GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 16 19, 10:14 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: September 6 19, 1:32 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7432
Location: Chicago, IL
Popeye_Card wrote:
thrill wrote:




If you continue to believe this is the case, you will never really solve the problem.

We are destroying the planet because it is *convenient* to do so.

The general public is unwilling to give up cheap energy, driving cars, flying planes, plastics, meat, taking a shower every day, etc. Look how hard it has been for many people to give up something so generally useless as plastic [expletive] straws.

The economic *reality* isn't about profits. The reality is what the market demands has not and will not change any time soon. And if you try to run for President on a platform of changing people's buying habits and lifestyle? Good luck.


Yes to this! This is what I meant above when I said "We just need regulation on these industries where people profit from our own greed and consumerism and ego and violent natures, not for the government to take these businesses public." Because we are greedy consumerists who want new iPhones and single-use plastic water bottles and stuff, the corporations are profitable. Much like we would not have Trump if we didn't have Trump voters, we would not have pollution if we didn't have consumerism and laziness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 9 19, 8:44 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19715
Location: Low A Minors
This kinda worries me:

Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Is Warren too much like Hillary to win? They are both women, both of similar age and background. In terms of policy Warren is probably farther left, but the whole field has moved farther left this time, too. The main difference is that Warren does not have the baggage that Hillary had. The other difference could be that Warren will run a much better campaign. As long as Warren doesn't take any swing states for granted....that combined with her being "less unfavorable" in a lot of voter's eyes than Hillary may be enough to put her over the top. But I'm not real confident. I think it would be close if that is the matchup. Unless the recession hits and is ongoing during the election. Then Trump is done probably no matter who the nominee is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 10 19, 9:31 am 
Offline
MLB.TV Customer Support
User avatar

Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Posts: 8261
Location: Indianapolis
pioneer98 wrote:
This kinda worries me:

Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Is Warren too much like Hillary to win? They are both women, both of similar age and background. In terms of policy Warren is probably farther left, but the whole field has moved farther left this time, too. The main difference is that Warren does not have the baggage that Hillary had. The other difference could be that Warren will run a much better campaign. As long as Warren doesn't take any swing states for granted....that combined with her being "less unfavorable" in a lot of voter's eyes than Hillary may be enough to put her over the top. But I'm not real confident. I think it would be close if that is the matchup. Unless the recession hits and is ongoing during the election. Then Trump is done probably no matter who the nominee is.

The gender question worries me but Warren has infinitely more charisma and personality than Clinton.

She's done well in her Senate campaigns, I'd imagine she'd tap some of Obama's people for ground game, I imagine all candidates will lend expertise to the winner to help with canvassing given the stakes and I'd be shocked if the eventual candidate ignores PA, MI and WI this time around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 10 19, 9:36 am 
Offline
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 36877
Location: Huis Clos
I’ll take Warren all day but I’m leaning back to Bernie. Capitalism needs a major [expletive] overhaul.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 10 19, 9:38 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7432
Location: Chicago, IL
vinsanity wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
This kinda worries me:

Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Is Warren too much like Hillary to win? They are both women, both of similar age and background. In terms of policy Warren is probably farther left, but the whole field has moved farther left this time, too. The main difference is that Warren does not have the baggage that Hillary had. The other difference could be that Warren will run a much better campaign. As long as Warren doesn't take any swing states for granted....that combined with her being "less unfavorable" in a lot of voter's eyes than Hillary may be enough to put her over the top. But I'm not real confident. I think it would be close if that is the matchup. Unless the recession hits and is ongoing during the election. Then Trump is done probably no matter who the nominee is.

The gender question worries me but Warren has infinitely more charisma and personality than Clinton.

She's done well in her Senate campaigns, I'd imagine she'd tap some of Obama's people for ground game, I imagine all candidates will lend expertise to the winner to help with canvassing given the stakes and I'd be shocked if the eventual candidate ignores PA, MI and WI this time around.


I'll double down on that and say she gets a key endorsement from a former Obama cabinet member when he drops out of this race in the next 60 days--Castro--and that she later names him as her running mate. They're on very friendly terms, very complimentary of one another, very aligned on issues, and he's polling at like 0.75% and has virtually no chance of winning this primary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 10 19, 10:11 am 
Offline
gone fission
User avatar

Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Posts: 7958
Location: Twin Cities, MN
33anda3rd wrote:
vinsanity wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
This kinda worries me:

Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Is Warren too much like Hillary to win? They are both women, both of similar age and background. In terms of policy Warren is probably farther left, but the whole field has moved farther left this time, too. The main difference is that Warren does not have the baggage that Hillary had. The other difference could be that Warren will run a much better campaign. As long as Warren doesn't take any swing states for granted....that combined with her being "less unfavorable" in a lot of voter's eyes than Hillary may be enough to put her over the top. But I'm not real confident. I think it would be close if that is the matchup. Unless the recession hits and is ongoing during the election. Then Trump is done probably no matter who the nominee is.

The gender question worries me but Warren has infinitely more charisma and personality than Clinton.

She's done well in her Senate campaigns, I'd imagine she'd tap some of Obama's people for ground game, I imagine all candidates will lend expertise to the winner to help with canvassing given the stakes and I'd be shocked if the eventual candidate ignores PA, MI and WI this time around.


I'll double down on that and say she gets a key endorsement from a former Obama cabinet member when he drops out of this race in the next 60 days--Castro--and that she later names him as her running mate. They're on very friendly terms, very complimentary of one another, very aligned on issues, and he's polling at like 0.75% and has virtually no chance of winning this primary.


The wife and I have been hoping for a Warren/Castro ballet since essentially Day 1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 10 19, 10:23 am 
Offline
MLB.TV Customer Support
User avatar

Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Posts: 8261
Location: Indianapolis
33anda3rd wrote:
vinsanity wrote:
She's done well in her Senate campaigns, I'd imagine she'd tap some of Obama's people for ground game, I imagine all candidates will lend expertise to the winner to help with canvassing given the stakes and I'd be shocked if the eventual candidate ignores PA, MI and WI this time around.


I'll double down on that and say she gets a key endorsement from a former Obama cabinet member when he drops out of this race in the next 60 days--Castro--and that she later names him as her running mate. They're on very friendly terms, very complimentary of one another, very aligned on issues, and he's polling at like 0.75% and has virtually no chance of winning this primary.

I'd be worried there's not enough white men on that ticket.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 10 19, 10:45 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7432
Location: Chicago, IL
vinsanity wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
vinsanity wrote:
She's done well in her Senate campaigns, I'd imagine she'd tap some of Obama's people for ground game, I imagine all candidates will lend expertise to the winner to help with canvassing given the stakes and I'd be shocked if the eventual candidate ignores PA, MI and WI this time around.


I'll double down on that and say she gets a key endorsement from a former Obama cabinet member when he drops out of this race in the next 60 days--Castro--and that she later names him as her running mate. They're on very friendly terms, very complimentary of one another, very aligned on issues, and he's polling at like 0.75% and has virtually no chance of winning this primary.

I'd be worried there's not enough white men on that ticket.


It's a fair point. Sometime in the next 20 years we will hit the inflection point where Old White Guy does not automatically = "electable," and it's possible that 2020 won't be that point.

I do think that it's worth considering that a black woman made big waves in Georgia in 2018, that 110 women won seats across both chambers of Congress, that 34 of those women are new members, that only 16 of those 110 are GOP, that Kansas of all places elected the nation's first Native American Lesbian Congresswoman, Pressley became the first black woman from Mass in Congress, Omar and Tlaib became the first Muslim women in Congres, that a higher % of women vote than men, that the last midterm (a referendum on Trump) had a turnout of 53% nationally after only 42% in 2014 and was the highest midterm turnout by % in 40 years, that among 18-29 year olds turnout went from 20% in 2014 to 36% in 2018, that Hispanic voters turned out by an increase of 13 percentage points, which represents a 50% increase in Hispanic turnout, that non-Hispanic black voters turned out 11% more in 2018's midterm, and so on.

It's coming, and it's coming really soon, when being a white man on a Democratic ticket won't be an asset, it will either be neutral or a liability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 10 19, 11:02 am 
Offline
MLB.TV Customer Support
User avatar

Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Posts: 8261
Location: Indianapolis
33anda3rd wrote:
I do think that it's worth considering that a black woman made big waves in Georgia in 2018

Georgia is 30.5% black vs the 13.4% national average, third highest in the country. I'm not sure that's a real sign times are changing.

Quote:
It's coming, and it's coming really soon, when being a white man on a Democratic ticket won't be an asset, it will either be neutral or a liability.

I doubt it'll ever be a liability but I agree that, in theory, we should be reaching a point where gender and race are not important in political races. In this one though, if people are worried about the "white, economic anxiety" voters in the rust belt I think racial and gender bias is more ingrained than we'd care to admit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 10 19, 11:13 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7432
Location: Chicago, IL
vinsanity wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
I do think that it's worth considering that a black woman made big waves in Georgia in 2018

Georgia is 30.5% black vs the 13.4% national average, third highest in the country. I'm not sure that's a real sign times are changing.

Quote:
It's coming, and it's coming really soon, when being a white man on a Democratic ticket won't be an asset, it will either be neutral or a liability.

I doubt it'll ever be a liability but I agree that, in theory, we should be reaching a point where gender and race are not important in political races. In this one though, if people are worried about the "white, economic anxiety" voters in the rust belt I think racial and gender bias is more ingrained than we'd care to admit.


Other than Rebecca Latimer Felton, who was appointed after the death of a Senator and who served for only one day in 1922, Georgia has never had a Senator or a Governor who is not a white man. I think the Abrams thing in Georgia, and that it's possible she lost only by Republican suppression and fraud, is a landmark turning point in the politics of that state. Since 1990 the greater Atlanta area has added 3,000,000 people, responsible for 75% of the total state growth in that time. It's a changing tide. They were 58% for W in 2004, then only 50% for Trump in 2016. Georgia will be blue soon enough, and it will be blue b/c of educated progressives and black citizens heading there for jobs while the rural areas die.

If #metoo continues, if we keep having angry white guys shooting at crowds, if we keep having angry white males on FOX and in politics screaming about the evils of non-white people and walls and muslim bans, if we keep having white men obstruct everything necessary for progress while simultaneously having a browning country where all the great innovators and industry producers (Musk, the Google guys, I could go on) are immigrants, I don't think it's hard to see a future in 20 years where a POTUS candidate goes "well, tie goes to the lady/Hispanic/black option."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GeddyWrox and 7 guests


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

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