kelly09 said:

---

....https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/23/an-american-epidemic-toxic-imbecility/

---

I'm afraid the author of that Breitbart worthy piece doesn't have a lot of credibility from his pulpit preaching.

"From July 2 to September 21, 2011, he was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in the 2012 election. After ending his presidential campaign, McCotter decided to run again for his seat in Congress, but he failed to qualify for the 2012 Republican primary in his congressional district after most of his petition signatures were rejected as invalid. The fallout from the ensuing scandal prompted McCotter to resign from Congress in July 2012." Wikipedia

These days both the leadership of and primary advocates for the Republican Party are comprised of mediocre intellects (the days of the William F. Buckley, Jr's are long gone). At least the Right Wingers with well above average intelligence like Pat Buchanan and Steve Bannon admit to getting their news from the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian. Those two want the real facts but it doesn't change their ideology. The bulk of tRump supporters want to be spoon fed fairy tales from their favorite purveyors of make believe like Fox News and Facebook so they feel better about themselves.

bearister said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

....https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/23/an-american-epidemic-toxic-imbecility/

---

I'm afraid the author of that Breitbart worthy piece doesn't have a lot of credibility from his pulpit preaching.

"From July 2 to September 21, 2011, he was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in the 2012 election. After ending his presidential campaign, McCotter decided to run again for his seat in Congress, but he failed to qualify for the 2012 Republican primary in his congressional district after most of his petition signatures were rejected as invalid. The fallout from the ensuing scandal prompted McCotter to resign from Congress in July 2012." Wikipedia

These days both the leadership of and primary advocates for the Republican Party are comprised of mediocre intellects (the days of the William F. Buckley, Jr's are long gone). At least the Right Wingers with well above average intelligence like Pat Buchanan and Steve Bannon admit to getting their news from the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian. Those two want the real facts but it doesn't change their ideology. The bulk of tRump supporters want to be spoon fed fairly tales from their favorite purveyors of make believe like Fox News and Facebook so they feel better about themselves.

---

You. of course, are the arbiter of what political thinkers are intelligent and those that aren't
So how about opining on the following: Senator Patty Murray. Rep Hank Johnson, r\Rep Maxine Waters, ...for openers.

kelly09 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost. Nothing has changed. They would support him staying in the White House if he lost the 2020 election. I don't think they will go quietly. And what if his new allies, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey recognize him as the President after the election? Much like he did with Venezuela.
I don't think Trump will go gently into the night is he 'loses' in 2020.

---

If your pessimistic vision holds true, I'm confident the military commanders would be happy to forcibly remove Trump from office and usher in the winner, even if there are some local militias that get radical. That said, I don't think it gets that far. I think the economy gets worse by fall of 2020 (not a full-blown crisis, but it stalls), and I think Trump continues his BS, and his support falls to 35%, and the election is not that close, dampening enthusiasm on the right for armed support of Trump. Though, I do admit, if the elections don't go Trump's way, I do believe there will be one or two crazies that do something violent and dumb.

---

https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/23/an-american-epidemic-toxic-imbecility/

---

That is a dumb article, and I regret having given it a click.

It is all opinion, all baseless claims, with no facts, and no substantive argument other than 'everyone is dumb is because I say so', so go read these four authors to become un-dumb.

kelly09 said:

---

bearister said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

....https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/23/an-american-epidemic-toxic-imbecility/

---

I'm afraid the author of that Breitbart worthy piece doesn't have a lot of credibility from his pulpit preaching.

"From July 2 to September 21, 2011, he was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in the 2012 election. After ending his presidential campaign, McCotter decided to run again for his seat in Congress, but he failed to qualify for the 2012 Republican primary in his congressional district after most of his petition signatures were rejected as invalid. The fallout from the ensuing scandal prompted McCotter to resign from Congress in July 2012." Wikipedia

These days both the leadership of and primary advocates for the Republican Party are comprised of mediocre intellects (the days of the William F. Buckley, Jr's are long gone). At least the Right Wingers with well above average intelligence like Pat Buchanan and Steve Bannon admit to getting their news from the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian. Those two want the real facts but it doesn't change their ideology. The bulk of tRump supporters want to be spoon fed fairly tales from their favorite purveyors of make believe like Fox News and Facebook so they feel better about themselves.

