[Big Steve-3]

You can compare video of Trump between now and 10 or 20 years ago. He struggles to remember words any adult should know. His discourse is astonishingly simple for someone in a responsible position.

Provide examples. Otherwise you've got nothing but empty rhetoric.

Biden's not as bad, but I agree for the most part. His best days are behind him.

You're okay with Biden talking about kids rubbing his legs?

Speaking of facts, 3 polls of presidential historians have put Trump at the bottom of the heap: worst ever. Biden knows how a White House works, and wouldn't try to run the country by tweet.

And every poll prior to the 2016 election showed Trump losing.

Polls mean nothing.

[late]

1) Provide examples. Otherwise you've got nothing but empty rhetoric.



2) You're okay with Biden talking about kids rubbing his legs?



3) And every poll prior to the 2016 election showed Trump losing.

4) Polls mean nothing.

1) Here's an article that covers the obvious, pretty thoroughly. I can only paste an excerpt:

"What I do know is that if you examine the Trump presidency through the lens of cognitive decline, some of its more bewildering aspects start to make a lot more sense.

Maybe the reason his unscripted speech is so often incoherent and littered with vagaries (relying on placeholder words such as “thing” and “they”) is because he cannot summon the specific vocabulary he wants to use.

Perhaps the reason he makes such a point of bragging about his big brain and his amazing memory is because he’s racked with doubts about both. Perhaps part of the reason his lies are so frequent and brazen — consider the whopper he told about why he skipped the climate change meeting at the G7 — is because he doesn’t have enough executive function to orchestrate his lies."
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/09/06/president-trump-hurricane-dorian-cognitive-decline-steve-almond

2) This is the reason patience is a virtue, I knew you'd reveal yourself to be a member of the Trump Cult eventually.

3) Russia cyber attack. According to 17 intel agencies...

4) The quality of polls is all over the map. Some are fantastic, most aren't worth much. When you are polling experts in their field of expertise, you're doing alright. Historians have standards. They have a number of yardsticks to measure a president against. Trump sucks at almost all of them.

[Big Steve-3]

1) Here's an article that covers the obvious, pretty thoroughly. I can only paste an excerpt:

"What I do know is that if you examine the Trump presidency through the lens of cognitive decline, some of its more bewildering aspects start to make a lot more sense.

Maybe the reason his unscripted speech is so often incoherent and littered with vagaries (relying on placeholder words such as “thing” and “they”) is because he cannot summon the specific vocabulary he wants to use.

Perhaps the reason he makes such a point of bragging about his big brain and his amazing memory is because he’s racked with doubts about both. Perhaps part of the reason his lies are so frequent and brazen — consider the whopper he told about why he skipped the climate change meeting at the G7 — is because he doesn’t have enough executive function to orchestrate his lies."
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/09/06/president-trump-hurricane-dorian-cognitive-decline-steve-almond

If you're relying on words like "maybe" and "perhaps", your argument is weak. Further weakening it is the fact that it's an opinion piece written by someone who clearly is anti-Trump and a well known liberal.

It is of no substance.

2) This is the reason patience is a virtue, I knew you'd reveal yourself to be a member of the Trump Cult eventually.

I'm a member of the "Trump Cult" because I think it's creepy that Joe Biden likes little kids rubbing his legs?

3) Russia cyber attack. According to 17 intel agencies...

Ah, yes, I'm sure they orchestrated the outcome of every poll leading up to the election.

4) The quality of polls is all over the map. Some are fantastic, most aren't worth much. When you are polling experts in their field of expertise, you're doing alright. Historians have standards. They have a number of yardsticks to measure a president against. Trump sucks at almost all of them.

Where can I find a list of the standards that historians have?

Is "Trump sucks" one of the response options in those polls?

[late]

If you're relying on words like "maybe" and "perhaps", your argument is weak.



Where can I find a list of the standards that historians have?

The argument is fine. The evidence is lacking because Trump is hiding pretty much everything. I wonder how often he said he would release his tax returns. A hundred, maybe more.

The rules of history are called historiography. That's the first sophomore level history class.

