Imabench

I can calculate it if you want to formally join the Grand ShitPiss Society. I left you out cause you declined when the initial signups started 

Anyone from the days of DDO fucking remembers the infamous ScottyDouglas line that launched the very creation of the Weekly Stupid. 

"Newsflash: Even if you don't believe in the Devil, you do"

- An actual argument between ScottyDouglas and an atheist, the atheist explaining that he does not fear the Devil because he does not believe the Devil actually exists. 

Bench threads = 
(I have a lot but I'm capping myself at just three. For reasons)

3RU7AL threads = 

Real Nihilist threads = 

Dr.Franklin threads =

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3066/dr-franklins-epic-guide-to-the-senate-races-for-2020 (5 million)

bmdrocks21 threads = 

With the wealth determined, formal secession from the site will begin in the coming days. 

Any requests from you, the noble lords of the realm, shall be included in the declaration ;D

Check out some of the states holding Senate races in 2022:

Arizona

Wisconsin

Florida

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Georgia

Iowa

Nevada

Indiana

Almost every state that is considered either a swing state or has voted for presidents for both parties has Senate races in 2022. The Senate barely changed in 2018, it likely wont shift too much in 2020, but in 2022 it is entirely possible for the Senate to flip from Red to Blue, from Red to 50-50, or even go deeper Red depending on what happens in 2020. 

I dont think it would be possible. 

If all the Blue states were in the east and all the red states were in the west then maybe it would be possible, could be divided along the Mississippi river if it aligned that way, but the reality is that the states are jumbled all over the place. The west coast is Blue, the east coast is blue but only in the northern part of the east, then there's a big patch of red in the 'old south' that extends into the midwest, but then New Mexico and Colorado are carved out of it and are now pretty blue, and then there's Illinois in the middle north that is unshakably blue as well.... On top of that there's also a lot of hugely important states that are right smack in between blue and red. Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania all come to mind, Ohio used to be one but now its leaning towards the Red..... Then when we get into shifting we have Georgia, Maine, Texas, and Arizona all showing shifts....

There's just no way that a clean Red/Blue divide could be undertaken to have a Blue US and a Red US.... Maybe if a few states broke away on their own that could happen, but a clean Red/Blue split just wont go down. 

Id be fuckin shocked if the Alabama seat somehow stayed blue and if the Colorado seat somehow stayed Red. 

The Senate race that has my attention the most is the one in Arizona. If the GOP only barely hold on to the seat or if a Democrat manages to claim it, then it 100% confirms the state is now a swing state/toss up state which is a fairly big development since the state's 11 electoral votes are nothing to scoff at..... Michigan and North Carolina are already swing states and will likely stay that way, Maine no matter which way it swings doesnt have much electoral significance behind it.... Arizona though shifting or staying is a big deal which is the one I will keep an eye on. 

Then in 2022 the Senate elections REALLY get interesting 

Then tag Christen not me. He's the one asking for examples and evidence of why the child limitation policies are stupid

BETO O'ROURKE DROPS OUT 

Following multiple months of polling at about ass%, and then a campaign reboot more focused on gun control following a mass shooting at El Paso meant to target hispanics, Beto has announced he is pulling out of the race for President. He has not announced that he will be running for any other position in government, and declined to endorse anyone else after announcing he was withdrawing. 

Following Islee, Hickenlooper, Gilibrand, and De Blasio, Beto is now one of the middle tier candidates to have pulled out from the race. The odds of Beto becoming the nominee were at one point considered decent enough to make him an important figure in the race, and if you go back to December of 2018 he placed third in polling for the Dem nominee (Biden, Sanders, Beto, then Warren: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

However, after nearly topping 10 percent in April earlier this year, his support steadily declined where he averaged in the low single digits up until the very end. While most polls had him at 2% to 4% nationally, a recent USA Today poll pinged him at ZERO, which is usually a good wake up call to a candidate that they should drop out of the race. 