---

You. of course, are the arbiter of what political thinkers are intelligent and those that aren't
So how about opining on the following: Senator Patty Murray. Rep Hank Johnson, r\Rep Maxine Waters, ...for openers.

---

Sowhaddabout.
Sowhaddabout.
Sowhaddabout.
Sowhaddabout.

ad nauseam

golden sloth said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost. Nothing has changed. They would support him staying in the White House if he lost the 2020 election. I don't think they will go quietly. And what if his new allies, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey recognize him as the President after the election? Much like he did with Venezuela.
I don't think Trump will go gently into the night is he 'loses' in 2020.

---

If your pessimistic vision holds true, I'm confident the military commanders would be happy to forcibly remove Trump from office and usher in the winner, even if there are some local militias that get radical. That said, I don't think it gets that far. I think the economy gets worse by fall of 2020 (not a full-blown crisis, but it stalls), and I think Trump continues his BS, and his support falls to 35%, and the election is not that close, dampening enthusiasm on the right for armed support of Trump. Though, I do admit, if the elections don't go Trump's way, I do believe there will be one or two crazies that do something violent and dumb.

---

https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/23/an-american-epidemic-toxic-imbecility/

---

That is a dumb article, and I regret having given it a click.

It is all opinion, all baseless claims, with no facts, and no substantive argument other than 'everyone is dumb is because I say so', so go read these four authors to become un-dumb.

---

I just went back and read this article. You know who the author is? Thad McCotter, a former Republican Congressman. Why former? He resigned in disgrace after his team was discovered to have committed likely fraud in collecting petition signatures for his reelection bid. This was not long after he made a run at the Republican nomination for President in 2012, received less than 1% support, and ended his campaign more than $100k in debt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_McCotter

LOL. "Toxic imbecility" indeed.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost. Nothing has changed. They would support him staying in the White House if he lost the 2020 election. I don't think they will go quietly. And what if his new allies, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey recognize him as the President after the election? Much like he did with Venezuela.
I don't think Trump will go gently into the night is he 'loses' in 2020.

---

If your pessimistic vision holds true, I'm confident the military commanders would be happy to forcibly remove Trump from office and usher in the winner, even if there are some local militias that get radical. That said, I don't think it gets that far. I think the economy gets worse by fall of 2020 (not a full-blown crisis, but it stalls), and I think Trump continues his BS, and his support falls to 35%, and the election is not that close, dampening enthusiasm on the right for armed support of Trump. Though, I do admit, if the elections don't go Trump's way, I do believe there will be one or two crazies that do something violent and dumb.

---

https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/23/an-american-epidemic-toxic-imbecility/

---

That is a dumb article, and I regret having given it a click.

It is all opinion, all baseless claims, with no facts, and no substantive argument other than 'everyone is dumb is because I say so', so go read these four authors to become un-dumb.

---

I just went back and read this article. You know who the author is? Thad McCotter, a former Republican Congressman. Why former? He resigned in disgrace after his team was discovered to have committed likely fraud in collecting petition signatures for his reelection bid. This was not long after he made a run at the Republican nomination for President in 2012, received less than 1% support, and ended his campaign more than $100k in debt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_McCotter

LOL. "Toxic imbecility" indeed.

---

It's truly amazing how many bad blogs and videos there are for dumb old white mother****ers to reference when trying to support their dumbassery.

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost. Nothing has changed. They would support him staying in the White House if he lost the 2020 election. I don't think they will go quietly. And what if his new allies, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey recognize him as the President after the election? Much like he did with Venezuela.
I don't think Trump will go gently into the night is he 'loses' in 2020.

---

If your pessimistic vision holds true, I'm confident the military commanders would be happy to forcibly remove Trump from office and usher in the winner, even if there are some local militias that get radical. That said, I don't think it gets that far. I think the economy gets worse by fall of 2020 (not a full-blown crisis, but it stalls), and I think Trump continues his BS, and his support falls to 35%, and the election is not that close, dampening enthusiasm on the right for armed support of Trump. Though, I do admit, if the elections don't go Trump's way, I do believe there will be one or two crazies that do something violent and dumb.

---

https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/23/an-american-epidemic-toxic-imbecility/

---

That is a dumb article, and I regret having given it a click.

It is all opinion, all baseless claims, with no facts, and no substantive argument other than 'everyone is dumb is because I say so', so go read these four authors to become un-dumb.