The following article covers the basics:

1) History rewards the risk-takers.
2) A president who actively campaigns for his historical place is engaged in a self-defeating exercise
3) There is no single theory of presidential success.
4) Presidents can only be understood within the context, conventions and limitations of their time.
5) If presidents are governed by any law beyond the Constitution, it is the law of unintended consequences.
6) Presidential power, although awesome on paper, is based largely on moral authority.
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/ten-ways-to-judge-a-president/

What historians write for other historians is different, and a lot more involved. But it will igve you an idea.

Then there are the limitations historians usually have. Most of them have a great deal of trouble with economics. There needs to be a class in basic economics as a requirement, in my thoroughly unhumble opinion.

But there is something of a shortcut, after he went home, was the country a better place? This is why FDR will always come out in the top 3. The country was flat on it's back in a Great Depression the day FDR became president. He made us the leaders of the free world, won 2 wars, and built the infrastructure the country needed to grow. That is a tour de force.


https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/art ... president/

[Patrickov]

That has been a constant since Reagan. I've seen a ton of Republicans that won't admit to whatever's controversial that day. Put a few beers in them, and the truth comes out.

I am interested in what kind of truth has been extracted so far.

[Rich]

As I predicted the Jewish supremacists are now openly gunning for Sanders. The problem with Sanders is that he's Jewish, so its gonna be quite difficult for them to label him as a Jew hater. The idea that Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Livingstone were Jew haters was utterly absurd. Three of the four founders of Momentum were of Jewish decent. Marx and Trotsky were of Jewish decent. Lenin was a quarter Jewish. From its beginnings to the present day the leadership of the far left Marxist movement has been filled with numerous people of Jewish decent. If you've got a problem with Jews then the far Left is the last place you should hang out. But yet a concerted campaign by virtually the whole of the media including the BBC, backed by the British deep state made this absurd slander stick.

Jewish supremacists are deeply worried about their ability to control Sanders. They've had enough trouble controlling Trump. Sanders could be a nightmare for them.

[late]

I am interested in what kind of truth has been extracted so far.

In the 80s, a lot of Republicans started calling themselves libertarian. Which is ridiculous, there's no such a thing. It's pink unicorn territory.

My best friend did that. I knew he was lying, and we tossed a few back one day and I pushed him on it. He confessed to voting for Reagan. You see, back then, the hundreds of mistakes Reagan was making were embarrassing and worse. People didn't want to own it, so they lied.

You may have noticed, since then lying has become a way of life for Republicans.

[Rich]

In the 80s, a lot of Republicans started calling themselves libertarian.

The particular term may have become popular in the 80s, but the idea of individual liberty has been essential to American nationalism since the idea of independence first spawned. America's success has zero to do with its Constitution. Compare the development of Republican USA with monarchist Canada since 1775. Canada was so worthless back then that the British would have preferred to hang on to Guadeloupe over Canada after the Seven Years War.

American's success was due to having the greatest piece of real estate in the world, a low population density and superior Anglo and northern European Protestant culture. America's success in building the biggest government, the world has ever seen, a government so big that it could fritter away billions upon billions on the vast vanity project of landing men on the moon. A project so stupidly wasteful and futile that it made the White Sea Canal look like an exercise in economic rationalism. America's success in building the biggest government only happened because of the wars with King George and the Confederacy and to a lesser extent the conflicts with Hitler and the Soviet Union.

[Big Steve-3]

In the 80s, a lot of Republicans started calling themselves libertarian. Which is ridiculous, there's no such a thing. It's pink unicorn territory.

My best friend did that. I knew he was lying, and we tossed a few back one day and I pushed him on it. He confessed to voting for Reagan. You see, back then, the hundreds of mistakes Reagan was making were embarrassing and worse. People didn't want to own it, so they lied.

You may have noticed, since then lying has become a way of life for Republicans.

A Libertarian can't vote for a Republican, or a Democrat for that matter?

[late]

A Libertarian can't vote for a Republican, or a Democrat for that matter?

Not many de-register.

It's an act.

[late]

America's success has zero to do with its Constitution.

Now that's odd.

I'm talking about democracy and Rule of Law, and you're talking about your wallet.

The Constitution was so much of a failure that it's been imitated a couple hundred times. It was, with no exaggeration, revolutionary.

