2020 Election Thread (formerly: 2020 Presidential Candidates Thread) (Part 1)

[anon15383236]

@anon29537550

They seem to have a much tighter rein on their adherents than most mainline religions do

Yep, and from what I’ve gathered, they can be very manipulative and deceptive while recruiting. Quite a bit closer to the objectionable aspects of some cults than Catholicism, I’d say.

[Mitchell]

@anon29537550

That’s pretty damn dark. Not wrong, mind you, just dark. Actually sounds a bit Lovecraftian.

Strong Lovecraftian influence in the source material, both strands. But I was letting my nerd flag fly -it’s a modified version of the Warhammer 40K speil about “The Eternal Crusade” from the tabletop miniature game.

[tuhu]

Now I want all my election coverage solely in tabletop miniature format.

“We have a late entry in this primary race, and our CNN analysts are hard at work painting their new figure so that we can give you the whole story.”

There could be little set pieces of New Hampshire meet-and-greets.

---

The Onion got there first, but I want more.

Obama Sinks Family Savings Into Developing Presidential Tabletop Game

[LurksNoMore]

@d_r

There are all kinds of problems with Scientology, starting with the way it polices its image, but you could say the same for more mainstream religions, even the old ones like Catholicism.

Mainstream religions don’t hide their teachings and release them in drips and drops as you pay more and more into the cult’s coffers. You can go and find a Bible or Koran or a summary of Buddha’s teachings at any library, or you can go to your local church or mosque or Buddhist temple, and they will gladly tell you what it’s all about. Scientologists don’t do that, because it’s a con-job transformed into a highly toxic cult.

[anon29537550]

Dude, The Onion always gets there first. It’s not entirely natural, I tell you.

[d_r]

@LurksNoMore

Mainstream religions don’t hide their teachings and release them in drips and drops as you pay more and more into the cult’s coffers.

Except for the ones that do, eg LDS.

To his credit, Tulsi’s guru Chris Butler was on TV every week for years in Hawaii telling us what he thought about everything, whether we wanted to know or not.

@anon29537550

I have known many people of faith that are able to set it aside and compartmentalize enough to be an objective scientist, politician, etc. I cannot say that for Scientology.

I don’t know enough Scientologists to disagree with you. However, the ubiquity in the US of legislation against women’s rights to their bodies and LGBTQ people’s rights to exist, which legislators happily connect to their church, tells me that enough members of “mainstream” churches have enough trouble compartmentalizing that we don’t need to speculate in their case.

[RickMycroft]

The main problem with a Scientologist politician would be the folders of information Scientology keeps on their members: many hours of auditing sessions using the e-meter (a toy prop, but can be effective if the person believes it works), questioning about their sexual history, etc. If they had been in the Sea Organization, they’ve filled out a very detailed and invasive Life History, and then probably Sec Checked on it (hostile auditing to 11).

If psychological manipulation won’t do it, then blackmail works.

[caze]

Yeah, that’s a great point.

I’d be less wary of someone who was 2nd generation Scientologist, it may be that they’re not actively involved and just haven’t come out publicly against the cult because they don’t want to be labelled an SP (suppressive person), which would lead to all contact being cut off from the rest of their family.

anyway, Tulsi is a terrible candidate. aside from her Hindu nationalist and homophobic background she has plenty of other problems, you really don’t need to replace one despot apologist with another one. she’s also been a spreader of ignorant anti-nuclear fear mongering, not being pro-nuclear really should rule a candidate out if you actually care about climate change.

I’m surprised no-one in here has mentioned Andrew Yang, he’s pretty interesting, and unlike most of the other candidates seems to actually have a detailed set of policy proposals laid out (I’m looking at you Beto O’Rourke), Warren is probably the best candidate in that regard (in terms of policy detail I mean), but he’s not far off.

[anon29537550]

I only heard of him last night. I will look up his positions. One of the drawbacks to the Greek chorus of candidates we are seeing is the ones with less name recognition get overlooked.

[Jim_Campbell]

Oh no. Joe is in it now. sigh. now i just have to pray we democrats don’t eat ourselves alive again.

[emo_pinata]

Of course he is running, Joe Biden is sporting the stunning popularity of Hillary Clinton circa 2015. I expect his popularity to follow a similar trajectory.

[anon15383236]

Yep, straight to the nomination, with the wind (hot air?) of the Dem establishment beneath his wings.

[Mitchell]

@tuhu

Now I want all my election coverage solely in tabletop miniature format…The Onion got there first, but I want more.

"As you know, Ron, I’m an old-school gamer. I just don’t like the direction the lore’s been heading with the latest editions.
You used to be have time to really figure out the best campaign team for your play-style, but since the last event the release schedules have been so hectic you barely have time to really read up on each miniatures strengths and weakness.
Speaking of which, the Trump candidate miniature is way OP. I know giving it the minimum INT stat was supposed to balance out the ridiculous amount of buffs the piece has - Fox News, Russian Hackers, Hush money to name a few - but it just doesn’t work that way in play.

There’s rumours an updated impeachment supplement planned for this edition will nerf Trump. But despite an occasional hint the developers are working on it from the game’s official Twitter account, there’s still no release date."

[LurksNoMore]

So, Bernie Sanders has apparently hired a guy who’s been attacking other Democratic candidates on Twitter while pretending not to have any connection to Sanders campaign.

Bernie Sanders Just Hired His Twitter Attack Dog

Stuff like this is why people have issues with Sanders.

[Wanderfound]

@LurksNoMore

So, Bernie Sanders has apparently hired a guy who’s been attacking other Democratic candidates on Twitter while pretending not to have any connection to Sanders campaign.

That story is manufactured garbage.

john mulholland

See also:

Natalie Shure

.

@LurksNoMore

Stuff like this is why people have issues with Sanders.

Stuff like this is why the Atlantic is trash.

[Wanderfound]

A new dark horse enters the fray:

https://twitter.com/mikegravel/status/1108213980483502083?s=21

https://twitter.com/nikhilgoya_l/status/1108220352331542535?s=21

https://twitter.com/mikegravel/status/1108225117987983360?s=21

https://twitter.com/carlbeijer/status/1108231202509651968?s=21

Some background on Gravel:

Mike Gravel | Vietnam War, the draft, and the Pentagon Papers

President Richard Nixon had campaigned in 1968 on a promise to end the U.S. military draft,[53][54] a decision endorsed by the February 1970 report of the Gates Commission.[53][55] The existing draft law was scheduled to conclude at the end of June 1971, and the Senate faced a contentious debate about whether to extend it as the Vietnam War continued.[56] The Nixon administration announced in February 1971 that it wanted a two-year extension to June 1973, after which the draft would end;[57][58] Army planners had already been operating under the assumption of a two-year extension, after which an all-volunteer force would be in place.[55] Skeptics such as Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Stennis thought this unrealistic and wanted a four-year extension,[57] but the two-year proposal is what went forward in Congress.[56] By early May 1971, Gravel had indicated his intention to filibuster the draft renewal legislation, halting conscription and thereby bringing U.S. involvement in the war to a rapid end.[59]

By June 1971, some Democratic senators opposed to the war wanted to limit the renewal to a one-year extension, while others wanted to end it immediately;[56] Gravel reiterated that he was one of the latter, saying, “It’s a senseless war, and one way to do away with it is to do away with the draft.”[56] A Senate vote on June 4 indicated majority support for the two-year extension.[56] On June 18 Gravel announced again his intention to counteract that by filibustering the renewal legislation,[60]defending the practice against those who associated it only with blocking civil rights legislation.[60] The first filibuster attempt failed on June 23 when, by three votes, the Senate voted cloture for only the fifth time since 1927.[61]

Protracted negotiations took place over House conference negotiations on the bill, revolving in large part around Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield’s eventually unsuccessful amendment to tie renewal to a troop withdrawal timetable from Vietnam; during this time the draft law expired and no more were conscripted.[62] On August 5, the Nixon administration pleaded for a renewal before the Senate went on recess, but Gravel blocked Stennis’s attempt to limit debate, and no vote was held.[63] Finally on September 21, 1971, the Senate invoked cloture over Gravel’s second filibuster attempt by one vote, and then passed the two-year draft extension.[62] Gravel’s attempts to stop the draft had failed[41] (notwithstanding Gravel’s later claims that he had stopped or shortened the draft, taken at face value in some media reports, during his 2008 presidential campaign).[nb 3]

Meanwhile, on June 13, 1971, The New York Times began printing large portions of the Pentagon Papers.[64] The papers were a large collection of secret government documents and studies pertaining to the Vietnam War, of which former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg had made unauthorized copies and was determined to make public.[65] Ellsberg had for a year and a half approached members of Congress – such as William Fulbright, George McGovern, Charles Mathias, and Pete McCloskey – about publishing the documents, on the grounds that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution would give congressional members immunity from prosecution, but all had refused.[66] Instead, Ellsberg gave the documents to the Times .