---

I just went back and read this article. You know who the author is? Thad McCotter, a former Republican Congressman. Why former? He resigned in disgrace after his team was discovered to have committed likely fraud in collecting petition signatures for his reelection bid. This was not long after he made a run at the Republican nomination for President in 2012, received less than 1% support, and ended his campaign more than $100k in debt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_McCotter

LOL. "Toxic imbecility" indeed.

---

It's truly amazing how many bad blogs and videos there are for dumb old white mother****ers to reference when trying to support their dumbassery.

---

It's just so intellectually insulting. Kelly09, do you not vet or verify anything? Look up who wrote these articles and what their histories are? I mean, to stroll in here with a tirade against liberal imbecility from a guy who was PROBABLY GUILTY OF ELECTION FRAUD . . . what did you think this would accomplish?

He wants to make it to heaven but he doesn't realize he's sinning. Not gonna make it at this rate.

"Even before Robert Mueller has delivered his final communique, Democrats have activated a new phase in the Trump-Russia wars that ultimately could prove more damaging to the president than the special counsel's investigation:

What's new: Whether or not Mueller is sitting on a grand finale, Democrats are picking up the baton with a vast probe that already involves a half-dozen committees, and will include public hearings starring reluctant witnesses.
Why it matters: For Trump, this has been a behind-the-scenes probe, with sensational yet intermittent revelations. Now, it's about to become a persistent and very public process at best, a nuisance; at worst, a threat to his office.
What House Democrats are thinking after the public Cohen hearing, via an email to Axios from MSNBC analyst Matt Miller: "Incredible to start an investigation and have six months' worth of leads on the first day."

What Democrats are planning:

They want to call Trump family members with subpoenas, if necessary.
The Democrats' investigation will touch Trump's businesses, foundation and presidency and could extend into 2020, top Democrats tell me.
Besides Russia, topics include conflicts of interest, money laundering, and Jared Kushner's security clearance and other White House clearances. (N.Y. Times scoop: "Trump Ordered Officials to Give Kushner a Security Clearance.")
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who's on the House Oversight Committee, tells Axios' Alayna Treene that committees are "zeroing in on the Moscow project, the Russia connection and the influence of other foreign actors like Saudi Arabia."
Axios

And another one in.

Governor Jay Inslee of Washington:

Quote:

---

Washington state Governor Jay Inslee said on Friday he will seek the Democratic Party's nomination for president in 2020, joining the crowded field as a relative unknown who hopes to catch fire by making climate change a central issue of his campaign.

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inslee/washington-governor-inslee-runs-for-us-president-on-climate-change-platform-idUSKCN1QI4H8

bearister said:

---

"Even before Robert Mueller has delivered his final communique, Democrats have activated a new phase in the Trump-Russia wars that ultimately could prove more damaging to the president than the special counsel's investigation:

What's new: Whether or not Mueller is sitting on a grand finale, Democrats are picking up the baton with a vast probe that already involves a half-dozen committees, and will include public hearings starring reluctant witnesses.
Why it matters: For Trump, this has been a behind-the-scenes probe, with sensational yet intermittent revelations. Now, it's about to become a persistent and very public process at best, a nuisance; at worst, a threat to his office.
What House Democrats are thinking after the public Cohen hearing, via an email to Axios from MSNBC analyst Matt Miller: "Incredible to start an investigation and have six months' worth of leads on the first day."

What Democrats are planning:

They want to call Trump family members with subpoenas, if necessary.
The Democrats' investigation will touch Trump's businesses, foundation and presidency and could extend into 2020, top Democrats tell me.
Besides Russia, topics include conflicts of interest, money laundering, and Jared Kushner's security clearance and other White House clearances. (N.Y. Times scoop: "Trump Ordered Officials to Give Kushner a Security Clearance.")
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who's on the House Oversight Committee, tells Axios' Alayna Treene that committees are "zeroing in on the Moscow project, the Russia connection and the influence of other foreign actors like Saudi Arabia."
Axios

---

Would someone please tell Matt Miller that the investigation started more than 2 years ago?

oski003 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Even before Robert Mueller has delivered his final communique, Democrats have activated a new phase in the Trump-Russia wars that ultimately could prove more damaging to the president than the special counsel's investigation:

What's new: Whether or not Mueller is sitting on a grand finale, Democrats are picking up the baton with a vast probe that already involves a half-dozen committees, and will include public hearings starring reluctant witnesses.
Why it matters: For Trump, this has been a behind-the-scenes probe, with sensational yet intermittent revelations. Now, it's about to become a persistent and very public process at best, a nuisance; at worst, a threat to his office.
What House Democrats are thinking after the public Cohen hearing, via an email to Axios from MSNBC analyst Matt Miller: "Incredible to start an investigation and have six months' worth of leads on the first day."