Beto''s shit polling though does not mean his withdrawal is significant. While his poll numbers nationally were horrible, his home state of Texas had him polling in the double digits throughout the primaries, and even recently he was polling at 15% to 17%... Biden currently leads the state with about 27% of the vote, with Sanders and Warren closer to 13% and 15%. If one candidate can incorporate a majority of Beto's Texas supporters into their base, it could very well cement their lead as the frontrunner (Biden), or cause them to leapfrog into the front and win a massive haul of delegates when the Texas primary takes place (Sanders or Warren).... Granted, the last polls from the state of Texas were taken way the hell back in early September, and its now November, but its easy to assume that Beto had at least some respectable amount of support in the state due to 1) His Senate bid in the state last year where he almost won, and 2) It's his home state.

Interestingly, Beto dropped out at a time where he was still doing better than other candidates. Despite hitting 0% in a recent national USA Today poll, his weekly average of around 2% still placed him higher than EIGHT OTHER CANDIDATES still in the race: 

Klobuchar = 1.8%

Booker = 1.7%

Steyer = 1.0%

Castro = 0.7%

Bennet = 0.5%

Williamson = 0.3%

Delaney = 0.2%

Bullock = 0%

If Beto's withdrawal convinces some of these other candidates to quit (God willing they will sooner rather then later) their combined poll support of 6.2% could have substantial implications on the rest of the race. Biden currently leads Warren nationally by 5%, Sanders trails Warren by 5%, Buttigieg trails Sanders by 9%, and Harris, Yang, and Gabbard all are below 5%

Yeah i dont respond to single posts featuring just a youtube link and nothing else

Make an actual argument otherwise im just going to spend my time elsewhere

Out of curiosity, what Midwestern Evangelical Church do you have to go to school at to be convinced that a 16 year old that engages in crude humor on the internet every once in a while, clearly in jest, is something to be taken uber-seriously? 

1 - Better education on the nature of having kids 

2 - Better education on how to use contraceptives

3 - Expanding the availability and access to contraceptives 

4 - Commercial broadcasts laying out reasons why to not have too many kids 

5 - Promoting foster care systems so people who want kids can adopt rather then make new ones 

6 - Provide information on the complications and stress that pregnancy can have on women 

7 - Family planning organizations that could help people realize if they are or are not in a financially stable situation to have additional children

8 - Promotions that tell people to focus more on career advancement then starting families

9 - Just illustrating the costs of child-rearing and how expensive it is to raise even a single child

10 - Subsidize operations that allow people to become physically unable to have more children such as vasectomy's 

That's just off the top of my head 

Yes but there are about 30 to 35 different and much less asinine ways to manage population than child limitation policies 

Im not talking about the overall vote on impeachment itself you massive idiot, Im talking about the recent specific act that was passed about having public hearings be included in the inquiry which is still ongoing. 

"The text of the resolution lays out how the House Intelligence Committee will conduct public hearings and how the House Judiciary Committee "shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.""

The recent act isn't a vote on whether or not Trump should be impeached, its only about expanding the inquiry that could possibly lead to a vote on impeachment to include public testimony and general guidelines to handle public hearings. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/impeachment-resolution-released-rules-committee/index.html

But why though, when its clear that 1) They don't have the numbers to succeed in keeping the meetings private should a vote take place, and 2) AFTER complaining that they werent public in the first place?

Any attempted gain they would get from being defeated in a vote to make the hearings open becomes incredibly undermined by their vocal protests to want the meetings to be publicized and then trying to vote to keep them private regardless. 

Its the equivalent of a corporation demanding that union emails about a possible strike be made public, then voting against making the union emails public, only to then have those union emails publicized anyways because the union has more support than the corporation and is okay with making them public to begin with.

Just wall-to-wall tactlessness. 

And they voted against the very thing they were literally staging storm-ins to protest. They made it explicitly clear that they didn't actually give a shit about the secrecy of the meetings when instead they could have: 

A - Not make a big deal in the first place and keep the meetings in secret like they clearly desire to limit the impact the proceedings will have.

B - Vote for the meetings to be open for the supposed vindication the public access would provide for Trump on the scandal. 

Instead of doing either of those two far more sensible things, the congressmen have instead opted to cry and publicly complain that the meetings should be open, only to then reject the offer of having the meetings be open because the testimony could be damaging to them politically. Im pretty sure at this point we could outmaneuver Congress since they all collectively trip over their own balls at every opportunity. 

The fact that they also tried to force a vote when they are at a steep numerical disadvantage in the House only adds another layer of stupidity to the whole thing. Rather then pick one of two sensible options, they went all in on a brain-dead third path they were destined to lose. 

