Who Is Running In 2020?
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 01:47
VIEWED: 46005
PAGE 3 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The polls I linked to at RCP are either limited to people who (say they) are democrats voting in the primary, unstated, or across party lines and presumably adjusted for the people in the different categories (D/ R/ I).
So I think they represent a narrower D portion of the spectrum.
The problem is that 999 people out of 1,000 aren't even going to bother looking at the methodology or are even aware that such a thing as polling methodology even exists. I'm probably being extremely generous with that number too.
Smart people know that the polls are bullshit, but most people don't. I didn't know a single person who voted for Trump in 2016 that actually thought he was going to win. I was the only person who said it was a sure thing.
Skewing polling results intentionally with the methodology is lying by structure, even when the methodology is easy to find. Most horses aren't going to drink the water, even when they're lead right to it.
My question is, why do it again? And so soon.
I don't think the answer to that question is a simple one.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuksi Gabbard is still running! Despite having been squeezed out of the third debate by rules that even pollsters think are nuts and smeared by every M$M outlet, she's continuing forward.
Good for her! The fact that the M$M takes every oppty to slam her lets you know thar she's one of the few that represents a real difference on the dem side. The rest are just droids.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I do want to vote for her in the primary.
I'd feel better about doing it if she wasn't a Democrat when it comes to gun ownership though.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tuksi Gabbard is still running! Despite having been squeezed out of the third debate by rules that even pollsters think are nuts and smeared by every M$M outlet, she's continuing forward.
Good for her! The fact that the M$M takes every oppty to slam her lets you know thar she's one of the few that represents a real difference on the dem side. The rest are just droids.
How much m$m do you consume?? I’ve barely seen her even mentioned and it wasn’t close to being slammed. You’re not making sh*t up again are you?
Anyone else have a clue why the Nationalists are such fans of hers? Disruption pure and simple?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tuksi Gabbard is still running! Despite having been squeezed out of the third debate by rules that even pollsters think are nuts and smeared by every M$M outlet, she's continuing forward.
Good for her! The fact that the M$M takes every oppty to slam her lets you know thar she's one of the few that represents a real difference on the dem side. The rest are just droids.
How much m$m do you consume?? I’ve barely seen her even mentioned and it wasn’t close to being slammed. You’re not making sh*t up again are you?
Barely mentioned, is the same thing in a different form. If the MSM took that tac with Trump the last 3 years, the Democrats would have a much better shot at winning in 2020.
Google hid her from searches, and she's in the middle of a lawsuit against Google for it. Twitter hid the fact that she was the second trending term on their website for 24 hours after the 2nd debate where she killed Harris' presidential run.
Quote:
Anyone else have a clue why the Nationalists are such fans of hers? Disruption pure and simple?
Why don't you watch a debate and see for yourself?
You'll have to watch re-runs though, because the DNC successfully "Bernied" her from the 3rd debate.
But if you can't be bothered with that, well, the fact the DNC doesn't want her and is willing to break their own rules to keep her out, and the fact that Google and Facebook didn't want her are good enough for me.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How stupid, or reclusive, or ignorant, must you be to not know that MSM is slamming her, and/or deleting any mention of her? To not know google is actively subverting any search engine results fo her, hiding her from public view?
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:How much m$m do you consume?? I’ve barely seen her even mentioned and it wasn’t close to being slammed. You’re not making sh*t up again are you?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tuksi Gabbard is still running! Despite having been squeezed out of the third debate by rules that even pollsters think are nuts and smeared by every M$M outlet, she's continuing forward.
Good for her! The fact that the M$M takes every oppty to slam her lets you know thar she's one of the few that represents a real difference on the dem side. The rest are just droids.
You really push the limits of credibility, unless you just start each post admitting that you are a Libtard, an unmitigated desert of information and knowledge.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The smearing of Tulsi Gabbard by BOTH the democrats and the m$m? Discussed already. Anyone who debates that it happened is either deliberately ignorant, mentally deficient, or lying.
Quote:
Saturday, January 12, 2019 6:52 PM Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tulsi Gabbard has already been mentioned. As a Hindu, a woman, part-Samoan AND an Iraq veteran you'd think she would be high up in the DNC identity-politics race, but her "fatal flaw" is that she wants to end our endless wars. THAT, of course, is poison for the Democratic establishment, which wants all war all the time. So of course she's getting a ration of shit, being called Assad's favorite democrat and other crap like that.
Fucking Democratic sellouts. May they burn in hell.
Quote:
Sunday, January 13, 2019 4:03 AM Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Fucking Democratic sellouts. May they burn in hell.- SIGNY
No one really wants war, you are the onlythat obsesses about it at an Olympic level. I just imagine every time you type the word you feel a little tingle. - WISHY
My god you're such a fucking moron you're an embarrassment to morons everywhere.
FROM THE LEFTWING PALMER REPORT
Tulsi Gabbard is where I draw the line. She’s a right wing lunatic, she supports Assad, she’s a Trump pal, she tried to sabotage the DNC from within in 2016, and Russia Today loves her. She’s the one Democrat I will oppose in 2020. She’s not a real Democrat, she’s Steve Bannon.
5:46 PM - 11 Jan 2019
My support for every other Democratic 2020 candidate still stands. But Tulsi Gabbard? Hell no. She should have been banned from the party a long time ago. Fucking monster. She’ll use her campaign to try to destroy the Democratic Party during the primary. I won’t allow it.
The funny part is, looking through all the tweets mentioning “Tulsi Gabbard” right now, the only ones saying positive things about her are Trump supporters and alt-right. Their deranged fantasy is that she turns the Democratic Party into a right wing puppet of the Kremlin.