What Democrats are planning:

They want to call Trump family members with subpoenas, if necessary.
The Democrats' investigation will touch Trump's businesses, foundation and presidency and could extend into 2020, top Democrats tell me.
Besides Russia, topics include conflicts of interest, money laundering, and Jared Kushner's security clearance and other White House clearances. (N.Y. Times scoop: "Trump Ordered Officials to Give Kushner a Security Clearance.")
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who's on the House Oversight Committee, tells Axios' Alayna Treene that committees are "zeroing in on the Moscow project, the Russia connection and the influence of other foreign actors like Saudi Arabia."
Axios

---

Would someone please tell Matt Miller that the investigation started more than 2 years ago?

---

Not in Congress, though.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Even before Robert Mueller has delivered his final communique, Democrats have activated a new phase in the Trump-Russia wars that ultimately could prove more damaging to the president than the special counsel's investigation:

What's new: Whether or not Mueller is sitting on a grand finale, Democrats are picking up the baton with a vast probe that already involves a half-dozen committees, and will include public hearings starring reluctant witnesses.
Why it matters: For Trump, this has been a behind-the-scenes probe, with sensational yet intermittent revelations. Now, it's about to become a persistent and very public process at best, a nuisance; at worst, a threat to his office.
What House Democrats are thinking after the public Cohen hearing, via an email to Axios from MSNBC analyst Matt Miller: "Incredible to start an investigation and have six months' worth of leads on the first day."

What Democrats are planning:

They want to call Trump family members with subpoenas, if necessary.
The Democrats' investigation will touch Trump's businesses, foundation and presidency and could extend into 2020, top Democrats tell me.
Besides Russia, topics include conflicts of interest, money laundering, and Jared Kushner's security clearance and other White House clearances. (N.Y. Times scoop: "Trump Ordered Officials to Give Kushner a Security Clearance.")
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who's on the House Oversight Committee, tells Axios' Alayna Treene that committees are "zeroing in on the Moscow project, the Russia connection and the influence of other foreign actors like Saudi Arabia."
Axios

---

Would someone please tell Matt Miller that the investigation started more than 2 years ago?

---

Not in Congress, though.

---

Indeed, new game with a Democratic controlled House. GOP lead House sat on their hands and actively obstructed (Hello Devin Nunes of IA). But hey, those guys are going to catch up fast and will be unrelenting and they have the cause of American democracy on their side.

"Breaking: 2020's homegrown fake news crisis
An investigation by fact-checking company Snopes finds that a series of seemingly innocuous local websites, which have popped up all over the country, are being run by GOP consultants whose businesses are funded in part by candidates the websites cover, Axios' Sara Fischer reports.

Why it matters: The consultants setting up these websites, first reported last year by Politico, are expanding their efforts to more battleground states in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
They claim that the sites are funded by ads. But the Snopes investigation found that the websites are often supported by wealthy benefactors.
Details: Michael Patrick Leahy, a Tea Party-connected conservative activist that is tied to one of the sites, Tennessee Star, wrote in an email to Snopes: "We are in business to make a profit, and have a number of advertisers to prove it."

But Snopes found that Tennessee Star runs ads from political groups such as the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity and local GOP fundraisers." Axios

https://player.fm/series/tbd-with-tina-brown/hillary-clintons-2020-vision

Tina Brown podcast with Hillary Clinton 7 days ago.
Some might find it interesting. I just saw it highlighted on CNN interview with Tina Brown, and have not yet listened.

bearister said:

---

"Breaking: 2020's homegrown fake news crisis
An investigation by fact-checking company Snopes finds that a series of seemingly innocuous local websites, which have popped up all over the country, are being run by GOP consultants whose businesses are funded in part by candidates the websites cover, Axios' Sara Fischer reports.