The U.S. Justice Department immediately tried to halt publication, on the grounds that the information revealed within the papers harmed the national interest.[65] Within the next two weeks, a federal court injunction halted publication in The Times ; The Washington Post and several other newspapers began publishing parts of the documents, with some of them also being halted by injunctions; and the whole matter went to the U.S. Supreme Court for arguments.[65] Looking for an alternate publication mechanism, Ellsberg returned to his idea of having a member of Congress read them, and chose Gravel based on the latter’s efforts against the draft;[6] Gravel agreed where previously others had not. Ellsberg arranged for the papers to be given to Gravel on June 26[6] via an intermediary, Washington Post editor Ben Bagdikian.[67] Gravel used his counter-intelligence experience to choose a midnight transfer in front of the Mayflower Hotel in the center of Washington.[68]

On the night of June 29, 1971, Gravel attempted to read the papers on the floor of the Senate as part of his filibuster against the draft, but was thwarted when no quorum could be formed.[69] Gravel instead convened a session of the Buildings and Grounds subcommittee that he chaired.[69] He got New York Congressman John Dow to testify that the war had soaked up funding for public buildings, thus making discussion of the war relevant to the committee.[70] He began reading from the papers with the press in attendance,[69] omitting supporting documents that he felt might compromise national security,[71] and declaring, “It is my constitutional obligation to protect the security of the people by fostering the free flow of information absolutely essential to their democratic decision-making.”[71]

He read until 1 a.m., until with tears and sobs he said that he could no longer physically continue,[71] the previous three nights of sleeplessness and fear about the future having taken their toll.[6] Gravel ended the session by, with no other senators present, establishing unanimous consent[70] to insert 4,100 pages of the Papers into the Congressional Record of his subcommittee.[41][65] The following day, the Supreme Court’s New York Times Co. v. United States decision ruled in favor of the newspapers[65] and publication in The Times and others resumed. In July 1971, Bantam Books published an inexpensive paperback edition of the papers containing the material The Times had published.[72]

Gravel, too, wanted to privately publish the portion of the papers he had read into the record, believing that “immediate disclosure of the contents of these papers will change the policy that supports the war.”[67] After being turned down by many commercial publishers,[67] on August 4 he reached agreement with Beacon Press,[73] the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association, of which Gravel was a member.[41] Announced on August 17[72] and published on October 22, 1971,[67] this four-volume, relatively expensive set[72] became the “Senator Gravel Edition”, which studies from Cornell University and the Annenberg Center for Communication have labeled as the most complete edition of the Pentagon Papers to be published.[74][75] The “Gravel Edition” was edited and annotated by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and included an additional volume of analytical articles on the origins and progress of the war, also edited by Chomsky and Zinn.[75] Beacon Press then was subjected to a FBI investigation;[68] an outgrowth of this was the Gravel v. United States court case, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled upon in June 1972;[68] it held that the Speech or Debate Clause did grant immunity to Gravel for his reading the papers in his subcommittee, did grant some immunity to Gravel’s congressional aide, but granted no immunity to Beacon Press in relation to their publishing the same papers.[76]

[anon73430903]

I remember Mike Gravel from the 2008 election. I liked some of his positions back then, but we need to be hearing them from someone who isn’t going to be 90 on election day.

[Wanderfound]

Senator Mike Gravel (MikeGravel)

Senator Mike Gravel (MikeGravel)

Senator Mike Gravel (MikeGravel)

[anon48584343]

fyi

“Federal prosecutors have charged an 80-year-old California man named John Pierre Dupont with bilking donors out of more than $250,000 by setting up fake websites and political action committees (PACs) falsely purporting to raise money for Texas politician Beto O’Rourke, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Tallahassee, Florida mayor Andrew Gillum, and other progressive causes, NBC News reported Tuesday.”

Man Charged With Setting Up Bogus Websites to Scam Bernie Sanders, Beto...

No age limit or slow lanes for grifting.

[anon15383236]

@Wanderfound

the Atlantic is trash.

Word. I stopped reading it a loooong time ago.

So much ginned-up fear mongering to stir up the white folks (men especially).