HOWARD DEAN
‘No different than Trump with Putin’: Howard Dean says Tulsi Gabbard should resign for defending Assad
A furious Howard Dean blasted Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) on MSNBC Sunday morning for her defense of Syrian President Assad, with Dean saying the Hawaiian lawmaker should resign from Congress.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141749438 color = lightblue>
DAILY BEASTS'S EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Noah Shachtman
?Verified account @NoahShachtman
Tired of Putin? Vote Assad 2020!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status
DAILY KOS FOUNDER
Markos Moulitsas
These are the Tulsi Gabbard fans—Russian propaganda outlet and a KKK grand puppy dragon or whatever pretentious-ass title they give themselves.
Quote:
Friday, March 15, 2019 12:14 AM Originally posted by rue:
Media Hit-Job Continues As Colbert Ambushes Tulsi Gabbard
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-14/media-hit-job-continues-colb
ert-ambushes-tulsi-gabbard
Quote:
Friday, August 2, 2019 12:33 PM Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And here is Tulsi, getting the screw-job from a bunch of women of color ( Kamala Harris (Yanno,like she is.) Next, they'll be calling her a "Russian troll"
Quote:
Sunday, August 4, 2019 11:47 AM Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tulsi Gabbard sues Google, claims 'election interfereNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I am going to try to find what these polls are showing for Tulsi. All assistance is welcome. Otherwise, this is a reminder for me to do this.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Has anybody been following how close Tulsi is to getting the Polling threshold? If she achieves it now, it would qualify her for the October debates.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_presidential_primary_debate_(Septem
ber_12,_2019)
ABC
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Joe Biden
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julián Castro
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O’Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang
Polling criteria
A candidate must receive 2 percent support or more in four national or early state polls—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada—publicly released between June 28, 2019, and August 28, 2019. Any candidate’s four qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas. Qualifying polls are limited to the following organizations and institutions:
Associated Press
ABC News
CBS News
CNN
Des Moines Register
Fox News
Monmouth University
NBC News
New York Times
National Public Radio
Quinnipiac University
University of New Hampshire
Wall Street Journal
USA Today
Washington Post
Winthrop University
Grassroots fundraising
Candidates must also provide verifiable evidence that they reached the following fundraising thresholds:
Donations from at least 130,000 unique donors; and
A minimum of 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.
I really hope she gets into the debates, it would help waken up the Party, and re-align it. Not enough to win against Trump, but perhaps shape the future into something useful.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/clem0f/tulsi_gabbard_roa
d_to_qualifying_on_polls_and/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have heard that Gabbard only had one poll qualifying, but that might be incorrect info. Also, it seems that there was only one qualifying poll following the last debates, making it impossible for Gabbard to qualify - perhaps MSM is helping Dems do to Tulsi what DNC did to Bernie last time.
I am surprised how difficult it is to come by results on this information.
It seemed Winthrop hadn't had a poll since April.
This story from 13 August has a progress chart of who ws qualified and by how much:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-make-the-third-democrati
c-debate-and-who-could-miss-it/
Looking at RCP, I see the following polls:
11 September
CNN - Gabbard 2%
Quinnipiac - 0%
8 September
ABC/WaPo - 2%
CBS (Iowa, NH, NV, SC) - 1% each
28 August
Quinnipiac - 1%
USA Today - 0%
26 August
Monmouth - 1%
16 August
FOX News - 1%
6 August
Quinnipiac - 1%
29 July
Quinnipiac - 1%
27 July
LA Times - 0%
That is all of the qualifying polls that I see since 24 July. I welcome any input of others I've missed. It may be a concerted and coordinated effort to withhold polls while Tulsi is trying to qualify.
Tulsi had 5% in a CBS Tracker poll from 9-18 July, which had reportedly qualified her for that one poll early on.
So the 2 new ones give her 3 qualifying polls, and I guess she only needs one more.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Michael Hudson: Why We Need to Abolish the Democratic National Committee, Even if That Means Breaking Up the Democratic Party
Posted on September 12, 2019 by Yves Smith
Thursday’s debate on Walt Disney’s ABC channel is shaping up as yet another shameless charade. The pretense is that we are to select who the Democratic presidential candidate will be. But most Americans, as the Irish say, vote with their backsides, belonging to the informal but dominant party of non-voters who choose not to be sucked into legitimizing the bad choices put before them.
The debate is being presented as a reality entertainment show. The audience is invited to rate the candidates who seem most likely to implement the policy they want – but not including the economy. Most Americans are now living from paycheck to paycheck and cannot come up with even $400 in an emergency. They are afraid to go on strike or even to complain about their job, because they are afraid of getting fired – and of losing their corporate health care, knowing that getting sick may wipe them out. These problems will not appear on Walt Disney.
Voters basically want what Bernie Sanders is promising: a basic right to Single Payer health care and a retirement income. That means protection against the Republican-Democratic threats to cut back Social Security to balance the budget in the face of tax cuts for the richest One Percent and rising Cold War military spending. This means a government strong enough to take on the vested financial and corporate interests and prosecute Wall Street’s financial crime and corporate monopoly power. When neoliberals shout, “But that’s socialism,” Americans finally are beginning to say, “Then give us socialism.” It beats being ground down into debt peonage.
But here’s the trick that the TV debates sweep under the rug: It is not the voters who are empowered to choose the Democratic Party’s candidate. That privilege belongs legally to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Since stacking the political deck in 2016 to serve up Hillary Clinton as nominee, it has put in place rules that will enable its Donor Class members, superdelegates and other lobbyists for the One Percent to repeat the trickery once again in 2020.