Let me preface this by saying this is not a shot at the GOP specifically. The point Im trying to make here is more encompassing: that politicians in Congress just don't know how to properly bluff or pick their battles wisely anymore. This is just the most recent example that took place that clearly demonstrates the case that I think will help spark a conversation about this. 

As for the example, one of the GOP's main objections to the hearings held over an Impeachment Inquiry against Donald Trump being held in the House of Representatives is that the meetings where details about the Ukraine scandal are being held in secret. A lot of the meetings are 'Closed door' meetings where info is kept confidential and is not released to the public. The GOP have been up in arms over the hearings being held in secret, to the point that some House Republicans have literally stormed into meetings to demand that info be made open to the public. (They have also demanded that the GOP be able to ask questions, completely ignoring the fact that House Republicans sit on the committees of many of these meetings and can already ask questions on behalf of their party)

To summarize, the GOP are mad at how Impeachment hearings are being held in secret, and want to open them up to the public. If a vote was held to make the proceedings public, the GOP would then presumably be willing to do so in order to have public meetings that would allegedly vindicate the president. 

They all voted against making the meetings open: https://news.yahoo.com/house-approves-trump-impeachment-resolution-paving-way-for-the-start-of-open-hearings-153013481.html

To complain about some aspect of the hearings and stage a number of publicity stunts to try to raise awareness about the secrecy of the meetings, only to unanimously vote against revealing the testimony in the meanings to the public, is just ass-backwards stupidity that highlights what is happening to Congress.... In the past, both parties were at least smart enough to know when to roll over and concede ground on a dispute or disagreement, and when to dig deep and fight tooth and nail for your position. Now though there is only fighting tooth and nail on every issue which is adding to the disfunction and animosity between parties in DC and through the nation. 

Kevin Spacey in House of Cards once said 'Dont start a war you're not prepared to lose" or something along the lines of that, Congress has clearly forgotten that advice. Everything, no mater how trivial, has now become a requirement for elected officials to dig in and fight like hell over, even issues that could easily backfire right into their own faces.

One of the more legendary examples I can recall was how Mitch McConnell had to filibuster and block his own bill that he proposed where Obama would be able to define the financial limits the government could borrow for spending (a power that traditionally was handled by Congress). The Democrats called the bluff, McConnell had to organize votes against his own resolution, and was soundly defeated by the whole fiasco which could have been entirely avoided if people in Congress had any tactical foresight. 

This universal stupidity in Congress is contributing to the death of bipartisanship and total gridlock in legislation for the last almost 10 years. Its better off for everyone if Congressmen know when to be tactical and not fight the fights that will surely be lost, compared to going all-in at every opportunity when there is almost nothing to be gained or even lost. 

It's certainly closer to being a toss-up state more than it ever was in the past, and the hispanic part surely plays into that to some degree. I concede that much. I just am skeptical of a state going from as reliably red as it was in the Obama years to being a pure toss-up state just two election cycles later.

Admittedly the numbers indicate it is a tossup state and I even said before that any state where the margin of difference is below 5% puts a state purely into toss-up status, Im just hesitant right now to put it as anything other then 'lean Republican' due to its voting history even recently. The state voted 9 points for Romney over Obama in 2012 and 8 points for McCain over Obama in 2008, for there to be an almost 10% demographic shift in favor of the Democrats in under 10 years is just far-fetched for me to believe.  

This looks pretty accurate just from a quick glance. Virginia is definitely trending in the Blue direction while Ohio went HARD red in 2016 and seems to be shifting more that way, especially compared to other states traditionally considered swing states. I still have two main disagreements:

1 - Wisconsin should be Leans Democratic instead of Toss up

2 - Arizona should be Leans Republican instead of Toss up

Hillary almost won the state of Wisconsin in 2016 without even stepping foot in the state up until maybe the last week. Any competent Dem candidate that fields a decent ground force in the state should be able to walk away with it in 2020, especially against Trump this time around. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

Arizona on the other hand im still skeptical about. Granted Trump only won the state by about 4 points in 2016 which is a far slimmer margin then some other swing states in 2016 (Ohio), but it still seems like solid GOP territory. Senator Jeff Flake retired from the state as a member of the GOP, but I think that was more due to his objections with Trump redefining the GOP around himself rather then fears of not being re-elected, and whoever wins the GOP nomination to replace him I think will win the seat due to demographics of the state.... Maybe 2 or 3 more cycles from now Arizona will definitely be a swing state, but this time around I still think it leans Republican and isnt a tossup compared to NC or FL. 

I dont want to get too bogged down in the math of things so ill just give shitloads of money for any thread that is beefy enough. 

Also since I routinely bump my massive 'Running Primary Poll' thread it would give me an unfair benefit since 90% of the conversation in that thread is just me posting in it after a while. 

Yep, except this time we're all on the same team

I actually dont even know if a 3 way PM is possible either. I tried to put in everyones name in the receiver option and then just ran out of letter space before I could even get to a third person (in addition to myself). Rather then set up 3 PM's for 5 members I just figured to do things in public and save everyone the hassle. 

So it turns out I cant start a PM with more then 2 other people in it for some odd fuckin reason so we'll just have to plan things and host meetings publicly. 

WELCOME fellow lords and dukes, to the newly established Grand Politics Forum ShitPiss Society.... As the most active users and content creators in the Politics forums, you all are officially better than everyone else due to your superior intellect and savviness over the peasant class, and thus have been invited to be the upper echelon of this new society. Our first orders of business are two-fold

1 - Determining the wealth of the lords of this realm 

2 - Announcing secession from the site on the main thread. 

See below for further details 

As the lords and rightful rulers over the peasant class that occupies our lands, the first order of business is to determine the wealth among you. This will be done via a very complicated and totally scientific equation illustrated below 

Your wealth = $50,000,000 + (# of Politics Threads you made x $1,000,000) + (# of total posts you have x $100,000)

If Political Threads > 10 posts, value of your estate is increased $5,000,000 each

If Political Threads > 30 posts, value of your estate is increased $50,000,000 each

Basically the more active you have been in the politics forum and on the site as a whole, the more money you have. What you can do with this money is not yet decided, just let it be an overall representation of how much better you are than everyone else :D

The net worth of your lands you preside over will be updated monthly so as to 1) not clog the politics forum with spam threads, and 2) So I dont get bored of this after a week and decide to cancel the whole thing out of spite

At the same time that net worth of your lands are being calculated, an announcement of secession will be posted in the main forum. For too long have the nobility been taxed and punished for minor offenses while the peasant class gets 'basic rights' and 'sensible freedoms' by the corrupt crownlands of the main forum. NO MORE! We shall declare independence from this wretched country and form our new society with ourselves at the top, decisions to be made via a majority of the wealthy lords rather then some peasant who was 'selected by the creator' and such nonsense. 

The Declaration of Secession, which will be authored by me, will basically announce that as the superior class of the politics forum, we will be ruling over this forum from henceforth, that all visitors must pay a 100% tax rate to us for use of our lands and products, and that if anyone wishes to join our cause and flee from the oppressive and backwards nature of the crownlands that they may come to our forum should their wealth be respectable enough 

(Basically we're going to fuck around and act like we're better than everyone else, for fun)

RM

bmdrocks21

aYE

Yays:

Imabench

3RU7AL

Real Nihilist 

Undecideds:

RM

Dr.Franklin

bmdrocks21

HistoryBuff

Nays:

Greyparrot

Also if one of yall could tag HistoryBuff I would appreciate it, he currently has me blocked after our, lets say, 'rough interactions' in previous conversations. 

I cant have more then 5 tags for a post so just refer to previous post. Also I can just copy-paste the same thing as last time so here:

YE HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO BE GRANTED LORDSHIP AND LANDS WITHIN THE SOCIETY, please read above post for further clarification. 

Your response to the offer will be expected within the next 14 moons so that a formal PM can be established between all lords and elite of the society. 

Following the abdication of Bsh1 as the chief mod, I, the self-appointed overseer of this forum based on no support or reasoning whatsoever, hereby decree the construction of a new order to this forum in light of the lack of leadership and direction from the rest of the site. This new society, henceforth known as the "Grand Politics Forum ShitPiss Society" will strive to achieve numerous goals and agendas under my leadership which is to remain secret between myself and other members of this site who frequent the politics forum I have selected for their contributions to the betterment of the kingdom. 