Why it matters: The consultants setting up these websites, first reported last year by Politico, are expanding their efforts to more battleground states in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
They claim that the sites are funded by ads. But the Snopes investigation found that the websites are often supported by wealthy benefactors.
Details: Michael Patrick Leahy, a Tea Party-connected conservative activist that is tied to one of the sites, Tennessee Star, wrote in an email to Snopes: "We are in business to make a profit, and have a number of advertisers to prove it."

But Snopes found that Tennessee Star runs ads from political groups such as the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity and local GOP fundraisers." Axios

---

Sounds like The PBS documentary Dark Money.



It explains how campaigns are financed.



We need to reverse Citizens United at the Supreme Court.

An updated list:

Democrats:

• Cory Booker (D), a U.S. senator from New Jersey, announced that he was running for president on February 1, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-Booker-6][6][/url]
• Pete Buttigieg (D), the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, announced that he was running for president on January 23, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-PB-7][7][/url]
• Julian Castro (D), a former U.S. secretary of housing and urban development and San Antonio mayor, formally announced his candidacy on January 12, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-Castro-8][8][/url]
• John Delaney (D), a former U.S. representative from Maryland, filed to run for president on August 10, 2017.
• Tulsi Gabbard (D), a U.S. representative from Hawaii, announced that she had decided to run for president on January 11, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-Tulsi-9][9][/url]
• Kirsten Gillibrand (D), a U.S. senator from New York, announced that she was running for president on January 15, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-Kirsten-10][10][/url]
• Kamala Harris (D), a U.S. senator from California, announced that she was running for president on January 21, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-Kamala2020-11][11][/url]
• John Hickenlooper, a former governor of Colorado, announced that he was running for president on March 4, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-Looper-1][1][/url]
• Jay Inslee (D), the governor of Washington, announced that he was running for president on March 1, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-12][12][/url]
• Amy Klobuchar (D), a U.S. senator from Minnesota, formally announced she was running for president on February 10, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-klobuchar-5][5][/url]
• Bernie Sanders (I), a U.S. senator from Vermont, announced that he was running for president on February 19, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-Bernie-3][3][/url]
• Elizabeth Warren (D), U.S. senator from Massachusetts, announced she had formed an exploratory committee on December 31, 2018.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-13][13][/url] She formally announced she was running for president on February 9, 2019.
• Marianne Williamson (D), an author and lecturer, announced she was running for president on January 28, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-14][14][/url]
• Andrew Yang (D), an entrepreneur and author from New York, filed to run for president on November 6, 2017.

Republicans:

• President Donald Trump (R) filed to run for re-election in 2020 on January 20, 2017.
• Bill Weld (R), a former governor of Massachusetts, announced that he had formed an exploratory committee on February 15, 2019.[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020#cite_note-Weld-4][4][/url]

From the Dem list, I have only concluded I absolutely don't want Marianne Williamson to win.

According to this poll, only 11% of the voting bloc are 'swing votes'. Everyone else has a definite lean (though it is still very, very early). It should also be noted that, this is a generic national poll and therefore doesn't really matter thanks to the Electoral College, and all that does matters is this kind of poll in the Great Lakes region.

Quote:

---

Forty-one percent of registered voters say they will "definitely" or "probably" vote for Trump in 2020, versus 48 percent who say they will "definitely" or "probably" vote for the Democratic candidate.

Those numbers for Trump are worse than what Barack Obama faced at this same point in time in the 2012 cycle, when 45 percent said they'd vote for him, while 40 percent would vote for the Republican opponent.

But they're on par with Bill Clinton's numbers in January 1995, when 38 percent said they'd vote for Clinton, versus 42 percent who said they'd pick the generic Republican candidate.

Both Obama and Clinton won their re-election contests.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj-poll-2020-race-will-be-uphill-trump-n978331

The other thing is that Clinton's approval numbers were way more "elastic" than Trump's, in that they moved within a broader range (really every other president did). Trump has been stuck in the 37-42 percent approval range for almost his entire presidency. Nothing is impossible, so he could start doing better, but the evidence so far suggests that his ceiling is set.

golden sloth said:

---

According to this poll, only 11% of the voting bloc are 'swing votes'. Everyone else has a definite lean (though it is still very, very early). It should also be noted that, this is a generic national poll and therefore doesn't really matter thanks to the Electoral College, and all that does matters is this kind of poll in the Great Lakes region.

Quote:

---

Forty-one percent of registered voters say they will "definitely" or "probably" vote for Trump in 2020, versus 48 percent who say they will "definitely" or "probably" vote for the Democratic candidate.

Those numbers for Trump are worse than what Barack Obama faced at this same point in time in the 2012 cycle, when 45 percent said they'd vote for him, while 40 percent would vote for the Republican opponent.

But they're on par with Bill Clinton's numbers in January 1995, when 38 percent said they'd vote for Clinton, versus 42 percent who said they'd pick the generic Republican candidate.

Both Obama and Clinton won their re-election contests.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj-poll-2020-race-will-be-uphill-trump-n978331

---

This is not really on "par" between Trump and Clinton. . There is a huge difference between 42% saying they would pick the opponent and 48% saying they would pick the opponent. Clinton (42% opposition - 20% undecided) and Obama both won comfortably. 48% opposition for Trump is a completely different hurdle.

Elizabeth Warren wants to break up FANG minus the Netflix (I really can't adjust the acronym accordingly). Is this a good move or a bad move?

Quote:

---

Senator Elizabeth Warren said on Friday that if elected U.S. president she would seek to break up tech companies Amazon.com Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google and Facebook Inc as part of a structural change to the sector aimed at promoting competition.

"They've bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation," Warren wrote.

Warren said that she would nominate regulators who would unwind mergers such as Facebook's deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, Amazon's deals for Whole Foods and Zappos, and Google's purchase of Waze, Nest and DoubleClick.

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-elizabethwarren-technology/u-s-presidential-hopeful-warren-wants-breakup-of-google-facebook-and-amazon-idUSKCN1QP1M0

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown will NOT be running for President.

Quote:

---

"I will keep calling out Donald Trump and his phony populism. I will keep fighting for all workers across the country. And I will do everything I can to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate in 2020," Brown said in a statement. "The best place for me to make that fight is in the United States Senate."

---

Its a shame because I agree with his desire to reign in Corporations a bit, though I disagree with his stance of Free Trade.

Quote:

---

"Without romanticizing the past too much, companies used to operate in terms of stakeholders: customers, employees and community and shareholders. Now it's evolved in all that matters is the bottom line," Brown says. "Many companies operate under the premise that they have to operate only in the stockholder's best interest. They always use the word fiduciary duty or responsibility. I just don't think that's true."

If their stock price is all that matters, Brown reasons, companies have every incentive to exploit their workforce to produce as much as it can at the lowest possible cost, to maximize their short-term productivity. They have all kinds of tricks to achieve that: independent contracting, subcontracting, temporary workers, irregular schedules. Subcontracting is an instructive example. If a company hires another company to provide certain services, it is no longer deciding how much to pay those individual workers to perform those tasks. It is instead looking at bids, hunting for the lowest price.

---

Quote:

---

When I asked Brown what he would prioritize, he started with a tax bill and ticked off four components:
[ol]

His Patriot Employer Tax Credit, which would give businesses a lower tax rate if they met certain conditions on wages and benefits while keeping jobs in the United States

The corporate freeloader fee, which levies a tax on corporations for the percentage of workers living in or near poverty and therefore likely depend on federal benefits

An expansion of the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000 for kids older than 5 and $3,600 for kids younger (it would also allow poorer families to access the full benefit by tweaking eligibility rules)

Doubling the earned income tax credit (an individual can currently receive up to $530, and a family of three up to $6,500)

[/ol]

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/7/18243447/sherrod-brown-not-running-for-president-2020-election-dignity-of-work

In any case, I still don't know who my favorite of the Dem pool is yet, and my #1 goal is still someone that can decisively win the Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

I think GAF works for Google Apple Facebook. Her plan sounds really stupid though and unamerican.

Actually enforcing anti-monolopy laws is good for business...just have to be careful doing so. That said, I'd trade real regulations on personal data, data mining, etc., for breaking up FANG.

House Democrats just passed a slate of significant reforms to get money out of politics

Quote:

---

Democrats passed their sweeping anti-corruption bill known as HR 1. It's already doomed in the Senate.

---

Yes, DOA due to the Senate. Still like the Dems are doing this.

Side note: skimmed an article yesterday...too many Dems running for POTUS, when they need senators. Seems spot on...most of those who tossed in their hat, could run for senator, if not a senator already.

Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, is a perfect example. He should run for congress or senate given his age and skill...and move up over time. Dems need to cultivate a long and deep bench.

golden sloth said:

---

Elizabeth Warren wants to break up FANG minus the Netflix (I really can't adjust the acronym accordingly). Is this a good move or a bad move?

Quote:

---

Senator Elizabeth Warren said on Friday that if elected U.S. president she would seek to break up tech companies Amazon.com Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google and Facebook Inc as part of a structural change to the sector aimed at promoting competition.

"They've bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation," Warren wrote.

Warren said that she would nominate regulators who would unwind mergers such as Facebook's deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, Amazon's deals for Whole Foods and Zappos, and Google's purchase of Waze, Nest and DoubleClick.

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-elizabethwarren-technology/u-s-presidential-hopeful-warren-wants-breakup-of-google-facebook-and-amazon-idUSKCN1QP1M0

---

It's the wrong solution for the real problem - the amount of data they are capturing about you without your consent. Facebook doesn't have a monopoly anymore than MySpace did. If someone comes along with something better, Facebook could become irrelevant fast.

If not broken up, then FANG needs to be regulated. Data mining is EF'ed up but fccking with democracy simply can't be tolerated.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think GAF works for Google Apple Facebook. Her plan sounds really stupid though and unamerican.

---

I can see an argument that it's impractical or has the wrong focus, but how is it any more "Unamerican" than antitrust law?

She wants to separate the utility part- "search" from their real purpose which is surveillance.

Also Facebook controls the "news feed" information for 2 billion people. If Fox News- which is puny by comparison- were the only TV source for news everyone would agree this was dangerous

Anarchistbear said:

---

She wants to separate the utility part- "search" from their real purpose which is surveillance.

Also Facebook controls the "news feed" information for 2 billion people. If Fox News- which is puny by comparison- were the only TV source for news everyone would agree this was dangerous

---

Did Twitter stop existing when I wasn't looking?

Does Twitter collect and sell as much personal data and photos to advertisers? Did they sell personal data to Cambridge Analytical for targeted ads? Did they embed individuals in Trump's campaign? Why did Russians choose Facebook as their platform for propaganda?

Does twitter create news and propaganda for you or just suggest people for you to follow? It seems to me Facebook is more a publisher than a platform

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think GAF works for Google Apple Facebook. Her plan sounds really stupid though and unamerican.

---

I can see an argument that it's impractical or has the wrong focus, but how is it any more "Unamerican" than antitrust law?

---

I don't believe she is coming at this from the intended angle of historical antitrust which is to promote competition. This feels like an attack on large businesses for being successful.

What does she hope to accomplish by forbidding Apple from offering apps in its own App Store? Or Amazon from selling its own branded products (I'm not sure she realizes the difference between Amazon Basics, Fulfilled by Amazon, regular Amazon sales and the marketplace).

Her real goal is to leverage anti success hate in this country. It's a Trump tactic and I hope it fails. I would like her to focus on the real problems she has historically cared about like consumer protection from predatory lenders.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Does Twitter collect and sell as much personal data and photos to advertisers? Did they sell personal data to Cambridge Analytical for targeted ads? Did they embed individuals in Trump's campaign? Why did Russians choose Facebook as their platform for propaganda?

Does twitter create news and propaganda for you or just suggest people for you to follow? It seems to me Facebook is more a publisher than a platform

---

Zuckerberg is a new robber baron. He knowingly fccked with American democracy over profits. He should be locked up.

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Does Twitter collect and sell as much personal data and photos to advertisers? Did they sell personal data to Cambridge Analytical for targeted ads? Did they embed individuals in Trump's campaign? Why did Russians choose Facebook as their platform for propaganda?

Does twitter create news and propaganda for you or just suggest people for you to follow? It seems to me Facebook is more a publisher than a platform

---

Zuckerberg is a new robber baron. He knowingly fccked with American democracy over profits. He should be locked up.

---

When I saw the movie Social Network I proclaimed, ""If a quarter of the stuff in that film is true, then Zuckerberg is an irredeemable pr@ck that will never change his stripes." ...and he hasn't. You can cloak him in as much respectability as you want but in his heart of hearts he will always be that thieving little A wipe. He has no moral compass, just like Admiral Bone Spurs.

He should be stripped naked and forced to crawl up University Avenue while the rest of us pelt him with bird s$it and post "likes" on Facebook.