I hope that the candidate who is clearly the voters’ choice, Bernie Sanders, may end up as the party’s nominee. If he is, I’m sure he’ll beat Donald Trump handily, as he would have done four years ago.
But I fear that the DNC’s Donor Class will push Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or even Pete Buttigieg down the throats of voters. Just as when they backed Hillary the last time around, they hope that their anointed neoliberal will be viewed as the lesser evil for a program little different from that of the Republicans.
So Thursday’s reality TV run-off is about “who’s the least evil?” An honest reality show’s questions would focus on “What are you against?” That would attract a real audience, because people are much clearer about what they’re against: the vested interests, Wall Street, the drug companies and other monopolies, the banks, landlords, corporate raiders and private-equity asset strippers. But none of this is to be permitted on the magic island of authorized candidates (not including Tulsi Gabbard, who was purged from further debates for having dared to mention the unmentionable).
... DNC donors favor Joe Biden, long-time senator from the credit-card and corporate-shell state of Delaware, and opportunistic California prosecutor Kamala Harris, with a hopey-changey grab bag alternative in smooth-talking small-town Rorschach blot candidate Pete Buttigieg. These easy victims are presented as “electable” in full knowledge that they will fail against Trump.
... The effect [of the DNC's shift towards serving the 1% - SIGNY] has been to make America into a one-party state. ... ThNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wasn't at home for the third debate, so I just got around to watching the first hour of it (out of 3).
One weird and possibly true factoid I read is that most people watch only the first third, so at this point I'm where most people supposedly are.
CNN said that Biden, Harris and O'Rourke won the debate, but I was too slow capturing the article and now it's gone. WaPo and the NYTimes both opined that Trump won the debate. But the NYTimes gives Warren first place, Harris second, and Booker third.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/13/opinion/debate-winners-
losers.html
In the first hour Sanders and Warren got precious little air time. I thought Harris and O,Rourke got a huge amount relatively speaking. If I were trying to read the tea leaves for meaning, I would say that tptb really don't want either Sanders or Warren.
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
WaPo and the NYTimes both opined that Trump won the debate.
What did I say about the media slowly coming out and "reluctantly" backing Trump.
There's no way they want that money train to end.
Quote:
But the NYTimes gives Warren first place, Harris second, and Booker third.
I think Warren is going to be the nominee.
The Twitter army, made up of ex-Clinton staffers have started gunning for Susan Sarandon again, and blaming the last 3 years of Trump on her inability to put women first when she didn't vote for Hillary after the DNC and MSN screwed Bernie Sanders. I think the best Tweet so far was something along the lines of "What, do they bring her out of a cryogenic freeze every time a female candidate has a chance at winning the Presidency?".
Biden isn't looking good these days. Did you see when he brought up a what-if scenario where he asked what would happen if Obama had been assassinated after he was the nominee, then went on and said that 40 kids were killed at Kent state and segwayed into how he was the first US Senator he knew?
It seriously made zero sense, and if you're going to bring up a what-if like that it better come to a serious point. I'm sure he had one, but he lost it mid thought. And by the way, buddy, 4 kids were killed at Kent State and 9 were injured.
He also forgot Warren's name once or twice in the 3rd debate.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Someone ... I think it was The Duran ... opined that TPTB (the deep state in this case) back candidates on which they have kompromat. That way, should the candidate win, TPTB can arm-twist them into following their policies.
I know Hillary was deeply corrupt. My god, she didn't jave "dirt" on her, she had an entire farm's-worth! I heard her and Bill described as "Arkansas grifters" ... yeah, but with a phenomenal string of "suicides" in their wake!
I think Obama was compromised somewhere: How else could he have done such an amazing U-turn from his campaign promises to his appointment?
GW Bush! Well! Aside from being Cheney's brain-blown meat puppet, he had this nice cozy relationship with Bandar "Bush" bin Sultan, Saudi's chief henchman and head of their jihadist proxies. (9-11 info is finally coming out, thanks to lawsuits filed against the Saudi government, which had been blocked by all previous WH administrations)
We already know about Bill,
HW Bush WAS the deep state, and Reagan was HIS meat-puppet.
*****
Anyway, the DNC and TPTB only want people they can control. Candidates with nothng serious in their past aren't controllable.
*****
BTW Tulsi Gabbard is STILL running, despite not being included in the debate, and is doing well in the early primary states, in some cases outpollig Harris who's just a political hack who'll do anything to climb the political ladder.
I intend to donate to Tulsi's campaign. She stuck up for Sanders more than Sanders stuck up for Sanders ... she quit the vice-chair of DNC while he just rolled over and endorsed Hillary. I think she has more integrity, I like her foreign policy better, and overall I think she'd make a better candidate than Sanders. Plus, she'll keep the foreign policy debate alive.
She doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, but she'll be a good influence on the other candidates.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
From today's NYTimes - front page, above the fold:
Kamala Harris Was Ready to Fight From the Beginning
In her first race, she defied her old boss, a fund-raising pledge, and the implication that she owed her career to her ex-boyfriend.
6m ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/us/politics/kamala-harris-san-franc
isco-da.html?
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who did worst, and who did best in third debate?
https://www.statista.com/chart/19363/democratic-primary-polling/
But I'm still pulling for Tulsi. The DNC is doing their best to smother her, just as they did Steyer and Williamson. Just more DNC shenanigans.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That graph only shows 9 candidates. So one of the already qualified is missing, as well as Tulsi being absent.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Who did worst, and who did best in third debate?
https://www.statista.com/chart/19363/democratic-primary-polling/
But I'm still pulling for Tulsi. The DNC is doing their best to smother her, just as they did Steyer and Williamson. Just more DNC shenanigans.
