Jwheel86

Fox just praised Trump for showing up. The bar is so low now. 

5 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

That's a really terrible take. You really underestimate the significance of what Beto did in Texas. 

But what electoral math does that translate to on election night?

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Only on The Left would folks look at a loss as an "almost win"

 

"You know that guy who lost to one of the most unpopular Senators in the Country? Yeah let's nominate him for President! HE'S the answer!"

Even if he won I'd still feel uneasy about it. If he won by Sherrod Brown levels then he'd be the answer. 

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

ow isn't the time to make some high-minded, principled stand. Democrats need to WIN.

Agreed, but the democratic party needs to play to the base instead of trying to shame the base into showing up. I don't see which States you put at risk by offending "centrists", maybe Virginia? I don't think Medicare for All is popular because of the policy details (there are good arguments against it), it's popular because from a marketing it's simple and all the other discussed alternatives feel like DC bullshit (fix the ACA isn't clear).

10 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

 

I didn't say I wanted him to be running for president. I'm saying if the Democrats want a high probability of winning the general, they should nominate Beto. He will likely win with ease as long as there aren't some huge skeletons in the closet.

 

You're also making a mistake by putting too much stock in Ted Cruz's lack of popularity (Texas GOP still loves the guy) and the amount of people Beto inspired. The numbers in Texas were absolutely shocking to me. I have lived here my entire life. Beto is the variable that will probably push Texas blue 4-6 years earlier than it would have been otherwise. His charisma and energy is why Democrats did so well in Texas. The secondary factors are the gradual demographic shift taking place and Cruz's lack of popularity. But Beto got a bunch of Texans to vote that normally don't bother. It wasn't Ted's lack of charisma and popularity that inspired so many people to show up and vote Democrat. That just causes Republicans to stay home. 

 

Texas House Dems that won should give Beto a call and thank him.  

I don't see Beto as a high probability win because I don't see which States he safely adds to the board. He could put Texas in play, but he lost Texas, so it's at best 50-50 chance on election night, same math probably applies to Florida too given Gillum's loss as an inspirational figure. 

3 minutes ago, Jose said:

What about Julian Castro? He's an actual Latino, unlike my boy Beto.

This is another thing we have to stop, a third of Latinos voted for Republicans in 2018 and I think the number was about the same in 2016, despite everything Trump said in the campaign and has done as President. Picking a Latino because he's a Latino isn't going to move that number and might back fire. Even if it did help it would only run up the score in States we'll win anyway or have a low chance of winning (except PA, kinda). 

Only thing that matters is the rust belt, we can't safely win without it. Everything else is gravy that'll make us feel better, but it's a binary outcome, adding to 270 doesn't really matter. 

44 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

 

No, we want steak, but we need steak with sizzle.

By steak I assume we mean experience. If so, do we? Obama had none and ran one the cleanest White Houses ever, I'm not sure how more experience would have helped or how his lack of experience hurt. 

5 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I think the real mindset is to expand to all of them. You can't try to pick up the midwest and ignore Florida; they go hand-in-hand as many mid-westerners move to Florida. Doing better with Latinos helps in all of the west, which used to be solidly Republican, including California. So that helps in New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. 

 

If Beto showed anything, it's he was able to get a ton of people out for Texas and only lost by three points. On the other hand, I'd rather it be someone who's done a little more; it wouldn't hurt for a great candidate to change policy in a state like Texas or Florida, which is why if Gillum won here, I wanted him to just focus on being governor.

I get that, and we should definitely try to get those States, all I'm saying is I'm not willing to gamble 4 more years of Trump on Florida, NC, or Arizona going blue. If they do it'll be within one or two points which is effectively a dice roll. Democrats need a path to victory that does not involve those states. 

As for Beto, maybe he is Obama 2.0, or maybe he's Booker 2.0. I don't think any of us really know, and I'm not comfortable rolling the dice on an unknown quantity that may not show up on debate night. 

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I'm not sure pipe those states are pipe dreams, unless I'm misunderstanding? I mean, I get the "minimum requirement" part. Maybe it's just the choice of words.

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

AZ and NC aren't really pipe dreams though, NC has a dem governor and more dem votes were counted for house races there than GOP votes but GOP gerrymanders prevented it from being more equally distributed, plus Obama won there twice, and AZ just elected a bisexual Democratic woman to the senate along with a Democratic SOS.

Those States would be nice pick ups, but if your election strategy depends on one of those States, you're rolling the dice. NC has a Democratic Governor but voted down Hillary in the same election and the Republican Governor was behind the bathroom bill that cost the state millions. 

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

Get on board the Beto bus, you clowns.

 

Biden and Bernie are too old.

Warren is seen as shrill (she's also old).

Booker is/was in bed with Big Pharma.

 

Who else is a serious contender?

 

I think we need a fresh, young face with an inspiring message. Someone attractive (because yes, this unfortunately is important) who will be the moral opposite of Trump.

 

I see white, Rust belt baby boomers voting for Beto much more readily than they'd vote for someone like Harris.

