic and must be met with a #neverpete movement.

12/16/2019 5:15:16 PM

Quote :

" is not a creature of Washington "

Huh? He's entirely part of it at this point

12/16/2019 6:34:39 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/16/bernie-sanders-first-100-days-president-white-house-administration-084447

Quote :

"Maybe there won’t really be “Medicare for All,” thanks to Mitch McConnell and a Republican Senate, but they at least see less expensive prescription drugs and health care for more people than currently have it."

SMH. You hate to see it. Bernie Sanders staffers backpedaling from M4A after he gets a taste of being in a position to win the primary.

He won’t follow through, I can’t believe anyone fell for this.

12/16/2019 6:59:06 PM

Id easily prefer Biden over mayor Pete at this point. At least you know what you're getting.

12/16/2019 7:27:31 PM

^^ someone's opinion peice is "bernie staffers"?

A president cant just make laws happen, the point is that you have to fight for real solutions to move us left so whatever compromised position we end up with isnt totally shit and moves us in the right direction. Sanders isnt suddenly going to get everything he wants, but that doesnt mean hes moving away from M4A

[Edited on December 16, 2019 at 7:52 PM. Reason : Is siders part of the campaign? Your post makes no sense ]

12/16/2019 7:49:11 PM

Desperation

Meanwhile:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/politics/elizabeth-warren-choice-medicare-for-all-transition-iowa/index.html

12/16/2019 7:52:57 PM

She's a wavering progressive. My gut intuition about her from the beginning turned out to be wise. I'll accept written apologies from anyone who called me out and still identifies as progressive here in this thread.

[Edited on December 16, 2019 at 9:09 PM. Reason : its almost like m4a was just a way to gain popularity until it couldn't anymore]

12/16/2019 9:08:15 PM

^^its how you responded when Warren suggested that it might take more than one term to pass M4A and released a detailed “transition plan” to get from where we are now to M4A:

Quote :

"It's not. She won't follow through. Idk how anyone is falling for this."

https://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=648215&page=50#16552310

Now the Bernie Crew is suggesting getting something through congress might be complicated and its all: “hey, ya know, the president can’t just will it into existence.”

How about stop handling Bernie with kids gloves?

12/16/2019 9:54:03 PM

What Bernie crew? Who are you talking about?

And can you explain why Warren is splitting M4A up into two bills?

12/16/2019 10:03:07 PM

Because she thinks it will take extensive coalition building to force M4A through Congress.

12/16/2019 10:04:30 PM

That didn't answer either of my questions

Side note: if anyone has financially invested in Warren, but is starting to regret the decision, you can email the campaign and they will probably refund your donations.

12/16/2019 10:11:45 PM

The point is clear:

When The Warren Campaign identifies a clear political/legislative obstacle and plots a plausible plan to attack it (to incrementally build support for M4A via two rounds of legislation, suggesting budget reconciliation as a way around the filibuster, etc);

She’s dragged as a Manchurian Republican bent on relegating us all to Obamacare hell.

When the Bernie campaign suggests M4A may not pass the Senate but hey, maybe we can lower drug costs, possibly;

The Bernie crew (Megan day, Krystal Ball, etc) just shrugs and uncritically agrees.

The kid gloves are pathetic.

12/16/2019 10:33:29 PM

Quote :

"to incrementally build support for M4A via two rounds of legislation"

Why do you think a public buy-in is superior given that:

a) A buy-in isn't even the same as M4A, so it doesn't illustrate what M4A would do for everyone.

b) It allows insurance companies the opportunity to reduce cost to the consumer, erode the public option, and eventually revert back to the system we have now (or worse)

And why do you think coalition building within congress is superior to coalition building outside of congress given the entire history of US sociopolitical movements?

Quote :

"suggesting budget reconciliation as a way around the filibuster"

This has been Bernie's plan since before Warren announced she would do the same, and after her supporters trashed him for it.

Quote :

"When the Bernie campaign suggests M4A may not pass the Senate but hey, maybe we can lower drug costs, possibly"

Again, very confused about what you're talking about here because the article doesn't quote anyone from the Bernie campaign.