Conspiracy of omission, anyone?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My friends from Canada were kind of mind-blown to realize that they could come to America, and get quick medical care, instead of being placed on a 2-year waiting list to diagnose an ailment which would kill them in 6 months.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I keep hearing that the winner of all of the Dem debates so far has been...Trump.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I wasn't at home for the third debate, so I just got around to watching the first hour of it (out of 3).
One weird and possibly true factoid I read is that most people watch only the first third, so at this point I'm where most people supposedly are.
CNN said that Biden, Harris and O'Rourke won the debate, but I was too slow capturing the article and now it's gone. WaPo and the NYTimes both opined that Trump won the debate. But the NYTimes gives Warren first place, Harris second, and Booker third.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/13/opinion/debate-winners-
losers.html
In the first hour Sanders and Warren got precious little air time. I thought Harris and O,Rourke got a huge amount relatively speaking. If I were trying to read the tea leaves for meaning, I would say that tptb really don't want either Sanders or Warren.
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:RCP shows no new polls since 11 September.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have heard that Gabbard only had one poll qualifying, but that might be incorrect info. Also, it seems that there was only one qualifying poll following the last debates, making it impossible for Gabbard to qualify - perhaps MSM is helping Dems do to Tulsi what DNC did to Bernie last time.
I am surprised how difficult it is to come by results on this information.
It seemed Winthrop hadn't had a poll since April.
This story from 13 August has a progress chart of who ws qualified and by how much:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-make-the-third-democrati
c-debate-and-who-could-miss-it/
Looking at RCP, I see the following polls:
11 September
CNN - Gabbard 2%
Quinnipiac - 0%
8 September
ABC/WaPo - 2%
CBS (Iowa, NH, NV, SC) - 1% each
28 August
Quinnipiac - 1%
USA Today - 0%
26 August
Monmouth - 1%
16 August
FOX News - 1%
6 August
Quinnipiac - 1%
29 July
Quinnipiac - 1%
27 July
LA Times - 0%
That is all of the qualifying polls that I see since 24 July. I welcome any input of others I've missed. It may be a concerted and coordinated effort to withhold polls while Tulsi is trying to qualify.
Tulsi had 5% in a CBS Tracker poll from 9-18 July, which had reportedly qualified her for that one poll early on.
So the 2 new ones give her 3 qualifying polls, and I guess she only needs one more.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders
Quote:NONE of my friends from Canada ever had that happen. One friend had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma at a young age, and went through an entire regime of chemotherapy, finally being successfully treated with a stem-cell transplant - all for free. Another one had a very elderly mother who required a lot of medical care, who lived a comfortable long life for decades in a Canadian nursing home - all for free. Another friend who was a therapist was able to treat a patient through extensive neuro-rehabilitation after the patient lost a good chunk of brain function to herpes encephalitis - all for free.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
My friends from Canada were kind of mind-blown to realize that they could come to America, and get quick medical care, instead of being placed on a 2-year waiting list to diagnose an ailment which would kill them in 6 months.
These would either not have been treated in the US, or they would have bankrupted the patients and their families.
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders And at half the per capita cost as the US.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio drops out of 2020 presidential race
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NYTimes today
Young Black Voters’ Message to Parents: Break Up With Biden
An organic effort by black millennials and Gen Z-ers to influence older family members against Joe Biden may be important in the Democratic primary.
Young people still “feel the bern,” but not just for Bernie Sanders anymore.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's either Warren or Biden.
DNC doesn't care. They're good with either of them.
Neither of them will win the General.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you think they're OK with Sanders?
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders And at half the per capita cost as the US.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, fwiw, I agree about Sanders. I'm just not sure how bought / compromised Warren is, or if they're just settling for her as the best available Biden ver B. Neither Buttigieg nor Harris seem to be breaking out into an acceptable poll number (though Harris keeps slowly sinking, and Buttigieg has come up some, and they are now about equal).
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders And at half the per capita cost as the US.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Well, fwiw, I agree about Sanders. I'm just not sure how bought / compromised Warren is, or if they're just settling for her as the best available Biden ver B. Neither Buttigieg nor Harris seem to be breaking out into an acceptable poll number (though Harris keeps slowly sinking, and Buttigieg has come up some, and they are now about equal).
“It was kind of mind blowing to realize that the country 50 miles away from where I live — that people could go to the doctor whenever they wanted and not have to take out their wallet.” B. Sanders And at half the per capita cost as the US.
Warren is just another Nancy Pelosi when you pull away the fake buckskin dress and moccasins.
I think the DNC is really worried about Biden's mental health. They need a backup. I think they wanted it to be Harris, but Tulsi destroyed her so they punished Tulsi by illegitimately barring her from the 3rd debate.
Bernie's just a clown they're parading around because a large demographic of Democrat voters would revolt if he weren't up there too. He's just there to eventually bow out once it's clear to everyone that he will lose and then he will be endorsing Biden or Warren, whoever is the top dog at that point. I think it will be Biden still, although that's only because he's still polling the highest despite his string of pretty major gaffes recently.
I know the Democrats have nearly perfected the art of Weekend at Bernies-ing their politicians by now, from Ted Kennedy to Ginsberg, but this might be the first time they put a mindless meat puppet into office. Shows how desperate they are.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tulsi Gabbard
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-tulsi-gabbard-wipe-floor-wel
l-known-war-hawk
Watch Tulsi Gabbard Wipe The Floor With A Well-Known War Hawk
“Look Neil, I’m a soldier,” Gabbard began after Cavuto went on the offensive. “And I took an oath as a soldier as well as a member of Congress to support and defend our Constitution of the United States, to serve the American people.”
“And it’s a huge disgrace to hear our commander-in-chief basically put us in a position —the American people, our men and women in uniform, our military assets — in a position where we are servants of the Saudi kingdom. Standing by and awaiting their orders on how we should proceed.”
Indeed Gabbard remains a rare voice: as a veteran seeking to dismantle American Empire and its regime change wars abroad, akin to a "Ron Paul of the Left".
This is why it appears the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep her out of the debates, despite her consistently polling higher than some of those who do make it to the stage.
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
cross posted here
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61974&p=2
Where has SIG and 1kiki's outrage about anyone allying with Saudia (sic) Araba(sic) gone ?
and here
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63022&p=6
my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have heard that Gabbard only had one poll qualifying, but that might be incorrect info. Also, it seems that there was only one qualifying poll following the last debates, making it impossible for Gabbard to qualify - perhaps MSM is helping Dems do to Tulsi what DNC did to Bernie last time.
I am surprised how difficult it is to come by results on this information.
It seemed Winthrop hadn't had a poll since April.
This story from 13 August has a progress chart of who ws qualified and by how much:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-make-the-third-democrati
c-debate-and-who-could-miss-it/
Looking at RCP, I see the following polls:
11 September
CNN - Gabbard 2%
Quinnipiac - 0%
8 September
ABC/WaPo - 2%
CBS (Iowa, NH, NV, SC) - 1% each
28 August
Quinnipiac - 1%
USA Today - 0%
26 August
Monmouth - 1%
16 August
FOX News - 1%
6 August
Quinnipiac - 1%
29 July
Quinnipiac - 1%
27 July
LA Times - 0%
That is all of the qualifying polls that I see since 24 July. I welcome any input of others I've missed. It may be a concerted and coordinated effort to withhold polls while Tulsi is trying to qualify.
Tulsi had 5% in a CBS Tracker poll from 9-18 July, which had reportedly qualified her for that one poll early on.
So the 2 new ones give her 3 qualifying polls, and I guess she only needs one more.
17 Sept
NBC News - 1%
19 Sept
New Jersey from Monmouth - 2%
FOX News - 0%
22 Sept
Des Moines Register - 2%
I listed the Monmouth because it is a qualifying source, but New Jersey is not included in the geopgraphical regions allowed for qualifications.
But it looks like 22 Sept gives Tulsi the 4th poll she needed.
I have not heard anything about this on Fake News.
Will DNC disqualify her for some excuse?
Rearrange the Qualifications?
Change the deadlines?
Will she be in the next debates?
I hope she takes down Fauxcahontas
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Has anybody heard if they are allowing Tulsi into the debates?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have heard that Gabbard only had one poll qualifying, but that might be incorrect info. Also, it seems that there was only one qualifying poll following the last debates, making it impossible for Gabbard to qualify - perhaps MSM is helping Dems do to Tulsi what DNC did to Bernie last time.
I am surprised how difficult it is to come by results on this information.
It seemed Winthrop hadn't had a poll since April.
This story from 13 August has a progress chart of who ws qualified and by how much:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-make-the-third-democrati
c-debate-and-who-could-miss-it/
Looking at RCP, I see the following polls:
11 September
CNN - Gabbard 2%
Quinnipiac - 0%
8 September
ABC/WaPo - 2%
CBS (Iowa, NH, NV, SC) - 1% each
28 August
Quinnipiac - 1%
USA Today - 0%
26 August
Monmouth - 1%
16 August
FOX News - 1%
6 August
Quinnipiac - 1%
29 July
Quinnipiac - 1%
27 July
LA Times - 0%
That is all of the qualifying polls that I see since 24 July. I welcome any input of others I've missed. It may be a concerted and coordinated effort to withhold polls while Tulsi is trying to qualify.
Tulsi had 5% in a CBS Tracker poll from 9-18 July, which had reportedly qualified her for that one poll early on.
So the 2 new ones give her 3 qualifying polls, and I guess she only needs one more.
17 Sept
NBC News - 1%
19 Sept
New Jersey from Monmouth - 2%
FOX News - 0%
22 Sept
Des Moines Register - 2%
I listed the Monmouth because it is a qualifying source, but New Jersey is not included in the geopgraphical regions allowed for qualifications.
But it looks like 22 Sept gives Tulsi the 4th poll she needed.
I have not heard anything about this on Fake News.
Will DNC disqualify her for some excuse?
Rearrange the Qualifications?
Change the deadlines?
Will she be in the next debates?
I hope she takes down Fauxcahontas
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who has qualified for the fourth Democratic debate - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2019/09/17 › who-has-qualifie...
3 hours ago - Gabbard appears to be the 12th candidate to qualify for the October debate.
Also
Who Will Make The Fourth Democratic Debate? | FiveThirtyEight
https://fivethirtyeight.com › features › at-least-11-candidates-will-make-the...
Sep 9, 2019 - Billionaire Tom Steyer has qualified for the fourth Democratic presidential primary debate.
And
De Blasio Quits Presidential Race; Trump Gloats - The New ...
https://www.nytimes.com › nyregion › de-blasio-2020-drops-out
Sep 20, 2019 - Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, whose run for the Democratic ... to the mayor that he would not qualify for the fourth Democratic debate ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup. Tulsi is in.
They're splitting it into two debates though. 11 was fine for one, but 12 is somehow the magic number where they need a split.
There's zero chance that Tulsi and Warren are going to be in the same debate. The DNC wouldn't allow that. My only real question is whether Biden and Warren will be.
Remember, after the first priority of making the DNC pick look good, this is all about ratings here folks. If it weren't, only the top 5 would be in one debate and they'd throw the rest of them in the 2nd debate that nobody would watch. They're going to split up the top 3 somehow.
The way I figure it, whoever is in the same debate as Tulsi is the one(s) the DNC is throwing under the bus.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Speaking of the literal Devil...
Has anybody else heard rumors that Clinton is going to announce she's running during her upcoming week long press tour for some dumb book that nobody but pink haired man hating weirdos and Wishy are going to buy?
Just when I thought the Democrats couldn't possibly become more entertaining...
Please, please announce you're running, Hillary.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh... Not that I'd ever vote for any of them, but a little PSA to our lefty friends here...
According to Newsweek, if you support Bernie for 2020 over Warren, it's because you're no better than those incel, neck-beard, basement dwelling trolls that didn't watch Ghostbusters in 2016.
https://www.newsweek.com/msnbc-pundit-sexism-elizabeth-warren-bernie-s
anders-iowa-poll-gender-glass-ceiling-1461926
You people are so easy to manipulate.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree with this assessment. Since she is Bernie light, what if they put her and Bernie together, protecting Faux-cahontas and BiteMe?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup. Tulsi is in.
They're splitting it into two debates though. 11 was fine for one, but 12 is somehow the magic number where they need a split.
There's zero chance that Tulsi and Warren are going to be in the same debate. The DNC wouldn't allow that. My only real question is whether Biden and Warren will be.
Remember, after the first priority of making the DNC pick look good, this is all about ratings here folks. If it weren't, only the top 5 would be in one debate and they'd throw the rest of them in the 2nd debate that nobody would watch. They're going to split up the top 3 somehow.
The way I figure it, whoever is in the same debate as Tulsi is the one(s) the DNC is throwing under the bus.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Anybody follow Vegas odds? How likely are Tulsi and Faux-cahontas to be in the same debate?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I agree with this assessment. Since she is Bernie light, what if they put her and Bernie together, protecting Faux-cahontas and BiteMe?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yup. Tulsi is in.
They're splitting it into two debates though. 11 was fine for one, but 12 is somehow the magic number where they need a split.
There's zero chance that Tulsi and Warren are going to be in the same debate. The DNC wouldn't allow that. My only real question is whether Biden and Warren will be.
Remember, after the first priority of making the DNC pick look good, this is all about ratings here folks. If it weren't, only the top 5 would be in one debate and they'd throw the rest of them in the 2nd debate that nobody would watch. They're going to split up the top 3 somehow.
The way I figure it, whoever is in the same debate as Tulsi is the one(s) the DNC is throwing under the bus.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I agree with this assessment. Since she is Bernie light, what if they put her and Bernie together, protecting Faux-cahontas and BiteMe?
Quote:Eh, sorry, I can't answer that.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anybody follow Vegas odds? How likely are Tulsi and Faux-cahontas to be in the same debate?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Redundant.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Speaking of the literal Devil...
Has anybody else heard rumors that Clinton is going to announce she's running during her upcoming week long press tour for some dumb book that nobody but pink haired man hating weirdos and Wishy are going to buy?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You found these, going back a couple weeks it seems. But I have not heard one mention of Tulsi in the debate from MSM. Has anybody? Or are they keeping it a secret? No point in Fake News spouting any such thing as News, right?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Who has qualified for the fourth Democratic debate - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2019/09/17 › who-has-qualifie...
3 hours ago - Gabbard appears to be the 12th candidate to qualify for the October debate.
Also
Who Will Make The Fourth Democratic Debate? | FiveThirtyEight
https://fivethirtyeight.com › features › at-least-11-candidates-will-make-the...
Sep 9, 2019 - Billionaire Tom Steyer has qualified for the fourth Democratic presidential primary debate.
And
De Blasio Quits Presidential Race; Trump Gloats - The New ...
https://www.nytimes.com › nyregion › de-blasio-2020-drops-out
Sep 20, 2019 - Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, whose run for the Democratic ... to the mayor that he would not qualify for the fourth Democratic debate ...
BTW, folk keep asking me about who this Tulsi person is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
with Hillary opening her yap recently about her marriage ("gutsiest thing I ever did)
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/hillary-clinton-staying-marri
age-gutsiest-thing-014611
and Ukraine
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/01/hillary-clinto
n-mike-pompeo-late-show/3828685002/
and Syria
https://nationandstate.com/2019/10/07/clinton-graham-claim-trumps-syri
a-withdrawal-will-ensure-the-return-of-isis/
it looks to me that Hillary is hoping for another bite of the apple.
Jeez.
I looked up CA voting to see if I could write someone in ... I can't. If I'm faced with something like a Pence/ Hillary choice I need to figure out a way of adequately expressing my disgust, besides staying home.
But if the ticket doesn't have Trump on it, I'll bet you will see the lowest voter turnout in decades and decades.
