Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:48 PM
MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I just don't care about this superficial stuff. I'm interested in their policies and to what extent they are qualified for the job.
I'd like to not care about the superficial stuff... but this will be a person who has to win an election. We would not be doing our duty as citizens if we did not factor electability into our thinking.
__________________
This post is merely corroborative detail, intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
  #102  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:53 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 392
As a conservative, If I had to vote in the Dem Primary today, it would either be with Yang or Booker. Booker's less divisive nature appeals to me.
  #103  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:58 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I think it's amusing the folks who find Klobuchar's voice mannerisms annoying. I hear exactly the same thing in Warren's voice mannerisms. She comes across to me as almost wheedling, entreating. I don't hold it against either one of them.

We could easily excoriate nearly all the candidates for their tics: Bernie's "I wrote the damn bill!"; Biden's "I'm going to beat him like a drum!"; O'Rourke's arm waving; Harris's tendency to talk 'down home'; Yang's body movements that make me wonder if he has a big key in his back, etc.

I just don't care about this superficial stuff. I'm interested in their policies and to what extent they are qualified for the job.
Well, that's you, but TV is a visual medium and other people may say they are only interested in policy, but their deeper brain is responding to different inputs. Just re-read all of "Pete presents himself well" posts above.

For me, I have said before and will say it again, this long drawn out campaign process before we even get to a primary only serves to let everyone move through initial curiosity and interest in policy and begin to start nit-picking all of the candidates. Ultimately we end up disliking everyone just a bit.
  #104  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:10 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
For me, I have said before and will say it again, this long drawn out campaign process before we even get to a primary only serves to let everyone move through initial curiosity and interest in policy and begin to start nit-picking all of the candidates. Ultimately we end up disliking everyone just a bit.
You are not wrong here. Thankfully the November debate requires 3% in polls. Which may clear out everyone but 5 or 6 folks.

Then we can get to hating on those 5 or 6 and pining for Booker and O'Rourke and Klobuchar .
  #105  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:14 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
You are not wrong here. Thankfully the November debate requires 3% in polls. Which may clear out everyone but 5 or 6 folks.

Then we can get to hating on those 5 or 6 and pining for Booker and O'Rourke and Klobuchar .
I would rather no % cutoff and no debate, we've seen enough, and get to the primaries and let the voters do the culling.
  #106  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:25 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I think it's amusing the folks who find Klobuchar's voice mannerisms annoying. I hear exactly the same thing in Warren's voice mannerisms. She comes across to me as almost wheedling, entreating.
“Whiny” was the word that I used to describe Warren’s voice last night. I don’t think I’ve heard her use quite that tone before.
  #107  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:26 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
538 did some post-debate polling, which might give us an idea of how non-Dopers think the candidates did last night.
  #108  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:42 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
I would rather no % cutoff and no debate, we've seen enough, and get to the primaries and let the voters do the culling.
I don't think we really HAVE seen enough.

Or at least, we've seen too much of the wrong stuff, because we've had too many vanity candidates up on stage.

But it's hard to have a really good debate, and nearly impossible to have one between the actual contenders, and it's hard to cover many topics, when the time has to be split up ten or twelve ways.

There shouldn't have been a dozen candidates in this debate. Everyone's already had a fair chance of building a following. Those that haven't been able to do so: gather up your jackets, head for the exits, you obviously haven't found many friends.

Time to narrow this down to no more than half a dozen, and keep narrowing after that. Unless someone makes a big move in the polls between now and the week before Debate #6, I'd be happy with that being just Biden, Warren, and Sanders.
  #109  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:02 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Warren - As others have pointed out, didn't really deal well with being front-runner. Yes, the taxes-vs-costs thing is bullshit, but you should have a better answer for it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I think of this in terms of the Far Side comic with the dog hearing, "blah blah blah blah, Rover, blah blah, Rover....", no matter what his master is saying. If you make the argument that you are going to raise taxes, but don't worry, the savings in insurance costs will offset this, some voters are only going to hear the part about the raising of taxes. Better just to brush if off.
I was reminded of the Witchsmeller Pursuivant from the first Blackadder series, maneuvering the questioning into something that would produce an answer which he could triumphantly proclaim to be a "CONFESSSION!!".
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 10-16-2019 at 03:02 PM.
  #110  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:09 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,793
I agree that Warren's strategy of not saying "tax increase" is wearing thin. It might be helpful for her to devise a thirty-second explanation that doesn't contain an easy "taxes will rise" soundbite but gets the idea across. Something like this, except with the correct numbers:

Quote:
A family of four that earns $60,000 a year and has health insurance through their workplace spends $5,000 a year on health care. Their employer spends another $5,000. They pay $10,000 in taxes. That means that of the $65,000 the employer is spending on them, the family takes home $45,000.

