HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Otto Lidenbrock » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

Otto Lidenbrock

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:20 PM
Number of posts: 581

Journal Archives

The brother of the Vice President of the United States is a genocide denier

Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Tue Oct 29, 2019, 07:23 PM (4 replies)

Business Insider Poll: Undecided general-election voters most like Andrew Yang

Obviously not too much stock in this since only democrats get to choose who is on the democratic ticket but since there's a new name at the front I thought it would be worth sharing the rationale.

Biden, Yang, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, were notably the only Democrats with net positive support among undecided general-election voters in the past three Insider polls, which ran September 25-26, October 3-4, and October 16-17.

Typically, we concentrate only on the fraction of Democrats who would be satisfied in the event a contender became the nominee. But because of additional polling questions we ask related to impeachment, we also knew which respondents had not yet decided whether they would support a Republican or a Democrat in the 2020 general election.

It's a subset that is of particular interest as Democrats argue for appeal beyond their party, and its support seems elusive for all but two contenders.

Of the 268 undecided voters who knew of Yang, 46% said they would be satisfied with him as the nominee and 24% said they would not be satisfied, giving him positive net support of 21 percentage points among general-election voters who knew him and had not decided whether to vote Democrat or Republican.

Yang is possibly the most politically distinct candidate in the race — and this particular survey result shows how much it works in his favor.

A political outsider, Yang is making waves in the primary by drawing on his unique expertise as an entrepreneur and businessman to sound the alarm about the rise of mass automation in America — a problem that, in his view, few other 2020 candidates or politicians have substantively addressed or tacked.

Across the three Insider polls, Biden had positive net support among undecided general-election voters of 7 percentage points among the 620 voters who knew of him, with 42% of voters supporting him compared with 35% who didn't support him.

The third-best-performing Democrat, Buttigieg, has a net positive support of 2 percentage points, with 32% of general-election voters supporting him compared with 29% who do not — within the poll's margin of error.

General-election voters polled by Insider don't overwhelmingly support most other Democrats. Our polling found that:

Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have slightly negative net support among general-election voters at 2 percentage points underwater. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's net support is negative 1 percentage point. (All of those candidates' levels of net support are within the margin of error of the poll.)
Sen. Kamala Harris is underwater by 13 percentage points, and Tom Steyer and former HUD Secretary Julián Castro are both underwater by 14 percentage points.
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke is underwater among general-election voters by 17 percentage points, and Sen. Cory Booker is underwater by 20 percentage points.

Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Fri Oct 25, 2019, 08:17 PM (5 replies)

The Pete Buttigieg/Justice Kennedy story shows how manipulative Twitter can be

The other thread on this subject regarding Mayor Pete raised a significant problem I have with this primary. We're seeing people getting thousands of retweets and likes for cutting passages, even sentences out of context to smear a candidate they don't like.


You notice there is no link provided. Just a screenshot of a paragraph. And a user added *gotcha* caption.

Here is the link to the full story: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a29565248/pete-buttigieg-supreme-court-restructure-president/

Mayor Pete has been open about wanting to restructure the Supreme Court. He is weighing up a number of proposals.

Going into the 2020 Democratic presidential race, Pete Buttigieg made reconsidering the Supreme Court’s structure part of his presidential agenda in what some have called an “overhaul” plan, despite other candidates not discussing it much. Therefore, it was only natural that Cosmo’s entertainment editor, Emily Tannenbaum, brought that topic to the forefront during Buttigieg’s recent visit to Cosmopolitan’s offices.

“As a bisexual woman, the structure of the Supreme Court is a real concern to me, and you’ve proposed pretty drastic changes with the way it’s set up and how many people are on the bench,” she said to the presidential candidate. “What specifically is the first thing you’d change and how would you do it?”

Buttigieg’s answer? Well, he’s very worried the Supreme Court is becoming “yet another political body,” and he wants to depoliticize it ASAP. First things first, he would appoint a commission to make the Supreme Court “less political.” It’d be their job to give a “road map,” and based on their recommendations, Buttigieg said he would go to Congress with a proposal.

“When I look at the Supreme Court, I can’t help but remember that my marriage only exists by the grace of a single vote in that body,” he said, emphasizing the importance of keeping the court as independent as possible.

Now naturally justices are nominated based on their closeness in philosophy to the president of whichever party. There is no way to rid the court 100% of having political bias in some way or another because there are going to be more liberal justices working with (or against) more conservative justices.

The obvious answer people think of is to add more numbers to the court. But the obvious fallacy of this is whichever party is in control at whatever time will be at advantage and when the hands of power switches so does the advantage. It could ruin the credibility of the court.

He then proposes two more ideas before saying he's still thinking about it and reiterates a commission will ultimately be needed.

From there, he said he’s got options, depending on what ideas the commission recommends. “One of them would be to have 15 members, but 5 of them can only be seated if the other 10 unanimously agree,” he said. “The idea here is you get more justices who think for themselves.”

Another idea is rotating judges on and off the bench. Yet another is term limits, which have come up among the Democratic presidential primary candidates already. “You know, Supreme Court justices, they used to just retire like everybody else,” Buttigieg said. “But now, we have these strange scenarios of people clinging, almost seeming to cling on for dear life because they want to make sure that they leave the bench under the right presidency.”

If all else fails, though, Mayor Pete is open to having a “conversation about an amendment.”

“The reason I’m introducing these very bold ideas is to elevate our imagination about them,” he clarified. “But I’m not arriving in office saying I have the answer on this one.”

That first idea is where the Justice Kennedy part comes from. The process now is your nominee needs to get through the senate and if your party holds the senate there should be no problem no matter how much of an ill-character the nominee is. However this idea says he needs to get through the senate and then approved unanimously by the other ten justices. Now a flaw with this idea is that if a nominee is voted through the senate the justices should have no objection since *again* they're not supposed to get involved in the politics. But someone who has a record of being a moderate voice is clearly the type of justice that works for this idea.

Kennedy might not be the right example but since same-sex marriage was decided by one vote and Kennedy voted for it, it's a bit more understandable why Pete brought his name up.

Ultimately he does not want the court packed with more Justices like Kennedy. It's just in this particular idea to make the court more independent he is saying it's not just about getting as many of your ideological picks. The five justices who make this idea unique would need to be ideologically fitting for the party that holds the majority of the senate (liberal or conservative) even if the other side doesn't like it, but independent enough to get a yes from each of the ideologically split supreme court (liberal and conservative). That's the story.
Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Thu Oct 24, 2019, 09:28 PM (10 replies)

Is Lady Bird Johnson the most underappreciated First Lady in modern history?

I believe her husband is the most fascinating personality to ever be President. His life was like one big contradiction when you study him deeply. And partly because he died so soon after leaving office and relatively young(ish) for a president so there's so much hearsay about the man.

The LBJ Library Youtube channel is a goldmine of historical treasure. There are lengthy videos following President Johnson's activities and candid chats but it's Lady Bird's content that struck me. There are 85 Home Movies featuring Lady Bird beginning in 1940! 20 videos captured on the Johnson Ranch in Texas showing a side of a president you don't really see. Have a look at these videos for example:

I know Lady Bird was admired during her time for her work on American scenery but it occurred to me that she lived a long life - almost forty years passed between President Johnson's death and her passing. Yet she never really gets spoken of much. Even when she was still living. I really recommend watching these videos if you're an LBJ junkie because it's the softness of Lady Bird that almost humanises a man who I don't think even Robert Caro will fully ever understand.

Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Wed Oct 23, 2019, 02:47 PM (1 replies)

Who didn't have the guts to run in 2016?


Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Sat Oct 19, 2019, 05:56 PM (20 replies)

Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter just became the longest married presidential couple

Twenty six thousand seven hundred and sixty five days -- and counting.

That's more than 75 years. And that's how long former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, have been married -- making them the longest married presidential couple.

The Carter Center celebrated the milestone Thursday when the couple bested the record held by the late George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush.

And to think it might have turned out differently.

When Jimmy Carter first proposed, Rosalynn Smith -- as she was known then -- rejected him. Why? She had made a promise to her dying father she'd finish college first.