Dems are upset that Trump doesn't behave like a "normal" politician, but that's exactly WHY people voted for him. In Italy, they voted for a comedian (Beppo Grillo/ Five Star) in Hungary they voted for a comic actor (Zelenskiy). It's just an expression of how frustrated people are with "establishment" politicians of all parties who just keep fucking their people in the ass.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60278&p=17
Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria
Sanders criticized withdrawing troops from Syria. Perhaps it's because of a deeply felt personal identity of being part of a community of Jewish Holocaust survivors and those who fled ahead of time (including his Polish Jewish parents). Sanders is Jewish. His sense of Jewishness might be overwhelming his generally secular, universal call for a just and peaceful society. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-bernie-sanders-is-finally-wil
ling-to-talk-about-being-jewish-1.7829380
Warren OTOH supported the withdrawal. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-troops-syria/
index.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Being Jewish, why does he constantly support and vote for every opportunity to screw over Jews of Israel? Does he also want the Israeli Capital to be in Tripoli, Jordan, or Kandahar?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60278&p=17
Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria
Sanders criticized withdrawing troops from Syria. Perhaps it's because of a deeply felt personal identity of being part of a community of Jewish Holocaust survivors and those who fled ahead of time (including his Polish Jewish parents). Sanders is Jewish. His sense of Jewishness might be overwhelming his generally secular, universal call for a just and peaceful society. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-bernie-sanders-is-finally-wil
ling-to-talk-about-being-jewish-1.7829380
Warren OTOH supported the withdrawal. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-troops-syria/
index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JSF
Could you please post examples? Thanks!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, darn, I couldn't find the thread where Jack says that Hillary is going to run.
But I give him all credit for being at the forefront of that speculation, which has been coming up to speed over the last few days.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hillary-rockets-3rd-place-predicti
t-rumors-swirl-over-2020-run
from predictit
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hillary-taunts-trump-2020-tweet-te
ase
Hillary Clinton('s social media team) fired off a response to President Trump's Tuesday tweet that "Crooked Hillary Clinton should enter the race," adding "Only one condition. The Crooked one must explain all of her high crimes and misdemeanors including how & why she deleted 33,000 Emails AFTER getting “C” Subpoena!"
Hitting back, Hillary Clinton's Twitter account responded:
"Don't tempt me. Do your job."
As we noted earlier Tuesday, speculation is rampant that Clinton is going to enter the 2020 presidential race for a third bite at the apple.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/elizabeth-warrens-story-about-gett
ing-fired-being-visibly-pregnant-unravels-after
Elizabeth Warren's Story About Getting Fired For Being "Visibly Pregnant" Unravels After Documents, Video Emerge
Maybe this is why Twitter is abuzz with rumors of Hillary Clinton putting the ol' pantsuit on again to try and knock Trump off the mountain.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Credit doesn't go to me though.
I just watch legitimate news sources that fact check and don't push propoganda from either side.
Independent journalism is where it's at. I've known of inklings that Hillary was planning on running as early as her book tour was announced. Probably nearly two weeks ago, which was long before Trump made that tweet.
It's also suspected that she's not even seriously running. There is an investigation that is commencing into Hillary as we speak concerning her server her e-mails that is getting very little coverage in the Legacy Media, and I'm assuming even on Fox News.
It's speculated that her possible run for President will just be a way to get public opinion against the Trump administration for investigating her while she's a candidate for President since that is working out so well for Biden at the moment.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Joe Biden is a poor debater and a majority of people want to see him and Hunter investigated re Ukraine. Sanders had a heart attack. And Warren had another incident of being caught faking her personal history - she was not let go for being 'visibly pregnant'.
I wonder how it'll play out in the polls.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah. I just heard about Warren lying about her pregnancy firing too. There's supposedly a few videos years back where she talks about leaving her teaching career when she got pregnant and never even gave any hints that she was fired for it or there was any bad blood there.
Warren has a real problem with lying, and she has a vagina. She's the perfect follow up front runner to Hillary Clinton. The DNC approves.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There probably aren't too many people who despise Hillary more than I do, but damn! ... you have a problem with women in general, don't you?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Warren has a real problem with lying, and she has a vagina. She's the perfect follow up front runner to Hillary Clinton. The DNC approves. Do Right, Be Right. :)
Nothing that Warren has said is worse, or more, than anything that Biden has said ... or that Trump has said. And as far as I can tell, Warren's 'real problem with lying' looks significantly less than average to me, especially when compared to Biden ... or Trump.
Politicians lie. So ... yanno ... grow up and get over it! And stop fixating on women.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There probably aren't too many people who despise Hillary more than I do, but damn! ... you have a problem with women in general, don't you?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Warren has a real problem with lying, and she has a vagina. She's the perfect follow up front runner to Hillary Clinton. The DNC approves. Do Right, Be Right. :)
Nothing that Warren has said is worse, or more, than anything that Biden has said ... or that Trump has said. And as far as I can tell, Warren's 'real problem with lying' looks significantly less than average to me, especially when compared to Biden ... or Trump.
Politicians lie. So ... yanno ... grow up and get over it! And stop fixating on women.
Nope. Not saying I have a problem with women at all. Just Democrats.
If you haven't noticed, there has been a growing consensus on the left, long before Bernie had the heart attack, that if you support Bernie Sanders over Warren that it's because you're sexist.
Democrats, particularly the DNC, are playing the vagina card again.
I really don't give a shit who's wins the Democratic Primaries. They're all liars. Trump is a liar. All politicians are liars. Neither set of sexual organs have a monopoly on the truth.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's some links, in case anybody accueses me of making that up.
https://www.newsweek.com/msnbc-pundit-sexism-elizabeth-warren-bernie-s
anders-iowa-poll-gender-glass-ceiling-1461926
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/27/warren-sanders-are-
similar-only-one-seems-know-what-itll-take-win/
This Harpers article is particularly cringe worthy:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26517395/bernie-sander
s-2020-campaign-gender-comments-explained/
Jimmy's take on the MSNBC Bernie slam:
And the MSNBC slam on the slammer's channel since MSNBC likes taking its videos down:
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If you haven't noticed, there has been a growing consensus on the left, long before Bernie had the heart attack, that if you support Bernie Sanders over Warren that it's because you're sexist.
