Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8973 total)
175 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 174 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,676 Year: 7,424/23,288 Month: 1,330/1,214 Week: 0/342 Day: 0/71 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 231 of 505 (860716)
08-10-2019 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Percy
08-10-2019 2:21 PM


Re: Who is calling for open borders?
I want open borders.

You oppose them.

And your reasoning is your own business.

Don't speak for people.

Phat does too, if I understood him correctly.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 08-10-2019 2:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 232 of 505 (860722)
08-10-2019 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by LamarkNewAge
08-04-2019 10:35 PM


Back to "Give Joe Biden some credit." UPDATE!
Thursday night he said this:

quote:
We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million people

quote:
The idea that a country of 330 million people cannot absorb people who are in desperate need and who are justifiably fleeing oppression, it is absolutely bizarre. Absolutely bizarre. I would also move to increase the total number of immigrants able to come to the United States

(Expect the EvC choir, led by Theodoric, to start to claim I said Biden was for OPEN BORDERS, like happened last time I mentioned Biden)

EDIT: I might support Biden now.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-04-2019 10:35 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2019 3:32 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 234 of 505 (860732)
08-10-2019 10:20 PM


New Republic attacks Democratic opposition to open borders. Aug 9 article
quote:
Open Borders Made America Great
For most of U.S. history, all immigrants were undocumented. It's a fact Democrats should embrace.
By AARON FREEDMAN
August 9, 2019

For nearly three decades, American immigration policies have reenforced the false notion that undocumented immigrants are dangerous criminals. From Bill Clinton’s militarization of the southern border in 1993 to the creation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the September 11, 2001 attacks—and now to Donald Trump’s detention of asylum seekers in concentration camps—Washington has normalized the view that undocumented immigrants are a threat to America. A threat to be policed, detained, and deported. Though time and again proven untrue, this rhetoric—echoed in society as a whole—has only become more pervasive in recent years. Most horrifically, it was on display in the “manifesto” allegedly posted by the gunman who murdered 22 people at an El Paso Walmart last weekend.

In recent years, Democrats have tried to respond to the tightening noose around undocumented immigrants’ necks with tepid measures, but even those—such as a 2013 bill to offer a pathway to citizenship while increasing border militarization—have failed to shift perceptions. The latest proposal in vogue among Democrats, to try undocumented immigrants in the civil legal system, does nothing to stem the mass deportations that have surged over three administrations in the last two decades.

The only way to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of undocumented immigrants is to fundamentally change the narrative that views them as criminals and so, views them as a threat.

To this end, Democrats and immigration advocates should remind skeptical white voters that undocumented immigrants have long made America great. In fact, many of their own ancestors were undocumented immigrants, beneficiaries of an era of open borders.

https://newrepublic.com/...7/open-borders-made-america-great


This article shows us that despite the founders debate over immigration, there was never an effort to expel immigrants for roughly the first 100 years.

The long article shows us that "open borders" came to an end for non-whites only in 1875, but continued for whites for decades longer.

Also see:

quote:
OPINION
IF DEMOCRATS WANT THE IMMIGRANT VOTE, IT'LL TAKE MORE THAN PHOTO OPS AT THE BORDER | OPINION
SAYU BHOJWANI
ON 8/6/19 AT 12:56 PM EDT

Can a Democrat defeat President Donald Trump in 2020?

We often hear about constituencies that could swing the race in any direction, such as conflicted Trump supporters, black voters in South Carolina and white Rust Belt voters, just to name a few. However, no Democratic candidate is focusing enough on the potential effect of first- and second-generation immigrant voters, or "new Americans," on the upcoming election.

Here's the reality: New Americans—primarily progressive Asian and Latinx voters—could be the difference between Democrats winning or losing in 2020.

According to the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego, there are at least 21,283,864 naturalized citizens of voting age nationwide. About 2 million Americans have become naturalized citizens since the 2016 election. And the impact of these voters only increases when you add in their American-born families, a younger population that is growing every year. The only reason the immigrant family vote isn't a part of every analysis is that political pundits in America are a vastly maler and paler group, on average, than the public.

https://www.newsweek.com/...photo-ops-border-opinion-1452774


"a vastly maler and paler group"

Sounds like EvC.

Always keep the bias in mind.


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 255 of 505 (864803)
10-17-2019 12:33 AM


Christian Sierra (CNN Media Coordinator) says Gabbard is "actually pretty liberal"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/...dont-tulsi-gabbard-projec

A secret Project Veritas interview led to a video that can be viewed online.

He said she is disliked by network due to "one issue".

War, of course.

(There was a debate, here at EvC, between posters who argued whether she was right or left of center)


Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-17-2019 12:56 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 257 by Theodoric, posted 10-17-2019 9:40 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 258 of 505 (864887)
10-17-2019 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Theodoric
10-17-2019 9:40 AM


Re: Christian Sierra (CNN Media Coordinator) says Gabbard is "actually pretty liberal"
I don't even know who the guy is.

I had no idea about the group.

But he has video from the 'mouth.

Christian Sierra, of CNN, talked about the networks attitude. It is cut and dry.

The corporate media has several individual parts.

Part of it has spoken.

Live with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Theodoric, posted 10-17-2019 9:40 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Theodoric, posted 10-17-2019 11:41 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 260 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-18-2019 2:23 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 261 by Theodoric, posted 10-18-2019 8:13 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 262 of 505 (864949)
10-19-2019 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Theodoric
10-18-2019 8:13 AM


Re: Christian Sierra (CNN Media Coordinator) says Gabbard is "actually pretty liberal"
I only knew of the video because I saw it while I was channel surfing (saw it on Tucker Carlson while switching between MSNBC and CNN).

The video footage that interested me was the actual CNN guy himself talking (Sierra).

I did a quick google search, and found some articles (including the Washington Times).

The CNN guy is what matters. He is the one talking (aside from the questions).

It is all on video.

Deal with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Theodoric, posted 10-18-2019 8:13 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-19-2019 1:37 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Theodoric, posted 10-19-2019 11:25 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 265 of 505 (864992)
10-19-2019 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Theodoric
10-19-2019 11:25 AM


Re: Post facts not propaganda
Again, the issue was whether CNN's Sierra felt Gabbard was more liberal than center (or center-right).

The issue was what CNN's Sierra said about her views.

The issue was what Sierra said his network did not like about her.

(I never mentioned that I have mixed views about some of what she has been saying about certain issues - like immigration - BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT-BASED CUT & DRY INTERVIEW I REFERENCED!)

She does not sound right-wing to me on immigration (though she feels she get points for labeling her fellow Democrats as "open borders")

https://www.isidewith.com/...si-gabbard/policies/immigration

Deal with Christian Sierra saying she was "actually pretty liberal".

The video is not beyond your grasp.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Theodoric, posted 10-19-2019 11:25 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 266 of 505 (864994)
10-19-2019 7:14 PM


Christian Sierra (relevant) stuff.
Here is a relevant story (from a paper I read every day when I am in NYC) which has a picture and quote from Sierra.

(The quote, however, is not about Gabbard)

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...op-trump-focus_3115945.html

Here are some questions and answers (from the Veritas site) from Sierra, but no video it seems. It skipped that part where he said "she is actually pretty liberal", but the initial Washington Times link (in my first post) quoted it.

(EDIT - - - I forgot the link and am no longer at the site, and I don't feel like finding it. It lacked video and the quotes of Sierra were selective anyway) (see Tucker Carlson link for relevant part, but, again, no video)

I FOUND THE TUCKER TRANSCRIPT (the show from October 16 that caused me to post that night)

quote:
Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIAN SIERRA, CNN MEDIA CONTRIBUTOR: I think the one they don't like is Tulsi, they don't like Tulsi Gabbard.

QUESTION: Now why do you think?

SIERRA: Because she supports Assad and she is ... she's not taking a conventional route when it comes to one policy, stuff like. But she is actually pretty liberal. But, when it comes to that one position, like I think there's a lot of people who are not cool with her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii joins us tonight. So, Congresswoman, you just heard that. I don't know if you've seen that. I know you've been on the road. But there's a CNN employee saying for taking an unconventional foreign policy position, you are the one Democratic candidate that CNN doesn't like. Does that surprise you?

GABBARD: It doesn't. You know, I think it's kind of absurd, actually, that as we saw in the days leading up to the debate last night, both "The New York Times" and CNN both ran hit pieces.

Today, the day after the debate, we see more of these hit pieces coming out, and for them to sit there and try to portray themselves as neutral arbiters, as objective and independent entities working with the D.N.C. to carry out a legitimate debate is frankly -- it's just a joke.

That's one of the reasons why I've been calling for, you know, a nonprofit organization like the League of Women Voters to actually host these debates in a way that actually serves the interests of voters, not the profit, you know, the profit-bearing corporate interests of the corporate media.

CARLSON: I couldn't agree more. So just for our viewers who maybe haven't followed this, when we say you've been attacked by "The New York Times" and CNN, it's not attacked, like they're saying your healthcare plan is too expensive.

GABBARD: No.

CARLSON: They're saying that you're working for a foreign power against America's interest - that you're a traitor to our country. That "New York Times" piece essentially said that. What is this about?

GABBARD: Well, this is exactly what happens to those like myself who are trying to end this regime change war in Syria, who are calling for an end to our country's policy of being the world's police, bring about an end to these regime change wars.