As she recounted in her memoir, "First Lady from Plains," the pair grew up three years and three miles apart.

There were no girls in town who were her age. So Rosalynn became best friends with Jimmy's younger sister.

"I thought he was the most handsome young man I had ever seen," she wrote in her memoir.

Her father died when she was 12. But she kept her promise. She graduated from Georgia Southwestern College.

The pair went on their first date in 1945. They married the following year.

He was 21. She was 18.

"The best thing I ever did was marrying Rosalynn," Carter once said. "That's a pinnacle in my life."

That's not to say it's been easy sailing all through. Take the time the couple decided to write a book together.

"It's the worst problem we've ever had since we've been married," Jimmy Carter jokingly told CNN at the time.

"It would be like God had given her this text at Mt. Sinai and she had brought it down and presented it to me in stone."

He is now 95. She is 92. And their love story is still going strong.

Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Fri Oct 18, 2019, 01:14 PM (20 replies)

"White Out: The Unrelenting Quest to Erase Kamala Harris"

Fascinating blog post in the link. I was very disappointed at how pundits including democrats sneered and mocked Kamala Harris for her emphasising Trump's Twitter as a vehicle of hate and violence. People at Twitter seemed to take heed as I posted here yesterday: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287311532

But this post goes beyond that. It explores how Harris has garnered a reputation that is misleading and in some cases downright lies yet she hasn't received the opportunity others have in responding.

The Democratic Primaries started off promisingly diverse. Secretary Julian Castro was the first to announce his candidacy, and Senator Kamala Harris was one of the next to join the race barely a week later. Senator Cory Booker declared the beginning of February — and for a brief moment, we had a primary that reflected the voting base of the Democratic party.

It didn’t last.

Kamala Harris announced her candidacy to a roaring crowd of over 20,000 people, which remains a record in the 2020 Primary. Many were excited about her entry into the race, particularly after the hearings of Jeff Sessions and Brett Kavanaugh. Anticipating the likelihood of her run, the hit pieces began before her formal announcement, including the creation of the hashtag #KamalaIsaCop as a continuation of Russian bot propaganda to subdue the turnout of black voters.

The distortion of Kamala Harris’s stellar record came from both right wing sources like the Washington Examiner, and leftwing sites like The Intercept. Most of these “criticisms” (such as wrongly attributing her to Jamal Trulove’s incarceration, outcries for not prosecuting Mnuchin, and allegedly fighting to keep prisoners in jail for cheap labor) have been completely debunked, but they remain staples in the comment sections of Twitter and Facebook from both Trump supporters and so-called progressives. Journalists also permit these distortions to go unchallenged, with the lone exception of Politifact debunking Tulsi Gabbard’s false claims after the second debate.

The disinformation surrounding Kamala Harris is inordinately persistent, but it is not limited to bad faith takes from journalists. The bot activity surrounding Kamala Harris is striking, particularly for a candidate that polls between 4th and 5th place. On a weekly basis, Kamala receives between 125 to 190 mentions on TV news stations, which is staggeringly less than the three people polling above her — yet the estimated bot activity stalking her account outnumbers every single other candidate in the top 6 combined. This means that Kamala has fewer options to defend herself on television (and those mentions usually skew negative, rather than neutral or positive), and far more attacks targeting her.

Kamala Harris is empirically mentioned less often than other candidates, even when there is every reason to center her in a news story. This has been seen time and time again. The first example to be shown considers Kamala Harris’s signature policy — the LIFT Act, which is her tax proposal that would reverse the Trump tax code and create the option for families to tap into their refund for up to $500 a month. An entire article was written about a California program that piloted something similar, yet Kamala Harris — the junior California Senator — is not mentioned once.

Similarly, Kamala Harris was the first person to introduce a maternal mortality bill that centered black women. California took measures at the state level to combat this epidemic, yet despite being the Senator from California and the leader on this issue, Elizabeth Warren was quoted for the article.

In truth, most of Kamala Harris’s policies go unmentioned or unexamined by the media, a fact which Rep. Wilson highlights in this interview.