[Big Steve-3]

Not many de-register.

It's an act.

So if a registered Libertarian votes for a Republican, is the person not still a Libertarian?

What if a Republican votes for a Democrat, or a Democrat votes for a Republican?

My girlfriend is pretty conservative; a registered Republican. She can't stand Trump, though, so she voted for the Constitution Party ticket in 2016. Does that mean she's not a Republican anymore?

[late]

So if a registered Libertarian votes for a Republican, is the person not still a Libertarian?

What if a Republican votes for a Democrat, or a Democrat votes for a Republican?

My girlfriend is pretty conservative; a registered Republican. She can't stand Trump, though, so she voted for the Constitution Party ticket in 2016. Does that mean she's not a Republican anymore?

There are no Libertarians. It's an act. That's doubly true in an empire. If you don't like the Modern World, leave.

Somalia is lovely this time of year.

If you study economic history, we got the modern world because we had to.

[Deutschmania]

Here are my thoughts on some of the various candidates for the Democratic nomination . First , while I will not dispute that Sanders could be vulnerable to being painted as a rabble rousing demogogue in his own right , I do not think that this will necessarily doom his chances of prevailing against Trump , whom has earned the reputation of being a fascist . http://old.freedomofmind.com/Info/infoDet.php?id=764 I like to think that , when it all comes down to it , the populace on the whole will favor Sanders democratic socialism over four more years of Trump's fascism . https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/05/sanders-socialism-vs-trump-fascism-the-facts/ , https://www.salon.com/2015/08/26/sanders_the_populist_trump_the_fascist_the_truth_about_comparing_two_unlikely_presidential_contenders/ Now as to Warren , for those on the left who want to point out her dubious claims about her ethnicity , and even her past Republican affiliation , I have just one person to mention in comparison , Julia Salazar . https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/julia-salazar-state-senate-candidate-controversies-explained.html And lastly , while Trump has been alleged to be senile https://www.newsweek.com/joe-scaroborough-claims-sources-say-trump-has-early-signs-dementia-what-does-774057 , Biden has also had this said of him as well https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/brit-hume-senility-is-overtaking-biden . Whenever I watch him speak , in the debates , I usually tend to think of this song , from the German movie " Downfall " .

I genuinely feel sorry for him , given his flubs , and gaffes . And these are the three frontrunners , Sanders , Warren , and Biden . I didn't even get to such longshots as Gabbard , for example . But if anyone cares to know why I think that she in her own way would be a disaster , given her past record , here is why . https://www.meanwhileinhawaii.org/home/investigative-series-on-the-science-of-identity-sect-and-tulsi-gabbard , https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/ I feel that if she were the nominee , it would entail a political contest of her Hindu fascist cult against Trump's Christian fascist cult support base . And these would be the type of attack ads that would be run against her .

And unlike what would possibly happen if Sanders were the nominee , I feel that Trump would likely win if Gabbard were to be nominated . After all the U.S.A. is predominantly Christian , and especially after the people , particularly Christian conservative Republicans , find out the condescending attitude that both she , and her guru , Kris Butler , has towards Americans , specifically Christians , they will flock to the polls in droves to defeat her .

But while I feel that none of the high profile candidates are perfect , all are preferable to Donald Trump , in my opinion .

[skinster]

[Verv]

The point about the midterms, while factually correct in the sense that "moderate" Democrats flipped seats and more left-wing Democrats didn't, isn't particularly relevant to a presidential election. Midterm elections are notorious for having much lower turnout and a much older, more conservative electorate than presidential elections. Candidates also don't have the same degree of backing from the "party machine" as they do in a presidential election either.

It would honestly be interesting to see Sanders get the nomination and see what happens when the Democrat establishment backs their nominee with perhaps even less enthusiasm than the Republicans backing Pres. Trump...

Your other point about less enthusiasm makes sense, of course, but we also understand that enthusiasm is a double edged sword.

