Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 232: Jay Inslee Is Too Pure For This World

(+) Yeah! (+)

My favorite candidate across both nights, and it's a damn shame he stands no chance against this field, or against a mentally-deficient asshole like Donald Trump.
---

Apparently the 30330 was supposed to be a text thing, not a website

---

www.joe3030.com and www.joe30330.com were both bought and now redirect to different candidates

---

also



---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Apparently the 30330 was supposed to be a text thing, not a website

he was supposed to say text joe to 30330.

He got...some of it right.

Age has not been kind to him.

I'm feeling kind of similar to Bernie tbh, he was better in this second debate but the first had both him and Biden stumbling a good bit. You can see that neither articulates as well as they did 4 or 8 years ago.

So I'm currently sitting in the "oh god can an alternative candidate please stand up" camp.
---

Bernie is doing just fine.
---

Im a little concerned about his age, but none of the other candidates that generally have policies I like seem to have much of a chance

---

I feel like Biden won't be able to take Trump at all in a debate because to me he was shaky at best when attacked here. I'm surprised people thought he did well.
---

I'm genuinely not concerned about the age of either of them. Whenever they show any mental lapse, it's with some line they memorized, and that can easily be clunky for anyone at any age. Other candidates do it too, it just doesn't set anything off. Off the cuff they seem perfectly sharp. The difference is that Bernie is arguably at his best off the cuff, while Bidens off be cuff moments are what they try very hard to avoid.

Biden vs Trump would be the most unwatchable debate in history.

Not even based on policy, I'm talking about two old guys who both seem to be losing it at times incoherently rambling at each other. There is a 95% chance one of them calls one of their grandkids midway through the debate to ask why they don't visit anymore.
---

Biden would wipe the floor with Trump in the debates. So would all of the frontrunners, tbqh. Trump is very bad at 1v1 debates.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I feel like Biden won't be able to take Trump at all in a debate because to me he was shaky at best when attacked here. I'm surprised people thought he did well.

i dont think people really think Biden did well. Hell even CNN had trouble with it, they were going with "The bar was so low for Biden he did well in comparison."

He looks too old for this, especially when you get to the end there. He had to have rehearsed the line "Text Joe to 30330" before this debate and he was downright incoherent.

Last election there were a sizable group of people convinced Hillary was dying(Spoilers, shes still very much alive and well). Can't have things like that running amok with a candidate clearly looking over the hill in Biden.
---

It sounds like this round of the debates went best case scenario- Bernie and Warren killed it, Biden and Harris dropped the ball. Hopefully the voters agree with this consensus, though I really don't think many voters are making up their minds from the debates.

Harris got her prosecutor history brought up by Gabbard.
was a hell of a hit by Tulsi there. 2 and a half minutes of "ow."

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1156758387943718912
---

Yang clearly is the only candidate that would understand the casual revolution of 2007, thus i like him on that alone.

Yang. VAT tax is regressive, but id rather see it get implemented for something like hes proposing than one down the line for some other shit. Also it would still be a net benefit. Almost everything on his website is solid from what i see.

We've reached a massive zenith. Blame 2007 and the rapid exponential increase in this. There arent major economic frontiers on the horizon that masks the issue.

Bernie and Warren arent bad, but not addressing the main issue.

---

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1156786452702867461

This is not a very good response from Harris who should've been fully prepared to defend herself better than "ya well she's at 1%".
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Biden would wipe the floor with Trump in the debates. So would all of the frontrunners, tbqh. Trump is very bad at 1v1 debates.

He arguably wiped the floor with your most seasoned candidate last election.
---

Corrik7 posted...

He arguably wiped the floor with your most seasoned candidate last election.

no, the (social) media circus allowed the stupid shit show narrative to come through because its what got people chattering. When actual policy was discussed (very rarely, but it happened), neither really did well, but Hillary definitely looked better than Trump.

We are now 3/3 in elections that whoever dictates the social media chatter world has won the election since the events of 2007.

---

Nrrr posted...

It sounds like this round of the debates went best case scenario- Bernie and Warren killed it, Biden and Harris dropped the ball. Hopefully the voters agree with this consensus, though I really don't think many voters are making up their minds from the debates.

Voters are... IDK what they're doing tbh. Biden's name recognition shouldn't be carrying him so hard. Too many people want a candidate they "Would like to get a beer with". (Every time someone phrases it like that, I cringe). People want 'likable' but their definition of 'likable' is extremely narrow. Too many people don't care much about policy.
---

Corrik7 posted...

He arguably wiped the floor with your most seasoned candidate last election.

Hillary destroyed Trump in every single debate (and handily won post debate polls for all three).

---

trump doesn't win debates, he wins coverage.
debates aren't nearly as important as media plays them up. it has some value but that's in the form of knocking people up or down hard, not in policy.
---

https://twitter.com/QueenInYeIIow/status/1156621956810235906

The orb power.... it's incredible.

The way media works is the candidate that gets the better clip replayed over and over again from the debates is the winner.

95% of the debate wont matter.
---

It's not an unreasonable position to take at all.

Many tax credits get phased out above certain income threshold.

As it stands for that particular tax credit you can get up to 35% back for the first $3000 you spend on child care expenses. (Or $6000 for 2+ dependents). BUT its not refundable, so if you are low income and either don't owe taxes or have already had your tax reduced to zero from other credits then you can't benefit from this at all.

Now that 35% does get reduced to a minimum of 20% as your income increases, but the fact remains that even to this day this is a credit that the lowest income families will be the least likely to get any benefit at all from and high income families will easily be able to reduce their tax by $600-$1200.

.