Kamala Harris will present an excellent proposal, an excellent idea, and they’ll say it, but they won’t cover it. Start to pay attention, and you’ll see it. -Representative Frederica Wilson, FL.

Kamala Harris’s healthcare proposal was the first to create a cap for monthly prescription drug costs; unbeknownst to The Daily Beast, who reported that Pete Buttigieg had the first plan despite Kamala announcing hers months beforehand. When Harris spokesman Ian Sams pointed out the discrepancy, The Daily Beast removed and reposted the article omitting the “first” without an apology or correction.

Gun control is another realm where Kamala Harris has come out strong, and early, proposing her plan in April 2019 to take executive action if Congress did not act within 100 days. The Giffords Foundation coordinated with all the major 2020 contenders to release a call to action video on gun control, which Kamala Harris naturally participated in. And she was removed from the ad by MSNBC when they ran it for her trouble. This example is particularly egregious because it was not a case of an omission — they had to intentionally edit the video to remove her segment.

Of a similar vein, Kamala Harris was one of many 2020 candidates to wish Bernie Sanders a speedy recovery after his heart attack, both privately in a phone call and publicly to reporters. NowThis, however, managed to include everyone who had spoken out except her.

The erasure of Kamala Harris’s long, impressive history with the LGBTQ+ community is possibly the most heinous example. The aforementioned Intercept hit pieces targeted the fact that two trans inmates were denied gender affirmation surgery in California, ignoring the fact that it was Kamala Harris’s job to represent the state, and also that she reversed the policy within a year (far before that was a popular stance and during the period of time where Elizabeth Warren was calling gender affirmation surgery not a “good use of taxpayer dollars”), AND her efforts made California the first and one of the only states to ban the trans panic defense.

The two LGBT forums of the 2020 Primary apparently only read the smear articles, however. The now infamous moderation of Lyz Lenz (a white, non-LGBT woman) highlighted this, in which she framed the same premise of a question about gender affirmation surgery to Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris very differently: “How can people trust you?” to the latter, and “How can people evolve like you?” to the former.

Lenz’s questioning, refreshingly, did not go unnoticed, especially by black women on Twitter — who were subsequently blocked for their righteous indignation. Rather than apologizing, Lenz doubled down that she was proud of the work she did, shielding behind Biden’s remarks in a peak white feminist fashion.

When the second LGBTQ forum was held, the questioning by Chris Cuomo was more tame — with the obvious exception of his making light out of Kamala Harris’s opening in which she stated her preferred pronouns to a roaring applause. To Cuomo’s credit, he at least apologized immediately, unlike Lenz.

Rest of blog: https://medium.com/@courtneybswanson/white-out-the-unrelenting-quest-to-erase-kamala-harris-d8b4de2c3fb7
Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Thu Oct 17, 2019, 05:23 PM (7 replies)

Viewing figures from the last debate

Last night’s CNN/New York Times Democratic Presidential Debate attracted 8.3 million viewers on CNN and 9.4 million live streams. On television, 8.336 million total viewers watched the debate live from the campus of Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio. Among adults 25-54, 2.378 million tuned in. The debate peaked on television from 9:15-9:30 pm with 9.215 million total viewers and from 9:45-10 pm among adults 25-54 with 2.660 million.

The June debates averaged approximately twice as much.

12 candidates on one night is a bad formula. These debates aren't moving the needle.
Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Thu Oct 17, 2019, 11:25 AM (2 replies)

Twitter is seeking to clarify its rules for politicians after coming under pressure from Sen. Harris


So all the blue checks who ridiculed her for bringing it up last night including the Pod Save bros should eat some humble pie.

Four of those people on stage had pipe bombs mailed to them in 2018. Vice President Biden, Senator Harris, Senator Booker and Mr Steyer. The culprit was a man radicalised by Trump.

This is the result of Trump's twitter.

Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Wed Oct 16, 2019, 11:03 AM (9 replies)

Two things I never want to hear in a debate again

"Beat him like a drum"

"I wrote the damn bill"

It was funny the first time. Stop saying it now please.

Posted by Otto Lidenbrock | Wed Oct 16, 2019, 08:27 AM (6 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »