Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not even feely-Joe and looney Kamala.

Mr President, please get off the internet

Also, why is Kamala "looney"? I have seen/heard her speak several times and she isn't in the least bit looney. She's very straight forward/matter of fact. And she will kick ass in debates based on what I have seen of her in those committee meetings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not even feely-Joe and looney Kamala.

Mr President, please get off the internet

Also, why is Kamala "looney"? I have seen/heard her speak several times and she isn't in the least bit looney. She's very straight forward/matter of fact. And she will kick ass in debates based on what I have seen of her in those committee meetings.

Anonymous wrote:

Not even feely-Joe and looney Kamala.

Anonymous wrote:New Quinnipiac Poll in Pennsylvania: https://poll.qu.edu/pennsylvania/release-detail?ReleaseID=2620

Biden 53%
Trump 42%

Sanders 50%
Trump 43%

Warren 47%
Trump 44%

Buttigieg 45%
Trump 44%

Harris 45%
Trump 45%

Trump 46%
O'Rourke 44%

Anonymous wrote:Four Dems who beat Trump in a head to head poll. Beto holds a double digit lead over Trump!
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441950-orourke-holds-double-digit-lead-on-trump-in-head-to-head-matchup-cnn-poll
- Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris are polling ahead of President Trump in a new CNN poll.

He echoed that argument in a February 2019 interview with BuzzFeed, confirming he was mulling over a presidential campaign because "it's time for a new generation of leadership, and we gotta send Donald Trump packing."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

So we need "breeders" is what you're saying.

Maybe you count you and your family as breeders. Because historically immigrants are more hard working, smart, educated and high achievers. I didn't say let anyone come in. Let us make immigration merit based and welcoming to all people so the country is vibrant. We need to compensate for the the dead weight, entitled native born who won't move to new and better jobs or retrain or educate themselves to compete in knowledge economy.

This country is now driven by smart, educated Asian immigrants. They are the professionals who are creating new companies, doctors, engineers, scientists and innovators. We need more of the same. Maybe they would be role models for the lazy native born Americans.

This country is driven by a small group of people that is almost entirely white, male, and native born. Saying otherwise is hilariously wrong. 'Asian immigrants' or immigrants from other regions are here in no small measure due to the immiseration of vast swathes of the native born population (including blacks and other minorities) and the foreign policy/natsec policies, undertaken to serve that small group of mostly white men, that disadvantage many native-born Americans AND force many immigrants to leave their country of birth. Address these concerns and you'll be closer to winning in 2020. Continue on this same line of Democratic Party nonsense, a line that is symbiotic with the anti-immigrant nonsense, and things won't work out nearly so well for the Democrats.

Apparently you have never stepped recently into ANY American universities in STEM (a big chuink are asian and immigrant profs and majority students are asians too) or a tech company (many upper management and pretty much at level are asians) . I am not against Asians, I am just telling a simple fact that without Asian immigrants the tech boom would not have happened.

Now the same tech boom is happening in China and India, both of them are attracting more and more VC funds. We should be a country that should get talent by any means possible here AND BUILD AN OPPORTUNITY WALL that they can't cross over and get back to Asia. China is already the leader in Web 2.0, AI and analytics BECAUSE they have data galore and they are harnessing it and learning and improvising much faster than we are.

Apparently, you have poor reading comprehension and poor reasoning skills. I never said anything about STEM or universities.

Simply:
-the U.S. is still run by and for a very small group that's almost entirely white+male. This applies very nearly as much to putatively Democratic interests as it does to putatively Republican ones
-Asian immigration and its high numbers in STEM is mostly the result of policies to serve those white+male interests.

You mindlessly claim the 'tech boom' wouldn't have happened without these immigrants. That's a ridiculously bold claim. What's more interesting is that in spite of this 'tech boom', employment prospects and earnings for STEM workers have declined in recent decades. Those declines were engineered to serve narrow interests, you're just one of those narrow interests' useful idiots.

Also, understand that there are troubling issues within Asian societies that lead to this immigration you mindlessly celebrate. Amartya Kumar Sen and Pankaj Mishra, for example, have long noted that India has policies that offer world-class educations (IITs, etc.) to a privilaged minority so that they can serve as lower-cost labor for Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and other American corporate interest (the small groups of white male interests). That means India marshalls its public resources to produce these people when nearly 30% of its country is illiterate and economically marginal. Hmm.

Since the thread is about the Democrats wining in 2020, I'll end by just noting that the shibboleths you and others recite are often the hindrance to that goal. Work to be more thoughtful, not less thoughtful!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any Democrat not named Hillary and wins the dem primary will take down the conman president who is hated by the majority of the country and over 50% swears they won't vote for him. Afterall the man has never had over 45% average approval. And his approval has declined in every single state since jan 2017.

Good luck on that theory.

What theory do you have? The party of white identity politics that has won the popular vote just once(by one state) in over 30 years, run by a con man whose favorability is below 40% and lost by 3 million in 2016 really is not the party in pink of health. Since then the conman has driven out even more women, minorities and college educated as can be seen in the 2018 wipe out while dems won by over 9% margin.

Getting hung up on the popular vote costs the Democrats. A surfeit of votes in a few areas doesn't change policy. Broad appeal, where wining happens in many different states and congressional districts, opens the door to real change. This, of course, will mean not just a realignment of the country, but of the Democratic Party. That fact is the real stumbling block.

agree

Regarding broad appeal, the Ds need to get it together if they want to find a strong candidate to rival Trump. It's not about individuals and "identity politics groups." It's about a strong union standing firm to support a philosophy that's not divisive and uber PC.

I'm not sure the Ds are better off three years later. Factions are dangerous b/c people supposedly on the same side are now fighting.

Say what you will of the Rs, but stagnant waters have proven to be a reliable constant.

The Ds have won the 2018 by a big margin (especially in MI,PA,WI) because some of the cult members have figured out the fake PR admin of the conman. He does nothing on the ground except for tax cuts for the rich. He made it worse with tariffs, no return of coal or steel jobs as promised, made Obamacare worse, no solution for Drug ODs in the mid west. Its all smoke and mirrors all the time. You can only fool some (his cult) all the time, all the people some times, but cannot fool all the people all the time.

The Fraud party of trickle down economics ramps up white identity politics by playing the immigration bogeyman drama come election time to win. How long can they continue this charade?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any Democrat not named Hillary and wins the dem primary will take down the conman president who is hated by the majority of the country and over 50% swears they won't vote for him. Afterall the man has never had over 45% average approval. And his approval has declined in every single state since jan 2017.

Good luck on that theory.

What theory do you have? The party of white identity politics that has won the popular vote just once(by one state) in over 30 years, run by a con man whose favorability is below 40% and lost by 3 million in 2016 really is not the party in pink of health. Since then the conman has driven out even more women, minorities and college educated as can be seen in the 2018 wipe out while dems won by over 9% margin.

Getting hung up on the popular vote costs the Democrats. A surfeit of votes in a few areas doesn't change policy. Broad appeal, where wining happens in many different states and congressional districts, opens the door to real change. This, of course, will mean not just a realignment of the country, but of the Democratic Party. That fact is the real stumbling block.

agree

Regarding broad appeal, the Ds need to get it together if they want to find a strong candidate to rival Trump. It's not about individuals and "identity politics groups." It's about a strong union standing firm to support a philosophy that's not divisive and uber PC.

I'm not sure the Ds are better off three years later. Factions are dangerous b/c people supposedly on the same side are now fighting.

Say what you will of the Rs, but stagnant waters have proven to be a reliable constant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. It has to be someone who acknowledges immigration is a problem, and is willing to do something to fix it. As a moderate Dem, I totally agree that most of the candidates are advocating for functionally open borders, though they're smart enough not to use the term. And it's concerning and not in step with what most of the country wants, clearly.

The country is declining in population without counting immigration. We need immigrants to fill the positions vacated by baby boomers. Without immigration US will be stuck with a stagnating or declining economy like much of europe and japan as their population are declining.

So we need "breeders" is what you're saying.

Maybe you count you and your family as breeders. Because historically immigrants are more hard working, smart, educated and high achievers. I didn't say let anyone come in. Let us make immigration merit based and welcoming to all people so the country is vibrant. We need to compensate for the the dead weight, entitled native born who won't move to new and better jobs or retrain or educate themselves to compete in knowledge economy.

This country is now driven by smart, educated Asian immigrants. They are the professionals who are creating new companies, doctors, engineers, scientists and innovators. We need more of the same. Maybe they would be role models for the lazy native born Americans.

This country is driven by a small group of people that is almost entirely white, male, and native born. Saying otherwise is hilariously wrong. 'Asian immigrants' or immigrants from other regions are here in no small measure due to the immiseration of vast swathes of the native born population (including blacks and other minorities) and the foreign policy/natsec policies, undertaken to serve that small group of mostly white men, that disadvantage many native-born Americans AND force many immigrants to leave their country of birth. Address these concerns and you'll be closer to winning in 2020. Continue on this same line of Democratic Party nonsense, a line that is symbiotic with the anti-immigrant nonsense, and things won't work out nearly so well for the Democrats.

Apparently you have never stepped recently into ANY American universities in STEM (a big chuink are asian and immigrant profs and majority students are asians too) or a tech company (many upper management and pretty much at level are asians) . I am not against Asians, I am just telling a simple fact that without Asian immigrants the tech boom would not have happened.

Now the same tech boom is happening in China and India, both of them are attracting more and more VC funds. We should be a country that should get talent by any means possible here AND BUILD AN OPPORTUNITY WALL that they can't cross over and get back to Asia. China is already the leader in Web 2.0, AI and analytics BECAUSE they have data galore and they are harnessing it and learning and improvising much faster than we are.