Edit:
This is related to the now deleted post about the oped from Biden from 1981 that doesn't say what Harris claimed it said during the debate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/chrisjollyhale/status/1156753423309713408

Not sure where that post went.
---

Sorry, deleted it because on a rereading I think the second to last paragraph that kinda attacks the idea of daycare and assisted living is kinda weird and could maybe be interpreted as slightly sexist (implying that somebody should stay home to take care of kids/parents). I think its still fair to say that she mischaracterized his position, though.

---

But the main point is that people who are individually affluent should not be the ones benefiting from that particular tax incentive. He is not saying the tax incentive should not exist, just that it should be targeted at helping those with the greatest need. I'm not really seeing the sexism there.
---

I definitely agree that it's the main point. Implying that someone should stay home to take care of the kids is not necessarily sexist, but it would be if it comes along with the expectation that the person who would do that would be the woman in the relationship.

I don't think Biden is a sexist, but I also think that that paragraph is dumb and I don't want to defend it (hence deleting my post).

---

Don't be afraid to make an argument even if you think the nutcases will call it sexist. You seem to have forgotten how Trump won.
---

By getting less votes, Clinton not campaigning the midwest, and a last minute re-opening of the e-mail case that led to zero new evidence?
---

No, by telling straight white men that Clinton would make them second-class citizens.
---

Straight white men insisting that no one ever gets treated differently for being in a minority group while simultaneously being terrified of becoming a minority is a fascinating perspective.

---

Also Trump lost quite badly nationwide. He won through taking advantage of the system with key states. He didn't need to play to the millions nationwide, just the thousands deciding key states.

Also in non-US news there's a UK by-election today? In the Welsh constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. This is really, really damn important since if the Tories lose this seat their working majority is gone even with the DUP. The Lib Dems are the favourite as they have historically done well here, they are fielding the leader of the Welsh party, they do well in by-elections and some other remain parties are standing down go endorse them. They are then helped by the fact that the Tory MP who got recalled for an expenses fraud conviction is running again, and the Brexit Party is there to sap their vote. However they are in a new leader honeymoon period so it could still be close. Worth keeping an eye on this one since a general election is effectively inevitable if the Lib Dems win.
---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/29/500-000-kids-could-lose-free-school-lunch-trump-plan/1863720001/

So they're cutting the lunch program, while giving more tax cuts to the rich. I'd bet that cutting free lunch will save less money than we'll give up by cutting taxes for billionaires. This is absolutely disgusting.
---

That tax cut thing is such a massive con. Were the Republicans and were gonna cut your taxes (in election years)! And then in off-years, they roll back those cuts for the lower and middle classes, to recover SOME of the revenue they lost while playing Santa Claus.
---

Cutting free lunches is really bad. Like that is a huge thing for a lot of families and will only hurt the health of lower income kids.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/29/500-000-kids-could-lose-free-school-lunch-trump-plan/1863720001/

So they're cutting the lunch program, while giving more tax cuts to the rich. I'd bet that cutting free lunch will save less money than we'll give up by cutting taxes for billionaires. This is absolutely disgusting.

If he cuts that, he will lose re-election. It is actually pretty sadistic to do that. If anything, every kid in public school should have free lunch.
---

Now that I re-read it. I don't think the elimination of the loophole is bad on paper. But, if it extends to cutting kids lunches, it would be. If Trump is smart, in his proposal include free lunches for all kids while closing to loophole. That would be a major win for him. He could close the loophole and also win re-election by taking care of the kids.

---

Maniac64 posted...

Cutting free lunches is really bad. Like that is a huge thing for a lot of families and will only hurt the health of lower income kids.

Feature, not bug.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik7 posted...

He arguably wiped the floor with your most seasoned candidate last election.

Hillary destroyed Trump in every single debate (and handily won post debate polls for all three).

You might want to watch those debates again...
---

IIRC, someone did a reenactment of one of the Trump/Clinton debates, with a woman delivering Trump's lines and a man delivering Clinton's lines, the theory being that gender gave Trump an advantage in the debate. It turned out that wasn't the case, as the woman delivering Trump's lines still won the debate.
---

the results of that reenactment were worse than that: the woman doing trump's lines was looked very favorably whereas the man was looked down upon even harder than clinton was. proved the opposite as opposed to neutral.
---

I thought Trump won 2 debates and tied 1/maybe lost that one.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I thought Trump won 2 debates and tied 1/maybe lost that one.

Literally all polling had Clinton winning by a decent margin.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

I thought Trump won 2 debates and tied 1/maybe lost that one.

Literally all polling had Clinton winning by a decent margin.

Yeah, because people answered it on the basis of who they were supporting. The real question is whose minds the debate changed.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, because people answered it on the basis of who they were supporting.

If this was remotely true then Clinton would have won in a landslide.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, because people answered it on the basis of who they were supporting.

If this was remotely true then Clinton would have won in a landslide.

They may have also answered it on the basis on who they thought was more presidential, poised, prepared, etc. None of which is the same as delta in who they are voting for.
---

Clinton also jumped substantially in the polls after the first debate.

and she won the who won the debate polls by much more than the partisan margin.

---

if it's about "who had the better/more intellectually honest arguments," hillary destroyed trump.

if it's about "who changed more minds," maybe trump won.
---

The debates are spectacle, and "who won" is largely seen as being dominant. I was once at a party and playing a game where people had to imitate Trump's voice, which is actually very high pitched and whiny, but everyone made him sound really tough and manly. His false tough guy routine resonates - despite obviously being a very effeminate prissy rich guy.

Guess someones blocked me!

Oh its cyclo, no big surprise there

---