I don't see age as being a factor, the x factor that'll bring out the base and rust belt is simply are you full of shit or are you not full of shit. Trump is full of shit but it was a different kind of shit which is why the rust belt tried it. Given another opportunity to pick between Trump's shit and a "politician"'s shit, my fear is they'll go for Trump again just to make the point. I'm not convinced Beto isn't full of shit. He self moderated away from Medicare for All toward "Texas can lead the way" which means as much as "I'm with her". He also had the opportunity to take down one of the most flawed scumbags in DC and refused to hit Cruz. 

If a candidate can't guarantee this map in a blow out, they shouldn't run:

Forget pipe dreams like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Ohio, or Arizona. This is the minimum requirement. The goal in the primary isn't to find who'll be the best President, it's who can beat Trump, that's it. 

Simple test: can she get back the rust belt and make Trump her bitch during the debates?

(McGrath is a retired Destroyer skipper and very influential Navy consultant)

1 hour ago, Chairslinger said:

The House will impeach Trump, the Senate will not convict Trump

This assumes there aren't 20 Senate Republicans willing to convict. 

Trump- "Cohen is weak unlike other people" 

Hi collusion 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/26/singing-amazing-grace-church-surrounded-an-ice-van-stop-an-arrest-were-jailed/?utm_term=.a012aa520182

Quote

It didn’t last long. Two minutes later, they traded the singing for screaming.

“No! They’re arresting him!” one woman yelled.

The congregants and other supporters began banging on the glass windows and doors, yelling as they watched U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in plainclothes tackle Oliver-Bruno and his son to the ground in the waiting room. The son wouldn’t let go as officers began dragging his dad toward a back door — and the dozens of gatherers followed, sprinting around the corner to meet the agents.

That marked the beginning of a nearly three-hour standoff with ICE, during which the congregants and other community members sought to physically block the arrest of Oliver-Bruno by surrounding a government van and refusing to move, singing “Amazing Grace” and chanting, “Let your people go!” The stakes for Oliver-Bruno, whose wife suffers from lupus, were too high to step away, May said.

1 hour ago, Snaynay1 said:

With this in mind, the Department of Defense developed an innovative approach so that the Navy and Marine Corps may interdict, search, seize and arrest.03 Keep in mind that the Navy and Marine Corps are not included in the Posse Comitatus Act. Only as a matter of policy has the law been applied to these military services.' 4 Section 37535 of the new Act directs the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations to insure that military assistance provided does not interdict a vessel, search, seize or arrest. However, that Section only applies to activities authorized under the new Act and only if such activity was not otherwise authorized by law. As the authority of the Navy and Marine Corps does not come from the new Act, restraints applicable only to the new Act do not affect them. This position is reinforced by Section 378,96 which emphasizes that nothing in the new Act was Intended to limit executive authority in existance before its enactment. The Department of Defense Directive requires the prior approval of the Secretary of Defense before the Navy or Marine Corps may participate In interdiction of a vessel or aircraft, a search or seizure, an arrest or other activity that is likely to subject civilians to the exercise of military power that is regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory in nature. -27- • I. ° o o , o o " . - , . . , • • . . . . . . • . • . -.. .• . * It seems strange to see the above language in a DOD Directive implementing the new Act. The test to be applied for use of the Navy and Marine Corps is the same as must be found for an emergency circumstance under the new Act.98

From what I can tell it's all Army units, and US Northern Command has stated they aren't doing law enforcement, just Force Protection. What I'm asking is Force Protection a justifiable use of lethal force in the eyes of the States. If an FBI agent kills someone while doing FBI business it's up to the feds to determine if it's a good shoot or not, not the State. But the same FBI agent shoots someone breaking into his home, it's on the State to investigate. So if an Army MP isn't doing law enforcement and lights someone up, couldn't that fall on the State to investigate if it the shooting was justified under self defense laws? 

What's the time difference? Was everything that happened 30 minutes ago? 

On 11/22/2018 at 11:32 AM, PaladinSolo said:

 

Electro Magnetic is the same technology used in rollercoasters, steam melts Sailor's faces off in the shower. 

20 minutes ago, CayceG said:

The President signed the order. Kelly signed the communication to the Pentagon. 

 

See page 2 of the document shown in this story:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-memo-migrant-caravan-border-troops-1226945

 

 

Let's say Trump gets his massacre, could the States arrest the Commanding Officers for murder? They aren't on Federal property, Posse Comitatus of clearly is still in effect. Under what authority are they using deadly force since it isn't federal law enforcement?

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Yeah, what authority does he have to do something like this? 

None, he can't issue orders and the military can't follow them. 

6 hours ago, PaladinSolo said:

lol. Hes comparing two different oil benchmarks here, US crude hasn't been over 80 in years, while the international crude was, and the $54 is the US crude, while Brent is 63$ and both have been sliding with the markets which have lost all of this years gains, which has happened a few times this year.

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Okay, if he has a security clearance through the Air Force then how does that change what I said?

If the Air Force cleared him I can't see NASA being able to go after it given Air Force National Security launches are significantly more important than a NASA launch. That just seems like an easy avenue for appeal with the GAO. The Air Force isn't going to want NASA to threaten it's contractor over crap, especially with Falcon Heavy about to get approval for Air Force missions. 

2 hours ago, Jason said:

 

If Musk needs a clearance then that's probably the angle they're pursuing. Otherwise they really can nail him over "drug free workplace" requirements for federal contracting if they really want to.

I thought the Air Force basically cleared him?