As for the article itself, I fail to see how it's "fabulous", except to centrists and right-wingers looking to confirm their own biases. The whole argument is that Sanders is uniquely risky as a candidate. If that were the case, Chait should demonstrate why his "baggage" is worse than other candidates. Sanders' alleged corruption is small fry compared to the Hunter Biden stuff, for example, and Joe Biden's obvious senility would be ruthlessly exploited by the Republicans in a general election campaign. As for Buttigieg, the guy is a robot and very easily (and let's face it, correctly) painted as a smarmy college boy who is precocious far beyond the age at which it stopped being cute. Warren, too, is very easily attacked with the "Pocahontas" stuff and is pretty easy to paint as shrill/lecturing.

His corruption is small fry in this sense, but the big issue is that we literally have someone who cozied up with Soviets running in the US right at a time when we can even point to Venezuela as a failed Socialist state -- it's coming unhinged right before our very eyes.

Now, the criticisms of Warren and Buttigieg I will not argue against... I think neither of them are particularly good candidates.

But I would say that Biden is potentially quite the serious contender against Trump, but we all know that he has his own issues.

The piece also fails to note that Sanders polls the best against Trump in both key swing states and overall polling - which just highlights that Chait is not arguing in good faith. If he was so certain of his position he should at least address that.

Both key swing states? Which ones? Ohio & Florida?

There's like five of them.

The comparison with Corbyn, while having some merit, is overstated: there is no Brexit-like issue to divide Democrats in the US; no real equivalent of the Liberal Democrats to vote for instead (barring a last minute third party run by Bloomberg, which we probably shouldn't count out); he is much more competent when it comes to campaigning and messaging; and his personal favourability ratings are much higher than Corbyn's.

There's no Brexit issue partly because so many of the candidates went as far left as possible. The new strategy for the American left is to hug the far left to get the energy for the nomination, or so it would appear.

We had virtually every candidate talk about the importance of free healthcare for illegal aliens.

It was a really weird moment and one that, while exciting and motivating for the hard left Reddit echo chamber now, will suddenly get a lot more serious when these points have to be defended from a podium on national TV against hostile questions and Pres. Trump is going "...wrrrronngggg" in the microphone every ten seconds.

What I do like about the article though is how neatly it demonstrates a point I've made repeatedly in political arguments IRL: "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is a demand that is only ever made in one direction. These centrist ghouls are always whining about how attacking a front runner is "doing Putin's bidding" or "dividing the party" until the frontrunner is a left winger. Then, they can't wait to cry about how their consciences won't let them vote for the nominee.

That... may be a good point. I am not sure. I am not familiar enough with the situation. But that may be a good point.

[Sivad]

Sanders is the democrats last and only hope, he's the only one with any chance of beating Trump. The rest of them are a pack of lames that won't even be able to keep their own base let alone draw in people who don't vote like Sanders can.

I won't be voting for Sanders because he tells crazy fucking lies about climate change, his brand of archaic big centralized state socialism is lame as fuck, and he has no respect for basic human rights.

My concern is that if and when Sanders loses, the blame for the loss is gonna be put on his universal healthcare and free state college proposals and not on the asinine climate catastrophism, open borders, and indentitarian bullshit where it belongs. Sanders is on track to set the social democracy movement back 40 years and that makes him a real piece of shit.

[Sivad]

Sanders is also not getting my vote because he went along with the russiagate bullshit and because he's always trying to cozy up with the dem establishment. "Joe Biden's my friend" eat a dick there, Sanders.

[Heisenberg]

It would honestly be interesting to see Sanders get the nomination and see what happens when the Democrat establishment backs their nominee with perhaps even less enthusiasm than the Republicans backing Pres. Trump...

Oh, the DNC will absolutely disown Sanders, just as they fucked over McGovern in 1972 with their "Democrats for Nixon" bullshit.

This will have one of two positive effects in the long run: if it fails, the DNC will have rendered itself irrelevant. If it succeeds and Sanders loses, well-meaning Democrats might finally wake up to the fact that the DNC cares more about stopping the left than it does about "the single most dangerous president in American history".

Both key swing states? Which ones? Ohio & Florida?

There's like five of them.

I think you misunderstood me. I should rephrase it as "both in key swing states and in overall polling" I.e. he performs well against Trump in overall polling, and in the polls coming out of key swing states.

[Sivad]

Sanders used to tell the truth about the effects of mass immigration on the American working class:

Sanders has now totally betrayed the American working class on immigration and has become just another liberal politician: