Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Which of these is considered the "Centrist" this time around, ready to railroad Bernie to the gutter?

---

IDK. But I think we're already seeing the party* (*you call that a par-tay?) line with Pelosi. Without Hillary to crystallize on, I guess we'll just have to wait and see who the DNC picks. My guess is it's one of the pro-Israel pro-military candidates. or at the very least, one without any anti-military baggage, so they can go on with business as usual, assuming they win.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's a great graph that shows the extremism of the Left these days:

---

Quote:

---

Not only does it show that about half of the "Republican" voters fall on the left side of the graph on economic issues, but it also shows that around half of the "Democratic" voters are toward the center or even toward the top on social issues and identity politics.

---

You must be looking at a different plot than what you posted.
Looks to me like the 50% line for blue from top to bottom is between -0.5 and -1.0, around -0.75 - nowhere even close to center. Looks like only 5% of Blue is above 0.0.

Quote:

---

Notice the Bottom Right corner. That's the Alt-Right there, folks. The Identitarians that are fiscally conservative. Not a lot of them, are there? It also looks as though there is a healthy mix of Republicans, Democrats and Independents that fall into that category.

Your bottom left, especially the big blob of blue in lower left octant. Well... that's your AOC supporting, authoritative, identity politics driven, Socialist lefty fringe that throws out the word Nazi a dozen times a day.

You'd be astute for noticing that there is no equal and opposite for the upper right octant.

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarians-just-might-exist/

I'd surmise from this graph that if the Democrats were to drop identity politics altogether, that the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance in the future. But if they choose to continue down that route you're only going to see the blobs further separate from each other.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's a great graph that shows the extremism of the Left these days:

---

Quote:

---

Not only does it show that about half of the "Republican" voters fall on the left side of the graph on economic issues, but it also shows that around half of the "Democratic" voters are toward the center or even toward the top on social issues and identity politics.

---

You must be looking at a different plot than what you posted.
Looks to me like the 50% line for blue from top to bottom is between -0.5 and -1.0, around -0.75 - nowhere even close to center. Looks like only 5% of Blue is above 0.0.

Quote:

---

Notice the Bottom Right corner. That's the Alt-Right there, folks. The Identitarians that are fiscally conservative. Not a lot of them, are there? It also looks as though there is a healthy mix of Republicans, Democrats and Independents that fall into that category.

Your bottom left, especially the big blob of blue in lower left octant. Well... that's your AOC supporting, authoritative, identity politics driven, Socialist lefty fringe that throws out the word Nazi a dozen times a day.

You'd be astute for noticing that there is no equal and opposite for the upper right octant.

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarians-just-might-exist/

I'd surmise from this graph that if the Democrats were to drop identity politics altogether, that the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance in the future. But if they choose to continue down that route you're only going to see the blobs further separate from each other.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's a great graph that shows the extremism of the Left these days:

---

Quote:

---

Not only does it show that about half of the "Republican" voters fall on the left side of the graph on economic issues, but it also shows that around half of the "Democratic" voters are toward the center or even toward the top on social issues and identity politics.

---

You must be looking at a different plot than what you posted.
Looks to me like the 50% line for blue from top to bottom is between -0.5 and -1.0, around -0.75 - nowhere even close to center. Looks like only 5% of Blue is above 0.0.

Quote:

---

Notice the Bottom Right corner. That's the Alt-Right there, folks. The Identitarians that are fiscally conservative. Not a lot of them, are there? It also looks as though there is a healthy mix of Republicans, Democrats and Independents that fall into that category.

Your bottom left, especially the big blob of blue in lower left octant. Well... that's your AOC supporting, authoritative, identity politics driven, Socialist lefty fringe that throws out the word Nazi a dozen times a day.

You'd be astute for noticing that there is no equal and opposite for the upper right octant.

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarians-just-might-exist/

I'd surmise from this graph that if the Democrats were to drop identity politics altogether, that the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance in the future. But if they choose to continue down that route you're only going to see the blobs further separate from each other.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

---

No. We're looking at the same graph. You're just misunderstanding what I said.

There is about a 50/50 split for Republicans on either side of 0 for economics. That much is easy to see, that's what I said, and I don't believe you're arguing that point.

I used a different metric for the identitarianism for Democrats by saying that nearly 50% of them are somewhere near the center (0) or even toward the top. I didn't ever specify an exact "center" for them on these issues.

I was simply illustrating the point that while social issues are without a doubt more important to Liberals in general, a vast majority of them are not Identitarian extremists in the bottom left corner. (To which I also made the point that there is no equal and opposite group on the upper right corner made up of Republicans... hardly anyone is up there at all).

I'd consider anybody within 0.5 on any end of either metric to be "center" and the (arguably) most reasonable people of the bunch. The further you get from 0.5 on either metric, the more unreasonable you become until you're part of an extreme.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The next 2 days have the Dem candidate debates scheduled in Miami.


https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2019/03/first-2020-democrat
ic-debate-set-for-june-26-and-27-in-miami/


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/2020-democratic-debates-which-c
andidates-have-qualified.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
lol. The debates were an embarrassing shit show for Democrats, and they all know it.

You'll notice that nobody here who would be excited about all of the great moments have anything positive to say about them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Nah. It's great entertainment. Watching them debase themselves and each other is better than most of the drek that Hollywood puts out these days.

Pure comedy gold.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CEREALMUSH:
Also, who gives a shit about watching 20 politicians argue? Or say anything? It's the worst kind of theatre - just boring.

---

Quote:

---

Also, who gives a shit about watching 20 politicians argue? Or say anything? It's the worst kind of theatre - just boring.- CEREALMUSH

In other words - your mind is made up about which party you'll vote for, you're just waiting for democrats to serve you the special of the day? So - why bother listening to anything any politician says? KIKI

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Why don't you take a second to re-read that question to yourself out loud and see if you know what the hell it is you're actually asking.

When I said they were great, I meant like a cheesy Nic Cage flick, or Leprechaun in the Hood.

---

Quote:

---

Also, who gives a shit about watching 20 politicians argue? Or say anything? It's the worst kind of theatre - just boring.- CEREALMUSH

---

Quote:

---

In other words - your mind is made up about which party you'll vote for, you're just waiting for democrats to serve you the special of the day? So - why bother listening to anything any politician says? KIKI

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Including Trump?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have done a lousy job keeping the data updated in this thread.

For now, here is a roster of those 20 candidates who participated in the late-June Debates:

1. Pocahontas Warren.
2. Beto O-Rourke.
3. Cory Booker.
4. Julian Castro.
5. Tulsi Gabbard.
6. Jay Inslee.
7. Amy Klobuchar.
8. Bill DeBlasio.
9. John Delaney.
10. Tom Ryan.

11. Biden.
12. Bernie.
13. Pete Buttigieg.
14. Kamala Harris.
15. Kirsten Gillibrand.
16. Michael Bennett.
17. Marianne Williamson.
18. Eric Swalwell.
19. Andrew Yang.
20. John Hickenlooper.


To be clear, the requirements for the October Debates do not preclude other candidates from becoming eligible. I assume the above 20 have met some sort of criteria, unless Hilliary just Annointed them.

Reportedly, the top 3 are Biden, Bernie, and Pocahontas. Some reports are that the expected frontrunner in the fall will be Pocahontas. Maybe that is why she was allowed to change her answer the day after the first debate, when somebody told her how stupid it was.


If I understand correctly, DNC rules to qualify for the Fall Debates are 2-fold. At least 130,000 individual donors/contributors must have added to the campaign fund. And the candidate must have polled at least 2% in 4 approved polls during the period from June-August. I guess they also must have at least 20 States in which they have at least 400 donors.
Only 6 spots are allocated for the Fall Debates.

Some folk have commented on the lack of depth or substance in their debates and statements. This is reportedly due to the absolute need to increase their donor count, to spur those wackos on the Left to contribute to their campaign.


Already qualified:
Biden, Bernie, Pocahontas, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg.

Booker has only got about 100,000 donors. Beto has not polled high enough yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have done a lousy job keeping the data updated in this thread.

For now, here is a roster of those 20 candidates who participated in the late-June Debates:

1. Pocahontas Warren.
2. Beto O-Rourke.
3. Cory Booker.
4. Julian Castro.
5. Tulsi Gabbard.
6. Jay Inslee.
7. Amy Klobuchar.
8. Bill DeBlasio.
9. John Delaney.
10. Tom Ryan.

11. Biden.
12. Bernie.
13. Pete Buttigieg.
14. Kamala Harris.
15. Kirsten Gillibrand.
16. Michael Bennett.
17. Marianne Williamson.
18. Eric Swalwell.
19. Andrew Yang.
20. John Hickenlooper.


To be clear, the requirements for the October Debates do not preclude other candidates from becoming eligible. I assume the above 20 have met some sort of criteria, unless Hilliary just Annointed them.

Reportedly, the top 3 are Biden, Bernie, and Pocahontas. Some reports are that the expected frontrunner in the fall will be Pocahontas. Maybe that is why she was allowed to change her answer the day after the first debate, when somebody told her how stupid it was.


If I understand correctly, DNC rules to qualify for the Fall Debates are 2-fold. At least 130,000 individual donors/contributors must have added to the campaign fund. And the candidate must have polled at least 2% in 4 approved polls during the period from June-August. I guess they also must have at least 20 States in which they have at least 400 donors.
Only 6 spots are allocated for the Fall Debates.

Some folk have commented on the lack of depth or substance in their debates and statements. This is reportedly due to the absolute need to increase their donor count, to spur those wackos on the Left to contribute to their campaign.


Already qualified:
Biden, Bernie, Pocahontas, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg.

Booker has only got about 100,000 donors. Beto has not polled high enough yet.

---

Quote:

---

California Removes Arrest Reports From Kamala Years
Routine website redesign obscures Democrat's record on criminal justice
A redesign of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation website will make it harder for voters to inspect Sen. Kamala Harris's controversial record as the state's top cop.

The department removed public access to a number of reports on incarceration in the state, including when presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D.) was California's attorney general. Twice a year, the CDCR releases information about the number of new individuals incarcerated in the California prison system as part of its "Offender Data Points" series. These reports provide important information on demographics, sentence length, offense type, and other figures relevant to criminal justice and incarceration.

Until recently, these reports were publicly available at the CDCR's website. A search using archive.org's Wayback Machine reveals that as of April 25, 2019—the most recent indexed date—ODP reports were available dating back to the spring of 2009. As of August 2019, the same web page now serves only a single ODP report, the one for Spring 2019. The pre-2019 reports have been removed.

The changes matter in part because the reports contain information about Harris's entire time as state A.G., 2011 to 2017. Harris has taken fire from multiple opponents for her "tough on crime" record as California's top cop, an image that she has tried to shed as a far-left senator and presidential candidate.

One particularly brutal attack came Wednesday night when Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hi.) laid into Harris for her record on criminal justice. Gabbard cited a Washington Free Beacon analysis — based in part on the ODP reports — that found that more than 1,500 Californians were sent to prison for marijuana-related offenses while Harris was attorney general.

---

Quote:

---

Tulsi Gabbard sues Google, claims 'election interference' over suspension of ad account
Nicholas Wu | USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, member of Congress and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard launched a lawsuit against Google claiming "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech" because of Google's suspension of the Gabbard campaign's advertising account during the first Democratic presidential debate.

The campaign asks for an immediate court injunction to stop further meddling from Google and payment of financial damages.

According to the lawsuit, filed by lawyers representing Gabbard's campaign Tulsi Now Inc., Google suspended the Gabbard campaign's advertising account for several hours during the first Democratic debate, when Gabbard was briefly the most-searched candidate on Google.

"On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit says. "Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her."

In response, Google says "automated systems that flag unusual activity on all advertiser accounts -- including large spending changes" were to blame for the suspension of Gabbard's account. Google says their automated systems aim to "prevent fraud and protect our customers."

"In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter," said Google spokeswoman Riva Sciuto. "We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology."

The New York Times first reported the lawsuit. Warning of the "dominance of big tech companies," Gabbard told the Times, "This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”

Gabbard's campaign website took a more aggressive tone.

"Tulsi Takes Google to Court Over Election Interference," said a banner at the top of Gabbard's campaign website, mirroring language about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Republicans have long attacked tech giants like Google for what they see as an ideological bias. Last month, President Donald Trump held a "Social Media Summit" at the White House, where he hosted prominent conservative detractors of tech companies.

Ahead of the summit, Trump railed on Twitter against the "tremendous dishonesty, bias, discrimination and suppression" of the tech companies and said they would not be able to do so for much longer.

"if Google can do this to Tulsi, a combat veteran and four term Congresswoman who is running for the nation’s highest office, Google can do this to any candidate, from any party, running for any office in the United States," says a statement on Gabbard's website.

---

Quote:

---

WaPo Publishes Gabbard Smear Piece Filled With Blatant Lies
Caitlin Johnstone

The Washington Post, which is wholly owned by a CIA contractor who is reportedly working to control the underlying infrastructure of the global economy, has published a shockingly deceitful smear piece about Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard in the wake of her criticisms of her opponent Kamala Harris’ prosecutorial record during the last Democratic debate.

The article’s author, Josh Rogin, has been a cheerleader for US regime change interventionism in Syria since the very beginning of the conflict in that nation...

His article, titled “Tulsi Gabbard’s Syria record shows why she can’t be president”, is one of the most dishonest articles that I have ever read in a mainstream publication, and the fact that it made it through The Washington Post’s editors is enough to fully discredit that outlet.

You can read Rogin’s smear piece without giving Jeff Bezos more money by clicking here for an archive. There’s so much dishonesty packed into this one that all I can do is go through it lie-by-lie until I either finish or get tired, so let’s begin:

“Gabbard asserts that the United States (not Assad) is responsible for the death and destruction in Syria, that the Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised”

This is just a complete, brazen, whole-cloth lie from Rogin. If you click the hyperlink he alleges supports his claim that Gabbard asserts “Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised,” you come to a 2015 tweet by the congresswoman which reads, “Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.”

Now, you can agree or disagree with Gabbard’s position ...[but] There is simply no way to represent the content of her tweet that way without knowingly lying about what you think it says.

---

Quote:

---

“That bias, combined with her long record of defending the Assad regime and parroting its propaganda, form the basis for the assertion Gabbard has ‘embraced and been an apologist for’ Assad, as Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) said Wednesday post-debate on CNN.”

Gabbard has no record whatsoever of “defending the Assad regime”.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
As of today 9 democrats qualify for the next round of debates.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/

Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang, businessman

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this next debate end of September?
More could qualify by then, right?

---