Under Medicare for All, their employer wouldn't spend any money on their health insurance, nor would the family. Their taxes would be $17,000. The family's take-home pay would be $48,000. They'd see an extra $3,000 in their pocket each year, and wouldn't live in fear that a medical emergency would bankrupt them.
If folks press her on, "Aha! You're saying that you'd almost double the taxes on that family!" she can respond with, "It's important to look at the family's financial situation. Again, their actual take-home pay increases under this proposal."

Once you have the correct number, you could brand it: the $3,000 health care dividend, or some such. Make it a talking point, and be ready to pull it out every time a Republican accurately but misleadingly harps on the tax increase.
  #111  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:31 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I love Liz, but the fact that she kept saying "cost" instead of breaking it down the way Bernie does is a major strike against her. Not against her policies, but against the fact that she just keeps beating around the bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
I do think Warren should have explained more costs v. taxes, but I also know she was trying to avoid a potential GOP attack ad.
Yes, I got the distinct impression that Warren was trying very hard to avoid giving the Republicans a soundbite of her saying 'I'm going to raise your taxes'. The avoidance may not go over well in the primaries, but if she's nevertheless the nominee, the soundbite would have gone over even worse in the general. And we need to win this thing; although I usually like it on the rare cases when moderators try to insist that candidates actually answer the question, it really made me wince that the moderators were trying to give the Republicans that soundbite.

I agree that it would help if she can come up with a better way to say it. "Costs' may be more accurate, but it doesn't -- or at least the way she was putting it doesn't -- give much of a soundbite in the other direction.


-- I listened to most of the debate on NPR radio, but missed the ending. I was getting too worn down; and the format made it next to impossible for anyone to answer anything properly, as none of them ever got enough time. With that many candidates I suppose they couldn't give any of them significant time on any answer, but trying to squash everything into almost no time doesn't give us much information, either. (Yes, I know I was just complaining that Warren couldn't come up with a soundbite. I wish they didn't matter, but they do.)
  #112  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:32 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
I would love to see Bernie drop out because it was because of him and his bros screaming ‘rigged!!!’ that forced the DNC to bend over backwards to allow everyone into the debates and not have a kiddie table.

I have NO proof, but I seriously suspect that Gabbard and Steyer met the donor threshold by Republican rat fuckers who tossed a couple of dollars to them to make sure they could keep the debate field as big as possible.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #113  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:33 PM
ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Warren did not wear the yellow jersey well. She needed to show she could. I was really hoping she would.
At least one commentator saw something different.
  #114  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:43 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I have NO proof, but I seriously suspect that Gabbard and Steyer met the donor threshold by Republican rat fuckers who tossed a couple of dollars to them to make sure they could keep the debate field as big as possible.
That, and folks spreading their money around among the Junior Varsity candidates keeps them above the threshold (rather than concentrating their donation on one candidate). I suppose each of them has some true supporters, but I do think there is a lot of nonsense propping them up.
  #115  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
What are some of the top answers you would have preferred to hear?

Biden in the opener - "I do think that NOW after the outrageous corruption that has been Trump we need to set a bar that eliminates even any potential appearance of benefit by association. That said, I am VERY proud of my role in the Obama administration implementing our government's, and the international community's, vision of decreasing corruption in Ukraine's government. That is the sort of extensive experience I will bring to the job of president. The experience of implementing change that benefits our country and our world rather than Trump's extorting a corruption of our nation's election process by foreign entities."

Warren - "Yup, there will be taxes, mostly paid by the wealthiest but not only. AND taxpayers below family income X will have more in their pockets to spend on other things because they will save more from no more premiums and co-pays than they will pay in taxes."

Biden near the close - "I believe that anyone on this stage could beat Trump. He's a clown. But damn. I thought Hillary would. I think we best go with the candidate who can be most assured of beating him, and beating him, or whoever else the GOP nominates once he is impeached and convicted, badly, the one who can bring a Senate majority on that win's coattails, even as foreign powers try to interfere on his behalf. I believe I am that candidate." (No snark.)


ShadowFacts, yes, subjective opinions vary. I was hoping to see her handle herself well. To my eye she did not. NO QUESTION that some others disagree. But I had moved over to believing her electability story and after last night I am questioning it again. I may not be representative of swingable primary voters. Or might be. The next two weeks will show. What was your subjective opinion?

Last edited by DSeid; 10-16-2019 at 08:24 PM.
  #116  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:28 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
...Harris started off well, but her gambit to try to push Warren to say Trump should be banned by Twitter was bizarre. That's your big attack?!
...
Count me as another puzzled by why Harris evidently thought this attack was a big winner.

Trump's Twitter feed is consistently awful, but he does steer clear of overtly breaking Twitter rules. Banning him would take a re-writing of the rules.

Yes, the stuff Trump insinuates does encourage horrific acts by his followers. But, again, he's not overtly breaking the rules.

Harris seemed to be advocating treating people who don't break rules differently based on their political views. That's GOP stuff, not Democratic Party stuff. And why did she think that Warren's failure to sign on to this cause would be damning for Warren?

As always, the disclaimer: if Harris is the candidate, I will vote for her over Trump. 100%. No hesitation.

But this 'ban Trump from Twitter' crusade, and her conviction it would be a "gotcha" for Warren, showed poor judgement. It was unintelligent.
  #117  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:44 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
I could see Mayor Pete as VP easily, with Harris as the PotUS nominee.
Harris? Ew. Why?
  #118  
Old 10-17-2019, 12:45 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Count me as another puzzled by why Harris evidently thought this attack was a big winner.

Trump's Twitter feed is consistently awful, but he does steer clear of overtly breaking Twitter rules. Banning him would take a re-writing of the rules.

Yes, the stuff Trump insinuates does encourage horrific acts by his followers. But, again, he's not overtly breaking the rules......
And his more insane tweets may be losing him support.
  #119  
Old 10-17-2019, 02:49 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,747
I thought Twitter had outright admitted that at least one of his tweets would be considered a violation of the rules from a regular citizen, but was allowed because of the newsworthiness of his being president. No? That's a pretty specific memory. I have been known to forget things but generally not to have false memories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Exactly. She is a natural to be on the ticket if anyone but Biden gets the nod.

Even Warren? I tend to think she would find it too risky to put two women on the ticket.


Count me, along with all the national politics reporters I have read, as seeing Klobuchar having a strong night. And it's not like I or they were in her corner after other debates.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I have 100% confidence in Gabbard to draw down troop levels quicker and better than Trump and anyone on that stage.

Sure, assuming that's what Assad or Putin would prefer happens.

Speaking of troop levels, several foreign policy type media figures are saying Warren made a major gaffe in declaring that she wants to move all troops out of the Middle East. Thoughts?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #120  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:32 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sure, assuming that's what Assad or Putin would prefer happens.
I keep hearing this about Gabbard. What's the source of this accusation, and is there any truth in it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Speaking of troop levels, several foreign policy type media figures are saying Warren made a major gaffe in declaring that she wants to move all troops out of the Middle East. Thoughts?
It's a nice sentiment. Every politician says it. Not every politician intends to precipitate a crisis by actually following through on it. It takes a very special idiot of low cunning to actually do it (as evidence shows). Warren doesn't strike me as one of those.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #121  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:40 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Speaking of troop levels, several foreign policy type media figures are saying Warren made a major gaffe in declaring that she wants to move all troops out of the Middle East. Thoughts?
It's a nice sentiment. Every politician says it. Not every politician intends to precipitate a crisis by actually following through on it. It takes a very special idiot of low cunning to actually do it (as evidence shows). Warren doesn't strike me as one of those.
I don't suppose anyone, neither the other Dem candidates nor the media, is going to ask "Does that include Syria?"

None of the Dems can say it - they need the Syria issue to bash Trump. The media isn't going to say it, for the same reason. Nobody can address it, for fear of highlighting
  1. When they say "I will pull the troops out" they don't mean it, and
  2. if they say "I won't pull the troops out if it will precipitate a crisis" it means "I won't pull the troops out" .
I realize that debates are about sound bites, but they shouldn't be.

"What would you have done about Turkey if you were President?" seems to me to be a good question for a prospective President. Because it doesn't lend itself to sound bites, and isn't a gotcha.

Air strikes (against a NATO ally)? Leave the troops in place and issue a stern warning not to hurt them, even by accident? Give the Kurds anti-aircraft missiles? Evacuate the area? Economic sanctions? Negotiations?

So far, the Democratic debate seems to have centered on health care, tax the rich, global warming, and Trump is bad. A President is going to have to deal with foreign policy too.

If Warren has a better idea, let's hear it. If she is going to do the same things except it will be better because she's not Trump, that doesn't help anything. Likewise if she dodges the question.

Obviously foreign policy is not her strong suit. Nor for Sanders. Biden has something resembling foreign policy experience, based on being Obama's VP. But if the topic of Syria comes up, someone from Fox News or the Trump campaign is going to ask if Biden will claim a red line that nobody can cross without serious consequences.

It's a pity that asking politicians hard questions is considered unfair (for Democrats).

Regards,
Shodan
  #122  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:45 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
... A President is going to have to deal with foreign policy too.

...
This has been proven to not be the case. Perhaps in the old days, but it's a brave new, stupid country.
  #123  
Old 10-17-2019, 11:02 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
This has been proven to not be the case. Perhaps in the old days, but it's a brave new, stupid country.
I disagree that, if Warren or Sanders or Biden or Buttigieg are elected President, they will not have to deal with foreign policy.

Based on Warren's statement, she will deal with the Middle East either the same way as Trump, except maybe not even though she says so, or a different way that she hasn't mentioned. If she is going to be different than Trump, how? If she is going to be the same, then avoiding questions on foreign policy makes sense for her campaign.

'I don't need to deal with Syria, because Trump' does not strike me as a worthwhile strategy. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
  #124  
Old 10-17-2019, 11:15 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I keep hearing this about Gabbard. What's the source of this accusation, and is there any truth in it?



It's a nice sentiment. Every politician says it. Not every politician intends to precipitate a crisis by actually following through on it. It takes a very special idiot of low cunning to actually do it (as evidence shows). Warren doesn't strike me as one of those.
To the first. There's no evidence of collusion but she, like Trump, does seem to have the support of the Russian interference machine.
Quote:
An independent analysis of the Russian news media found that RT, the Kremlin-backed news agency, mentioned Ms. Gabbard frequently for a candidate polling in single digits, according to data collected by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a group that seeks to track and expose efforts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic elections.

Disinformation experts have also pointed to instances of suspicious activity surrounding Ms. Gabbard’s campaign — in particular, a Twitter hashtag, #KamalaHarrisDestroyed, that trended among Ms. Gabbard’s supporters after the first Democratic debate, and appeared to be amplified by a coordinated network of bot-like accounts — but there is no evidence of coordination between these networks and the campaign itself.
That article is part of what Gabbard was bashing in her debate bits.


As to the second - no, not all D politicians says no troops stationed anywhere outside of America, or even just the Mid-East, as the goal. Of those on the stage fairly few say that as an end goal. The more common sentiment is the one expressed by Biden and with better words by Buttigieg. Out of harm's way and in small numbers in supportive roles is more the position that most are aiming for ... and overweighting to expert diplomatic engagement than the false choice of either full military conflict vs. full disengagement of Fortress America.

American voters don't want to have to deal with foreign policy and don't want to have to care about it. Unfortunately informed self-interest makes dealing with it, investing in diplomatic solutions and even intelligent use of military options when necessary, unavoidable.
  #125  
Old 10-17-2019, 02:54 PM
ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
ShadowFacts, yes, subjective opinions vary. I was hoping to see her handle herself well. To my eye she did not. NO QUESTION that some others disagree. But I had moved over to believing her electability story and after last night I am questioning it again. I may not be representative of swingable primary voters. Or might be. The next two weeks will show. What was your subjective opinion?
Unfortunately, I had an event that night, so I only heard the very beginning part of the debate where she was talking about Medicare for All, and I think she could have handled it better. I don't like when candidates repeat memorized phrases, and that's exactly what she was doing. That said, it was also obvious she was being baited into saying she would raise taxes in a transparent "gotcha" attempt, and I think her choice was better than falling into that trap. I believe it would have been better if she had explained that head on, e.g. "my opponents are transparently trying to bait me into saying I'm going to raise taxes for future soundbite purposes, but I'm not going to fall for that, because this is not a soundbite issue, it's vitally important for all Americans, and my plan results not only in net savings for middle class families, but also crucially removes the fear of bankruptcy from unforeseen medical expenses, as is the norm in every advanced western democracy." But what she did is still better than falling for the trap.
  #126  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:18 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,959
When the nominee is eventually chosen and the general election comes around, I guaran-fucking-tee you that discussions of the minutiae of the ongoing Middle East conflict is not going to have any effect on either swing voters or turnout. People don't want to think about this. They don't want to know about it. They don't care until there's an actual Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States, which there hasn't been in a long time and probably won't be for a long time. The average voter does not understand ANYTHING about what is going on in Syria, they don't know who the Kurds are or why anyone should care what Turkey is doing, they certainly have no comprehension of Russia's role in any of this...it's not going to be a "hearts and minds" issue, not like it was after 9/11.

Trump's default answer on any of this stuff, in the debate, is going to be:

"BARACK OBAMA and HILLARY CLINTON, folks, created big, BIG problems there, and I knocked the hell out of ISIS and now we're bringing troops home very strongly. We've bringing - which didn't happen, by the way, with Obama, the troops...but it's happening now VERY STRONGLY, think of it...here's the story, folks, we knocked the hell out of ISIS, we're going to help keep America strong again."

I swear to God he's literally going to say some variation of those exact words. Of course, the Democratic challenger is going to try to pick apart all of his foreign policy flaws, dissect out the entire geopolitical epic of Syria and Turkey and ISIS and the Kurds and Iran and all the rest, lay out detailed plans for what they think SHOULD have happened there, and so on. BUT IT WON'T MATTER.

What the Democratic candidate needs to have, during the election, is simple, easily-digestible sound bites regarding the whole situation, to the effect of "This stuff is the domain of generals and admirals, you know, the ones who are too bewildered and disgusted by the chaos of Trump's administration to even work with him! I don't have all the answers, but I'm goddamn sure going to work WITH the wisest and most experienced military officers and intelligence specialists, and not put them through a revolving door!"

This is IMO the best pivot from that question in the debates. If they try to play the "look how much I know about Syria and Iraq and the history of the modern Middle East conflict" game, they're just wasting time.

Last edited by Lamoral; 10-17-2019 at 04:19 PM.
  #127  
Old 10-17-2019, 06:43 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And his more insane tweets may be losing him support.
Good point!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I thought Twitter had outright admitted that at least one of his tweets would be considered a violation of the rules from a regular citizen, but was allowed because of the newsworthiness of his being president. ...
That does sound familiar---though, like you, I don't recall any specifics.

If Trump tweeted 'All patriots should show up at Pelosi's home and gun her down, and here's her address [posts actual address]' then obviously Twitter would have to act. But as you say, they can offer the 'he's the President' rationale for leaving him up so long as he refrains from outright calls for violence, and many people will find that to be reasonable.

I just think it's a loser as a campaign for Harris, or anyone else for that matter. You will always get applause from Dem audiences if you say 'aren't you sick of hearing Trump's voice on TV and sick of seeing his tweets?'

But to advocate for him being banned (assuming he refrains from the 'shoot ____ down' stuff) makes a candidate look ....I don't know, un-Presidential, somehow.
  #128  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:34 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,747
I found a cite:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/t...core-ios-share
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO — Twitter said on Tuesday that it would continue to be lenient with world leaders who appeared to violate its policies against violent speech because the company believed preserving those tweets served the public interest.
The announcement came as Twitter grapples with scrutiny for hosting President Trump’s increasingly virulent messages about the impeachment proceedings against him.

Under pressure from Democrats to take action against Mr. Trump’s account, Twitter said that it would take action against a world leader’s account only if it was used to threaten an individual, promote terrorism or self-harm, or post private information like a phone number.[...]

In June, Twitter said it planned to roll out a feature to hide abusive tweets from world leaders behind warning labels, rather than scrubbing them from the platform because the messages are newsworthy. That would strike a balance between making information available to the public and enforcing its policies against violence and abuse, the company said. The feature has yet to be used against any world leader’s account, including Mr. Trump’s.

“There are certain cases where it may be in the public’s interest to have access to certain tweets, even if they would otherwise be in violation of our rules,” Twitter said at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
It's a nice sentiment. Every politician says it.

I don’t think it’s a nice sentiment, and I have heard very few politicians say it, outside of far left types like Dennis Kucinich and ultra-libertarians like Rand Paul.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-17-2019 at 07:36 PM.
  #129  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:59 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,314
Interesting, Slacker; thanks.
  #130  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:51 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"What would you have done about Turkey if you were President?" seems to me to be a good question for a prospective President. Because it doesn't lend itself to sound bites, and isn't a gotcha.
It is a good question. But the format didn't lend itself to anything but sound bites; nobody was given time enough to explain anything at all complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Leave the troops in place and issue a stern warning not to hurt them, even by accident?
That seemed to be working, until Trump moved them out and issued permission instead of warnings. (Yes, I know he belatedly tried to throw some warnings in later on.)