12/16/2019 10:47:06 PM

The biggest obstacle to M4A are the “oh noes Sochulism” arguments. People in this country are easily scared by “government-run” anything. A phased in plan helps kneecaps those arguments, showcases the cost savings that M4A brings, and will warm up both tentative congresspeople and voters. It will be a coalition of both, but the reality is coalition building in congress is important because, ultimately, any plan will have to pass congress.

Lol at the idea that private insurance, whose costs have grown by no less than 5% per year for the past decade, are suddenly going to be able to drop their prices to some bargain value. They simply aren’t capable.

12/17/2019 4:48:53 AM

Quote :

" plus he's gay, which considering this is the Democratic Party that gives him 10 points for checking an identity politics box"

This is really besides the point but is there any real evidence that this is a thing in today’s party? Maybe 20 years ago but the vast majority of identity politics in the modern landscape is rightwing white and Christian identify politics and grievance.

12/17/2019 7:25:26 AM

^^ sanders plan is phased in

again, who are you arguing with? what sanders staffers or supporters are backing away from m4a?

[Edited on December 17, 2019 at 8:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2019 8:36:08 AM

Don’t be naive, that article is a trial balloon. It starts with an “anonymous staffer” and in two months, Bernie will have pivoted to discussing political realities and what pragmatically could be forced through congress.

The difference is that Bernie will be celebrated while Warren being pragmatic was treated like some kind of massive betrayal. No one else can kick anything through “The Left’s” goalposts because they keep moving them until their pre-selected kicker lines up. It’s a cult of personality IMO.

12/17/2019 8:53:57 AM

no one quoted in that article, anonymous or not, is backing away from m4a. i mean it even mentions that sanders plans to introduce his bill in the first week, and talks about his calls to continue rallies and keep his base mobilized to fight back.

seriously what are you talking about?

12/17/2019 9:02:07 AM

Jesus I quoted it above. If someone associated with the Warren Campaign suggested that M4A may not pass as proposed you’d be in here tweet-quoting Meagan Day and shitting all over her.

12/17/2019 9:18:26 AM

Quote :

"To me wolves in sheeps clothes are worse than wolves in wolves clothes and that is why he is problematic and must be met with a #neverpete movement."

So in your opinion is there no such thing as a Democrat in "flyover country", the ones that call themselves Democrats are instead "wolves in sheep's clothes"?

There are 92 counties in Indiana, 4 of them voted for Clinton over Trump in 2016. Marion (Indianapolis), Lake (Gary/Hammond/outer Chicago suburbs-union heavy so it's actually moving rightward somewhat because Trump's rhetoric spoke to them more than Hillary did), Monroe (home to Indiana University), and St. Joseph (home to Notre Dame University, where Buttigieg is from). In your opinion that number should really be 90 to 2?

Because as a person that lives here I'm seriously about at the point of not just are Indiana Democrats irrelevant, they need to be replaced as the #2 party in the state because they have demonstrated election cycle after election cycle their brand of politics is not electable outside of urban areas and college towns and we're looking at single-party supermajority politics for at least the next 20 years. In Buttigieg you have a Democrat that has actually been elected in this state and is the only person in the race that can speak to "there are vast sections of this country where our party does not exist", you're saying "he's not left-wing enough". Buttigieg is hardly Evan Bayh.

12/17/2019 9:27:13 AM

^^that's not quote by a bernie staffer (or by anyone, it's not a quote at all)

it's also not moving away from M4A

zero of your point is based on anything except what you decided in your head because of an opinion written by someone not a sanders staffer


as best i can tell, you were previously under the impression that bernie staffers or supporters thought that the president is like a king and can do whatever he wants and are now upset to learn that bernie staffers and supporters never thought that. is that accurate?



[Edited on December 17, 2019 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2019 9:27:23 AM

"we're going to fight really hard for M4A, introduce a bill in the first week, and keep the movement going and rallying anyone who opposes it"

vs.

"this is too hard, instead we need to start the fight from a compromised position that doesn't even really excite anyone into action"

you: these things are the same

12/17/2019 9:33:32 AM

What I’m upset about is how hypocritical Bernie stans are. They go out of their way to parse every word Warren says to portray her as an imminent betrayal. Bernie gets a pass, always.

12/17/2019 9:34:23 AM

but, here's my point, bernie hasn't said anything to move away from m4a

including in what you quoted, that wasn't moving away from m4a

and it wasn't even said by bernie or any of his staffers, it was the non-staffer author's opinion

so, what are you even talking about?

12/17/2019 9:36:14 AM

Jesus fucking Christ

Quote :

"During the past several weeks, I spoke with dozens of Sanders supporters, advisers and aides at events in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and California about what they would expect from a Sanders administration—and what’s already being discussed behind the scenes. . . . . . Maybe there won’t really be “Medicare for All,” thanks to Mitch McConnell and a Republican Senate, but they at least see less expensive prescription drugs and health care for more people than currently have it."

12/17/2019 9:40:06 AM

Jesus Fucking Christ

Quote :

"but, here's my point, bernie hasn't said anything to move away from m4a including in what you quoted, that wasn't moving away from m4a and it wasn't even said by bernie or any of his staffers, it was the non-staffer author's opinion so, what are you even talking about?"

12/17/2019 9:42:32 AM

Your tears are going to be so delicious when he pivots to exactly where I’ve said he’s headed.

12/17/2019 9:46:45 AM

Quote :

"This is really besides the point but is there any real evidence that this is a thing in today’s party?"

Well if you remove his gimmick, do you think keeping all other circumstances the same he would've made it this far? If you think yes, fine, that's your opinion. I think it got him in the door where he wouldn't have otherwise because I don't see mayors coming out of the woodwork and being taken seriously to run for president.

I never personally thought Buttigieg would win the Democratic nod, and am surprised he's done as well in this race as he has. I always thought his presidential bid was at best a swing at getting a VP nod (he REALLY wants to debate Pence, our former governor) or getting some kind of cabinet role in a way to move up the ladder in politics but not go to Congress and bypass Indiana statewide because he know he would lose there.

12/17/2019 9:48:54 AM

Quote :

"Your tears are going to be so delicious when he pivots to exactly where I’ve said he’s headed."

see:

Quote :

"as best i can tell, you were previously under the impression that bernie staffers or supporters thought that the president is like a king and can do whatever he wants and are now upset to learn that bernie staffers and supporters never thought that."

and

Quote :

""we're going to fight really hard for M4A, introduce a bill in the first week, and keep the movement going and rallying anyone who opposes it" vs. "this is too hard, instead we need to start the fight from a compromised position that doesn't even really excite anyone into action" you: these things are the same"

[Edited on December 17, 2019 at 9:56 AM. Reason : and]

12/17/2019 9:56:08 AM

Seriously desperate ploy here, you hate to see it

12/17/2019 10:54:19 AM

Biden: I can work with republicans
Democrats: Wow, you sound like the right guy to take on trump
Biden: Hey republicans, vote for me, but keep being republican
Democrats: This is the guy who can unite the country!
Tulsi: (suggests working with republicans)
Democrats: OMG, Tulsi is courting republicans. Disgusting! why is she even running?

12/19/2019 1:28:43 PM

i don't think there was a favorable reaction to Joe Biden saying he could work with Republicans from people who consider themselves leftists or progressives

from certain "leftists" and tulsi gabbard on the other hand...

12/19/2019 1:31:23 PM

debate tonight in LA

sanders has good momentum in CA
https://www.kqed.org/news/11790984/with-kamala-harris-out-poll-finds-presidential-race-wide-open-in-california

12/19/2019 1:36:03 PM

Quote :

"i don't think there was a favorable reaction to Joe Biden saying he could work with Republicans from people who consider themselves leftists or progressives"

Yeah, this was already covered in the "scandal" where Joe Biden said he was able to work with racist senators in the 70s. The other Democrats pretended to not understand his point and accused him of being racist or whatever.

12/19/2019 1:40:37 PM