Because I do not give a fingle suck about actual political stuff in this new society, my first order of this new society is to grant titles of nobility and land to those who frequent this forum most frequently. The following people, whom shall be tagged, shall be granted the right to participate in the foundation, shaping, and goals of the Grand Politics Forum ShitPiss Society due to the number of threads theyve made in the forum and/or the number of posts within threads within the forum. (We'll have a group PM to fuck around in) 

Based on my super scientific analysis of glancing around page 1 randomly, the following are granted titles of lordship and elite-i-tude over everyone else within this forum from this point onwards, in no particular order: 

1 - Me (No shit)

2 - TheRealNihilist (For Thread Participation)

3 - DrFranklin (For Thread Creation and Participation)

4 - Bmdrocks21 (For Thread Participation)

5 - Rationalmadman (For Thread Creation and Participation)

6 - GreyParrot (For Thread Participation)

7 - 3RU7AL (For Thread Creation and Participation) 

8 - HistoryBuff (For Thread Participation) 

7 being my favorite number, lucky number, and also an odd number which will help with decision crafting, prohibits any additional users from being granted lordship or a seat on the council unless a seat be vacated by a named member who declines to participate in these functions which require zero responsibility and actual participation. 8 people are listed because I am assuming at least 1 will request to not be involved in this, but should all agree to participate, then 1 more will be allowed to join should they request to do so and be granted approval by a decent number of users within the society (2) 

If tagged in the subsequent post following this one, please state Yay or Nay based on your desire to be part of this grand program 

(If you're still confused about what this is, basically we'll all be in a group PM and do a bunch of harmless and hilarious shit that wont actually require you to have to do a lot to participate, but still be kind of fun to play along and go with since we all hang out in here and know each other pretty well anyways) 

As someone who helped devolve a Hall of Fame thread by Bsh into a punchline about inducting one of Bsh's own testicles as a nominee because of a typo from a previous member I decided to go buck wild with, and also as someone with widely known questionable morals and behavior, im probably the last person anyone would consider hearing from on this issue since I have had more temp bans off the site then some users have letters in their fuckin name. That being said, here's how I view this whole thing: 

It was a joke, the guy played along with it, I really dont see the big deal over any of this. 

- The joke wasnt even that graphic or unacceptable, it was a throwaway 'bend over' line that we have all used ourselves at some point

- The guy Bsh was talking to played along with it and didnt in any way seem uncomfortable about it

- The guy is 16 which is well old enough to both understand and participate in crass humor on the internet 

- Bsh is allowed to fuck around (within reason) despite being the mod. Its not a paid position so he's not barred from being himself every once in a while

- Im fairly certain that far more crude and crass remarks have been made on this site with zero apprehension from anyone. 

I was in Boston for three days could someone kindly update me on what the fuck all happened while I was out?

John Oliver on Last Week Tonight did a really interesting report on how China's mismanagement over the 1 child policy is still persisting, since they didnt actually abandon the program and instead simply shifting to a 2 child policy, still preserving a lot of the inherent fuck ups from the first program that the government are now aware of and just going with it anyways. 

Chinas government could very well fuck the country back into third world status, similar to the dissolution of the USSR or the economic collapse of Venezuela, except on an even more fantastical scale 

lel

Did some research on this because im a political news junkie on top of being a massive nerd with some degree of understanding of math. 

If you go back to the 2016 election and average out the last 5 polls of the state that weighed Trump vs Hillary, the average poll indicated that Hillary would beat out Trump in the state by an average of about 6.2% (31 points in favor of Hillary / 5 polls total = 6.2 in Hillary's favor. Last 5 polls only one used since all other polls happened almost 6 months before the election even happened) 

With the 6.2% projected win, an analysis of what Hillary actually won by (1.5%) means that national polls on average for the state of Minnesota were off by about 4.7% in favor of Hillary (6.2 - 1.5 = 4.7). https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_clinton-5591.html

So assuming the bias in polling stays about the same (its an inexact science to begin with that is aggregated among many different poll takers with different procedures), we can next argue that if Trump is within about 5% to 10% of the potential Dem nominee, it makes it at least possible for Trump to win the state..... A 5% difference between two candidates puts the state well into the 'swing state' category where it could go either way, and and if we take into account the possible poll bias that favors Dems in the state, even a 10 point deficit is not a deal-breaker for Trump.

