-
[QUOTE=Tendrin;3848066]Apparently, it's also 'declare people said things they never said'.
I voted for Benrie in the primary and vote for a raft of progressive leaning candidates in every primary. [B]My Senator are pretty solid guys in Wyden and Merkley[/B], and I have a pretty solid, if imperfect, governor along with a decent congressman.
Nobody is saying 'don't support progressives' if they win their primaries, nor saying 'don't vote for them in the general'. We've been over this, but apparently, it needs to be stated again.
What we /are/ saying is 'be practical in the general if your preferred candidate doesn't win a primary'. If a progressive I like wins the primary, I vote for them. If a more conservative dem I don't like wins the primary, I vote for them. I don't vote Green because the Green party is a joke party. I don't abstain from voting because there are vulnerable people who are likely to be disproportionately hurt by a Republican winning the election as opposed to things simply not improving fast enough.
Be practical, bear in mind our common interests, and don't piss away gains made because you'd prefer the perfect candidate you think you're entitled to.[/QUOTE]
you think Merk is going to run in 2020? his campaign against gordon smith in 08 was brutal. he's always seemed like a guy who would relish standing up to trump.
-
[QUOTE=Tendrin;3847361]*Oregon fistbump*[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=zinderel;3847384]Hey! *Fist bump back*[/QUOTE]
Another Oregonian here! *double fist bump*
-
[QUOTE=Adset;3848398]you think Merk is going to run in 2020? his campaign against gordon smith in 08 was brutal. he's always seemed like a guy who would relish standing up to trump.[/QUOTE]
Merkley is definitely running. He spends half his time in Iowa and New Hampshire.
-
Great story in The Atlantic:
[URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/how-to-discuss-the-far-right-without-empowering-it/567520/"]How to Discuss the Far Right Without Empowering It - A lesson from Germany[/URL]
[QUOTE]What happens when you do a prime-time interview with a far-right leader—but don’t ask them anything about refugees?[/QUOTE]
-
[QUOTE=catbellysqueezer;3847922]The majority of Americans support higher minimum wages, higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, and many other progressive ideas, so if every American decided to vote for a candidate that represents their opinions, we would have all of those things tomorrow.
But instead we have every progressive in the country going around telling other progressives that progressives have no chance of winning contrary to what polling says.[/QUOTE]
I asked for a realistic solution that does not involve voting for Democrats, not pure fantasy.
-
Let me jump into this fray. There are only three choices currently
1. Republicans retain control over Congress, which means that Trump will be President at least until 2024, longer of the Republicans change things so that a President can have a lifetime in Office [don't think they wouldn't consider it].
2. Democrats take control over Congress and actually run Congress the way it was meant to be run, as a check on Trump's power. Which includes letting Mueller complete his investigation, which might lead to impeachment.
3. Trump does something so insane that even his Base turns against him, and as his Base goes so goes Republicans in Congress. Considering what they have tolerated so far, that red line would have to be pretty extreme.
Each of those three options put the power in the hands of the people, the voters.
You can vote for whomever you want, but in the end it boils down to these three possibilities.
-
[QUOTE=4saken1;3846832]Exactly. Simple math escapes these people. Candidate A has a 50% chance of winning and supports 0% of the policies you believe in. Candidate B has a 50% chance of winning and supports 80% of the policies you believe in. Candidate C has 0% chance of winning, but supports 100% of the policies you believe in. Knowing that voting for candidate B will increase their chances of winning by thousands of times more than the same would for candidate C, the choice seems obvious to anybody who got passed basic math. I've often wondered how many statisticians or math majors out there are on board with voting Green. Probably not many![/QUOTE]
Sure if you use made up numbers like that. It's more like one candidate who would have had a 50% chance to win who had 90% of policies I believed in so that someone else could have that same 50% to win who supports maybe 50% of policies I believe in but like the Republican supports another 50% of policies I despise. Oh and the 50% chance to win is entirely contingent on people like me ignoring all of that so they can win, otherwise the party is set up so they have no shot if people don't fall in line
-
[QUOTE=Carabas;3848548]I asked for a realistic solution that does not involve voting for Democrats, not pure fantasy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, people voting for candidates who actually represent their beliefs is a pretty crazy idea when you have half a party telling itself that it can't possibly win.
-
[QUOTE=Tami;3848690]Let me jump into this fray. There are only three choices currently
1. Republicans retain control over Congress, which means that Trump will be President at least until 2024, longer of the Republicans change things so that a President can have a lifetime in Office [don't think they wouldn't consider it].
2. Democrats take control over Congress and actually run Congress the way it was meant to be run, as a check on Trump's power. Which includes letting Mueller complete his investigation, which might lead to impeachment.
3. Trump does something so insane that even his Base turns against him, and as his Base goes so goes Republicans in Congress. Considering what they have tolerated so far, that red line would have to be pretty extreme.
Each of those three options put the power in the hands of the people, the voters.
You can vote for whomever you want, but in the end it boils down to these three possibilities.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think 3 is an option. At least when I refer to "his base" I'm talking about the people that supported him BECAUSE of the horrible things he's said, not despite of them. There is no line too far for them.
-
Manafort Trial update:
Jury ended deliberations today.
They asked for the legal definitions on filing requirements for overseas accounts (FBAR).
They asked for clarification on "reasonable doubt."
Jury asked for definition of “shelf companies.”
The jury also asked for the exhibit list to be annotated to match the indictments.
----------
Not great sign for Team Mueller but also not a great sign for the defense.
I predicted a mixed decision. Sounds like that might be right.
We'll find out tomorrow.
-
[QUOTE=BeastieRunner;3848813]Manafort Trial update:
Jury ended deliberations today.
They asked for the legal definitions on filing requirements for overseas accounts (FBAR).
They asked for clarification on "reasonable doubt."
Jury asked for definition of “shelf companies.”
The jury also asked for the exhibit list to be annotated to match the indictments.
----------
Not great sign for Team Mueller but also not a great sign for the defense.
I predicted a mixed decision. Sounds like that might be right.
We'll find out tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
Likely he'll get found guilty on some charges , not a total sweep I'm sure. But he'll catch a few charges .
-
[QUOTE=JCAll;3848810]I really don't think 3 is an option. At least when I refer to "his base" I'm talking about the people that supported him BECAUSE of the horrible things he's said, not despite of them. There is no line too far for them.[/QUOTE]
There is one possible line. Poverty. The poorer they get, the less supportive they will become.
-
[QUOTE=SUPERECWFAN1;3848820]Likely he'll get found guilty on some charges , not a total sweep I'm sure. But he'll catch a few charges .[/QUOTE]
I think 4/5 for failure to report, 3/5 for the foreign stuff, I'm not certain on the conspiracy stuff. There's 9 of them and they cascade. It's either 1-2 or 8-9 IMHO.
There's 1 failure to report that enough could be construed to be the accountant not doing her job.
There's 1 foreign record that CLEARLY looks like it was 100% Gates. Another is a toss up.
The conspiracy is where I suspect the jury will spend most of their time. That's either little to nothing or a slam dunk for most people watching the case. They're asking for shelf company definitions and reasonable doubt. That screams conspiracy charge debates to me.
I'm think the worst outcome for Manafort will be ~200 years, not the full 305.
-
[QUOTE=Tami;3848828]There is one possible line. Poverty. The poorer they get, the less supportive they will become.[/QUOTE]
You'd think that, but no. Look at some of the people at Trump rallies. If they suddenly lost their jobs, most of them would find some way to blame Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
-
[QUOTE=Tami;3848828]There is one possible line. Poverty. The poorer they get, the less supportive they will become.[/QUOTE]
I doubt even that would work. All Trump would have to do is bleat that Democrats were responsible for the increased poverty and the lemmings would believe him without question. Dolt45 wasn’t kidding when he said he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose any votes.