-- Warren didn't say 'The USA should pull all troops out of the middle east, no matter what.' She said, in effect (this is not a direct quote), 'ideally we should have no troops there, but before we can remove them we need to have a negotiated and stable situation. There is no military solution to this mess.' Which is IMO an entirely sensible statement; except that I'm afraid there may be no negotiated/diplomatic solution, either; other than possibly to stagger on for another couple of hundred years trying to minimize further damage, in the hope that people will eventually think it more important to fight about something else; though as people have been fighting over this area for the past couple of thousand years at least that's a pretty thin hope. For any candidate or POTUS to say out loud that there's currently no possible solution at all, however, I think would indeed be a large mistake.
  #131  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:57 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
It is a good question. But the format didn't lend itself to anything but sound bites; nobody was given time enough to explain anything at all complicated.
Yes, debates aren't the right format. But there should be some format somewhere where the press would ask that, and insist on an answer.

If the press wants to be taken seriously as a positive force in the elections, then by golly they have got to act like it. Stop this crap about who's ahead and who had the best sound bite, and actually ask about something else - something substantive.
Quote:
-- Warren didn't say 'The USA should pull all troops out of the middle east, no matter what.' She said, in effect (this is not a direct quote), 'ideally we should have no troops there, but before we can remove them we need to have a negotiated and stable situation. There is no military solution to this mess.' Which is IMO an entirely sensible statement; except that I'm afraid there may be no negotiated/diplomatic solution, either; other than possibly to stagger on for another couple of hundred years trying to minimize further damage, in the hope that people will eventually think it more important to fight about something else; though as people have been fighting over this area for the past couple of thousand years at least that's a pretty thin hope. For any candidate or POTUS to say out loud that there's currently no possible solution at all, however, I think would indeed be a large mistake.
Perhaps that mistake could be mitigated if the same question were asked of every candidate, with the same insistence on an answer.

"OK, smart guy - you said Warren was wrong when she said we couldn't stop the Middle East from killing each other. What's your solution?"

Which, as I say, isn't going to happen. For fear that "we need to pull out, except not really" is going to get contrasted with "I said I would pull the troops out and I am going to do it. And I don't intend to get in the middle of ISIS who hate everybody and Syria who hates the rebels who hate the Kurds who hate the Turks who hate the Islamacists who hate the Sunnis who hate the Shi'ites who hate everybody only marginally less than everybody else".

Regards,
Shodan
  #132  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:49 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yes, debates aren't the right format. But there should be some format somewhere where the press would ask that, and insist on an answer.

If the press wants to be taken seriously as a positive force in the elections, then by golly they have got to act like it. Stop this crap about who's ahead and who had the best sound bite, and actually ask about something else - something substantive.Perhaps that mistake could be mitigated if the same question were asked of every candidate, with the same insistence on an answer.
Well there have been a number of televised town halls by CNN (though I'm not sure if there has been one on foreign policy yet) where the candidates get like a hour to discuss issues. However it seems no one really watches those and the only thing that catches on are sound bites from those.

So perhaps the press isn't really the issue - it's us as the voters who don't care to tune into substantive policy discussion.

Last edited by ISiddiqui; 10-18-2019 at 01:50 PM.
  #133  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:47 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Interesting, Slacker; thanks.

You’re welcome!
  #134  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:53 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"What would you have done about Turkey if you were President?" seems to me to be a good question for a prospective President.
The answer is, "nothing."

If Trump had said and done nothing, Erdogan wouldn't have had reason to believe he had a green light to invade.

Got any more softballs?
  #135  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:04 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Perhaps that mistake could be mitigated if the same question were asked of every candidate, with the same insistence on an answer.
I meant that in any context -- not just in a debate -- I think it would be a mistake not only for a candidate for POTUS but also for any actual POTUS to say, in effect 'there is no visible solution to the mess in the Middle East; there is neither a military solution nor a diplomatic one.' I think it would be a huge mistake because I think that publicly acknowledging that, by a person who is or may be about to be in a position to affect negotiations, would interfere with attempts to minimize damage.

Getting all the candidates to admit it wouldn't help.

Trying to get all of them to seriously address what they would try to do is, I agree, a good idea -- but it's necessary to keep in mind that anything they try to do is going to run up against at least a dozen different sides all of whom have their own opinions and none of whom are going to hand their decision making over to the USA. That doesn't mean the USA can have no influence; but it does mean that any specific plan isn't likely, at least in its original form, to long survive dealing with the reality.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017