Now we just use state polls taken for the state that specifically look at matchups between Trump and individual candidates. There are 4 that show up:

Trump vs Biden = Biden is up by 12 points https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_biden-6966.html

Trump vs Warren = Warren is up by 11 points https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_warren-6967.html

Trump vs Sanders = Sanders is up by 9 points https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_sanders-6968.html

Trump vs Klobuchar (She is a Senator of the state) = Klobuchar is up by 17 points https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_klobuchar-6969.html

Assuming that Klobuchar doesnt become the nominee, and that Biden, Warren, and Sanders will likely be the nominee, then Trump still has a pretty uphill battle to climb. 

If we apply the polling bias to the leads that would swing things back in Trump's favor by 4.7%, that puts him down 8% to Biden, down 7% to Warren, and down 4% to Sanders. 

The huge ass 'IF' here that hangs over the logic of this whole theory is that the current matchups between Trump and the Dem candidates will inevitably change. Only if the election were held RIGHT NOW would Biden and Warren likely win the state while Sanders has to fight for it a little, that could certainly change by election time, though in whose favor is anyones guess given how we dont even have a nominee yet and that many more scandals and policy shifts can take place between now and the election that is next year. 

To reiterate: Trump faces a big uphill battle, but its not out of the question that he could win the state depending on the nominee and what happens between now and election day. The GOP winning Minnesota is certainly not out of the question compared to some other states that Trump and the GOP would try to flip. (Virginia for example was actually one of the most accurately polled states in the race, and it was a full 5 points in favor of Hillary when almost every other swing state was won by Trump. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html )

Yeah thats well outside my 'fun' equation I dont really care about that

I didnt even watch the last Dem debate on CNN because rather then split the debate up between two nights to sort of balance things out, the host opted to cram TWELVE candidates all onto one stage and try to speed through all the questions. I didnt even have to watch to know ti would be a forgettable clusterfuck, and at this point Im tempted to not watch another debate until the field has been whittled down to 6 or so candidates. 

That being said, if you could invite AT MOST 6 candidates to a Dem debate, which ones would you invite?

For me it would be the following candidates:

- Biden, Warren, and Sanders (Naturally they are the frontrunners who can get at least 5% support in most states, a rare feat in the race at the moment)

- Buttigieg (Bit of a rival towards Biden in terms of being a moderate, also is in the top 3 in polling in the first primary of Iowa which is a big accomplishment. Also doing superb in fundraising, and took the rare step of hosting a Town Hall session on Fox News and performing pretty well at it while other Dem candidates would dismiss the invitation on face because of Fox News's more notorious TV personalities)

- Klobuchar (MN Senator who is doing unacceptably poorly in the race despite being an impressive speaker, extensive and recent experience in politics, a respectable platform, and only one of the two candidates that I have been impressed by (the other being Tulsi Gabbard))

- Yang (Political Outsider who has greater knowledge of healthcare and business from a citizen side compared to politicians, has arguably the most unique signature policy position with UBI, and polling half decent compared to other lower tier candidates)

Beto, Booker, and Gabbard I'm not impressed enough to really value any of their input in debates due to their low polling numbers and lack of experience (Failed Senator, Freshman Senator, House Representative in that order). Castro's campaign may not even survive another week although he has done the most homework of any candidate on immigration issues by far. Bob Steyer is a billionaire who is trying to buy his way into the conversation and doing so poorly. Harris's moment came and went following the first debate and she is still sliding back into obscurity after failing to impress anyone. Everyone else I cant even remember their names and are irrelevant. 

Itll last for a bit then one of two things will happen. 

1 - Someone will fuck up and blow up the wrong thing, the victim side will cry foul and consider it a breach of the agreement, then start fighting again with the hopes of using the episode as a rallying cry to get more support 

2 - Both sides will lick their wounds and heal up, then one side accuses the other side of being on the verge of breaching the agreement so they launch a pre-emptive strike, thus breaking the actual agreement and causing more fighting. 

Im sure there are other ways things will fall apart but these are the most likely options 

Shes a Senator from Minnesota and her policies reflect that since its a blue state that is definitely a bit of a toss up in elections. She's also like the LAST candidate in the primary you would describe as 'combative' in terms of appearance and speaking style. She is probably the best candidate to support if your primary concern is healing the divide between the Left and the Right that has ripped open in recent years. 

I also havent heard her say a thing that is cringey and unsettling, which is rare for this many candidates in the race rn. 

Well flat out invading a country to assimilate into your own borders is a hell of a lot tougher than paying a corruptible warlord to alter his policies and agendas to your own desires. 

Her and Amy Klobuchar are the two candidates that impressed me the most early on in the primary. If their poll numbers managed to rival those of Biden or were at least high enough to be in the mix with him and Warren + Sanders, I would def consider switching to supporting one of them instead. 

Tulsi mainly for her get-out-of-the-fucking-Middle-East position, 

Klobuchar mainly for her Lets-all-calm-down-and-accomplish-things-at-a-bipartisan-level 

Klobuchar reminds me of a school principal who is a fantastic mediator and handler of affairs, Tulsi reminds me of the teacher not afraid to stand up and call out bullshit. 

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk! 

Oh size is just a general term relating to how many things you have to keep an eye on and possibly handle under your watch. 

A single forum you spend almost all of your time in already = Thumbs up Emoji

All forums featuring loads of idiots arguing over stuff you couldnt give any shits about = Poo Emoji 

Id be surprised if Russia had any margin of success in Middle eastern affairs given how Islamophpbic the country is starting to become. Growing numbers of Muslims within the country compared to lower birthrates of other religious denominations have caused a number of powerful people to not only raise the alarm that Russia could become a Muslim country, but to also claim that its too late to do anything to stop it short of drastic action

Ironically, It's the Middle East who is more likely to bend Russia to their will and agenda then the other way around, If you assume that Muslim populations act like a unified voter bloc with the same goals and agendas across borders. They dont though, but either way, Russia's rapidly growing marginalization of Muslims is a giant red flag to any country that would consider working with them over the Americans. Russia wants to curtail the spread of Islam, the US just wants everyone to calm the fuck down, that makes them the more attractive superpower to deal with 

The whole 'Russia Agent' claim is a stupid take that on its surface can be overly analyzed to mean something else entirely. 

Does the US completely pulling out of Syria make things easier for Russia? Yes, Syria is their number one purchaser of weapons, it is within their interest to prop up the Assad regime at all costs. 

Does that mean anyone who wants the US to pull out of Syria means they want to make things easier for Russia and therefore would do so in other national security matters? No, its an isolated scenario where the motivations for pulling out of Syria can be valid and practical and not centered around the question of whether or not Russia benefits from the move. 

Tulsi is handling the accusation very well but since she's irrelevant in the polls to begin with it hardly changes anything apart from slightly chipping away at the influence an eventual Hillary Clinton endorsement could have in this stage of the primaries. 

Thats the reason I only want to be the 'Grand Dictator of the Political Trench-Fuck' rather than President or Vice President of the whole site.... There's even an equation I developed to help determine this 

          Power 

-------------------------    >   Fun ?

Responsibility x Size 

If yes, accept. If no, fuck it. 

With the congressional supermajority that Obama walked into office with, he admittedly didnt even really have to moderate the policies. As long as Dems stayed in line when the vote call was made, (which for the most part they did), then there was effectively nothing that the GOP could do to derail the whole thing no matter which parts they objected over. 

Now though these Dem candidates seem to think they'll be walking into office under the same circumstances when the blatant truth is that they're not. Maybe in the House there will be even larger gains that werent already won during midterms, but the Senate will remain the same barring some sort of catastrophic fuckup that sinks the careers of 10 to 20 Senators, and that alone will be an impassable roadblock to about 80% of the signature proposals some candidates are campaigning on. 

Id sign up but my activity is so infrequent that I cant guarantee Ill be able to play the role im expected to

Maybe I am giving them a lot of credit, but overall it still spells problems for Warren and Sanders. If they dont have a polling advantage in states that are rather notorious for being more along the fringes of the party compared to other states, then where are the states they will get an advantage? If the conservative South is in Biden's pocket, and the liberal West Coast also leans Biden, where else outside of the sparsely populated Northeast will they be able to get wins? 

Even NY is up for grabs since Biden and Warren both poll around 21%, and thats perhaps the biggest state in the NE that makes the region worthwhile in the first place. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ny/new_york_democratic_presidential_primary-6949.html