And this is something that is not just happening to me, you know, when they're issuing these smear attacks really what they're doing is smearing anyone who's calling for an end to these regime change wars, including veterans who I meet almost every single day all across this country who are not pacifists, but who understand and know firsthand the cost of war, and who are strongly, strongly calling for our country to put an end to these counterproductive regime change wars.

CARLSON: Yes.

GABBARD: So when they are issuing these smears and calling me a traitor to my country, they're essentially issuing these smears and attacks to every veteran who has been willing to lay their lives down in service to our country.

CARLSON: You know, there are many things we don't agree on, but one of the reasons I'm so sympathetic to you in what you're doing is because I've been there. I know exactly what you're saying. And what you're saying is absolutely real. It's the one subject that they won't accept any deviation on.

And so you deserve credit, I think, for your bravery in going forward.

Thank you. Tulsi Gabbard. Great to see you tonight.

GABBARD: Thanks, Tucker.

https://www.foxnews.com/...t-attacks-from-cnn-new-york-times


I saw Christian Sierra say what this transcript showed.

And my initial October 16 Washington Times link reported on the "liberal" views comment that I SAW SIERRA SAY.

(On a side note, I felt the League of Women's Voters had an anti-immigration bias. It did make for some great answers by Ronald Reagan in his races against Carter and Mondale, however.)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : left out Project Veritas link. Sorry.


Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 10-19-2019 10:14 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 268 of 505 (865009)
10-19-2019 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Theodoric
10-19-2019 10:14 PM


Don't forget why I posted.
There was a debate, here at EvC, which centered around people debating whether Gabbard was "center-right, or "center-left".

The amazing thing is that the main accredited liberal group, Americans for Democratic Action, give her a 95% (according to the most recent year scored - 2016 - at a site I will link to below), which is something that only about a third of U.S. Senate/House Democrats could achieve in past decades (I don't follow the scorecard stuff much these days and have not for a while).

Look at this comprehensive site showing all sorts of groups ratings, and it IS SORTED BY YEAR.

(everything is sorted by an issue genre topic)

https://votesmart.org/...s/129306/tulsi-gabbard#.Xaudcs5Kjcs

Look at immigration, and I will look at the most recent year of each group below

The National Iranian-American Council gave her 100% for positions taken in 2017 (the most recent year a pro immigration group scored members). The larger number of anti-immigration groups give here scores anywhere from 0% to a 13%.

Hispanic Federation, LCLAA, LULAC, Mi Familia Vota, NCLR, and Voto Latino - National Immigration Scorecard gave her 100% in 2014 (the most recent year they scored)

2014 UnidosUS (formerly known as National Council of La Raza) - Positions (Preliminary) 100%

2013-2014 American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions 100%

2013 Arab American Institute - Positions on Arab-American Issues 100%

Here is everything for education

quote:
Public Statements
Key Votes
K-12 Education
2017-2018 National Education Association - "Legislative Report Card" 100%
2015 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2014 Population Connection - Positions (Jan. 9, 2014) 100%
2013-2014 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2013 National Education Association - Positions 100%
2013 Population Connection - Positions (Sept. 2013) 67%

Healthcare scorecards since 2016

quote:
Public Statements
Key Votes
Health and Health Care
2019 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Lifetime Positions [09/23/2019] 100%
2018 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Lifetime Positions [10/26] 100%
2017 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2017 Food Policy Action - Positions 100%
2017 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Lifetime Positions [12/29/2017] 100%
2016 American Public Health Association - Positions 100%
2016 Planned Parenthood Action Fund - Lifetime Positions [12/30/2016] 100%
2015-2016 Food Policy Action - Positions 100%

Foreign Affairs since 2016

quote:
Public Statements
Key Votes
Foreign Affairs
2018 National Iranian American Council - Positions 100%
2017-2018 Council on American-Islamic Relations - Positions 100%
2017-2018 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 100%
2016 Armenian National Committee of America - Positions 57%
2015-2016 Council on American-Islamic Relations - Positions 67%
2015-2016 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 29%
2015-2016 The Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans - Positions 88%
2015-2016 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 0%

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 10-19-2019 10:14 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Theodoric, posted 10-19-2019 11:07 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 271 of 505 (865062)
10-20-2019 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Chiroptera
10-20-2019 11:25 AM


Re: "Fake News" warning.
quote:
Warning to the rightwing: FAKE NEWS!

Everybody complains about "FAKE NEWS"!

Why can't people just agree that the corporations we call our "new channels" have their politicians they like or dislike?

I am about as pro-immigration as one can get, and I have no trouble admitting that CNN & Jeff Zucker will be inclined to be critical of Trump (partly) over that issue. They don't base their "mood" on the immigration issue alone, as Romney was even more anti-immigration (in 2012) than Trump, but he got very decent treatment from the CNN part of the media. It is complicated, and frankly the center/moderate (mainstream) media has become more pro-immigration in recent years than in the past, for whatever reasons.

CNN does have an anti-Trump "mood" among its visible employees. Where does it come from exactly (Zucker alone? Or various factors)?

The media has often had hosts and journalists who express views, but don't actually tell you who they will ultimately vote for (Endorsing a party or candidate used to be seen as a "conflict of interests", even among those journalists with clear ideologies, because it would cause the journalist to be forced to spend energy on heavily partisan-slanted work which would compromise good journalism).

Now:

There have always been opinions. Now there has become an outright intensity in expressing opinions (necessarily) COMBINED with an outright erosion of the thin-line preventing the hosts & journalists from letting you know how they want you to vote. It has led to a lot of (wasted) creative energy, among our media hosts & journalists, devoted to defending and justifying the quasi (if not outright) political endorsements and opposition. "News" is going to clearly have its "good guys" and "bad guys" to report on, with all of the necessary energy devoted to justification of the classification.

(Some will just say "the media is being more honest", now, instead of "pretending to be fair" in the past. I don't know what to say about the change; is it good or bad? It has its ups and downs.)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2019 11:25 AM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 299 of 505 (871061)
01-27-2020 7:04 PM


A Washington Post poll from Jan 20 to 23 has Sanders strong ahainst Trump
Sanders did better than the rest among 1004 adults and essentially tied among the 880 that were registered voters .

Among all adults Sanders beat Trump 52 to 44 while Biden was 51 to 44 over Trump. Buttigieg was up 1.

Registered voters had Biden up 50 to 46 and Sanders up 49 to 47. Buttigieg was down 48 to 45. Bloomberg was up 49 to 46. Warren was tied with Trump 48 to 48. Only Biden and Bloomberg did slightly better than Sanders.

Bloomberg was roughly the same as Sanders among the 1004 polled before the poll looks at just the 880 registered to vote. 51 to 43 over Trump. But only Sanders reached 52 percent support.

Sanders is electable in 2020 regardless of what else you think of him.

Hillary Clinton and the DNC got their way in 2016 because they were a trusted echo chamber by Democratic primary voters. But was it wise to give the DNC the keys to the general election to take on Trump. Question asked.


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 300 of 505 (871114)
01-28-2020 11:55 PM


Only Sanders beats Trump in the latest Emerson poll
The 3 most recent polls are the above Washington Post ABC poll and a FOX poll and the Emerson poll.

Emerson first. Biden and Warren are tied 50 to 50 in a hypothetical general election race against Trump. Buttigieg looses but Sanders leads Trump 51 to 49. So much for DNC propaganda that claims Sanders is the worst choice for the general election when such great candidates like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are choices or possible choices during the convention.

Fox has Biden up by 8 over Trump while Sanders is up 48 to 42 . Even Buttigieg is up 4 in the Fox poll. Warren is up 5. Bloomberg is up 9.

Sanders beats Trump in the 3 most recent general election polls and Biden can't say that

See Real Clear for this situation early Wednesday morning and 5 days before the Feb 3 Iowa decision.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2020 11:37 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 302 of 505 (871197)
01-29-2020 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by RAZD
01-29-2020 11:37 AM


Re: but the electoral college effect is not considered
Attempt 3
I lost my 2 attempts due to phone clicks being difficult.

Sanders6did good in a Texas Lyceum poll. Only lost to Trump 50 to 47 while others did worse.

Liberals do win by smaller margins in deep blue states but do. Better in the states that count.

See Nate silvers 538 site and Real Clear for latest polls


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2020 11:37 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 303 of 505 (871199)
01-29-2020 8:29 PM


Florida Atlantic University Jan 9 to 12 Poll
Sanders beats Trump 53 to 47 while Biden was up 51 to 49

Others lost

Edited by AdminPhat, : spellling. I hate smart phones auto correct


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 304 of 505 (871267)
01-30-2020 8:52 PM


William Saletan of Slate is an example of b.s.
He had a Jan 28 article showing polls which have 70 percent of Americans and 25 percent of Democrats saying that they would never vote for a socialist. Then he shows that a Democratic Socialist gets 57 to 59 percent of voters saying that they could never support.

He looks at lots of polls on label questions.

He ignores the NBC Marist poll that had Sanders beat Trump 51 to 43 percent a week or so ago.

In New Hampshire.

This is a state that Trump6did 2 petcen6better than the national average in 2016.

This state is one that knows what Sanders GOP opponents say every 2 years when he runs for reelection in Vermont. Republicans buy scary socialist ads for every election and air them in New Hampshire.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020