Democrats, particularly the DNC, are playing the vagina card again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Quote:I'll get to the videos later (I've got things to do today), but you realize that these claims re sexism AREN'T coming from the DNC, or the candidates, or their campaigns ... right? They're coming from the same chattering class (owned by the ultra-wealthy corporatists) that promoted Hillary.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's some links, in case anybody accueses me of making that up.
https://www.newsweek.com/msnbc-pundit-sexism-elizabeth-warren-bernie-s
anders-iowa-poll-gender-glass-ceiling-1461926
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/27/warren-sanders-are-
similar-only-one-seems-know-what-itll-take-win/
This Harpers article is particularly cringe worthy:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26517395/bernie-sander
s-2020-campaign-gender-comments-explained/
Jimmy's take on the MSNBC Bernie slam:
http://www.yout ube.com/watch?v=9l-DnyNjL08
And the MSNBC slam on the slammer's channel since MSNBC likes taking its videos down:
http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=tTCPw8Hr4ew
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll try to remember this, from the prior page.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
JSF
Could you please post examples? Thanks!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:2nd post of this thread.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Well, darn, I couldn't find the thread where Jack says that Hillary is going to run.
Quote:
But I give him all credit for being at the forefront of that speculation, which has been coming up to speed over the last few days.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hillary-rockets-3rd-place-predicti
t-rumors-swirl-over-2020-run
from predictit
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hillary-taunts-trump-2020-tweet-te
ase
Hillary Clinton('s social media team) fired off a response to President Trump's Tuesday tweet that "Crooked Hillary Clinton should enter the race," adding "Only one condition. The Crooked one must explain all of her high crimes and misdemeanors including how & why she deleted 33,000 Emails AFTER getting “C” Subpoena!"
Hitting back, Hillary Clinton's Twitter account responded:
"Don't tempt me. Do your job."
As we noted earlier Tuesday, speculation is rampant that Clinton is going to enter the 2020 presidential race for a third bite at the apple.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/elizabeth-warrens-story-about-gett
ing-fired-being-visibly-pregnant-unravels-after
Elizabeth Warren's Story About Getting Fired For Being "Visibly Pregnant" Unravels After Documents, Video Emerge
Maybe this is why Twitter is abuzz with rumors of Hillary Clinton putting the ol' pantsuit on again to try and knock Trump off the mountain.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Word was that Trump was not seriously running, it was just a lark, or for publicity. He never intended to win, nor expected to. His Election victory was as much a surprise to him as all of his other Liberal friends.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Credit doesn't go to me though.
I just watch legitimate news sources that fact check and don't push propoganda from either side.
Independent journalism is where it's at. I've known of inklings that Hillary was planning on running as early as her book tour was announced. Probably nearly two weeks ago, which was long before Trump made that tweet.
It's also suspected that she's not even seriously running. There is an investigation that is commencing into Hillary as we speak concerning her server her e-mails that is getting very little coverage in the Legacy Media, and I'm assuming even on Fox News.
It's speculated that her possible run for President will just be a way to get public opinion against the Trump administration for investigating her while she's a candidate for President since that is working out so well for Biden at the moment.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Just because Hilliary is not seriously running, does not mean that it will end well for America.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There probably aren't too many people who despise Hillary more than I do, but damn! ... you have a problem with women in general, don't you?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Warren has a real problem with lying, and she has a vagina. She's the perfect follow up front runner to Hillary Clinton. The DNC approves. Do Right, Be Right. :)
Nothing that Warren has said is worse, or more, than anything that Biden has said ... or that Trump has said. And as far as I can tell, Warren's 'real problem with lying' looks significantly less than average to me, especially when compared to Biden ... or Trump.
Politicians lie. So ... yanno ... grow up and get over it! And stop fixating on women.
I cannot speak to 6ix hating all women, but I don't see any failure in his point about Cankle Cackler and Faux-cahontas.
Although I wish the Dems would put up a serious candidate, at least if they nominate Faux-cahontas they can ensure Democraps won't win the White House.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If you haven't noticed, there has been a growing consensus on the left, long before Bernie had the heart attack, that if you support Bernie Sanders over Warren that it's because you're sexist.
Democrats, particularly the DNC, are playing the vagina card again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Quote:I'll get to the videos later (I've got things to do today), but you realize that these claims re sexism AREN'T coming from the DNC, or the candidates, or their campaigns ... right? They're coming from the same chattering class (owned by the ultra-wealthy corporatists) that promoted Hillary.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's some links, in case anybody accueses me of making that up.
https://www.newsweek.com/msnbc-pundit-sexism-elizabeth-warren-bernie-s
anders-iowa-poll-gender-glass-ceiling-1461926
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/27/warren-sanders-are-
similar-only-one-seems-know-what-itll-take-win/
This Harpers article is particularly cringe worthy:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26517395/bernie-sander
s-2020-campaign-gender-comments-explained/
Jimmy's take on the MSNBC Bernie slam:
http://www.yout ube.com/watch?v=9l-DnyNjL08
And the MSNBC slam on the slammer's channel since MSNBC likes taking its videos down:
http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=tTCPw8Hr4ew
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Wait.
Are you conjuring that MSM is not a Department of DNC?
Really? You really conjure that?
The media bubble around you must be very strong.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The connection is there, but I think your org chart is wrong. They're both departments of the internationalist Deep State. (And many republicans - except perhaps Trump who may be a loose cannon - are a department of the more nationalist Deep State.)
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Wait.
Are you conjuring that MSM is not a Department of DNC?
Really? You really conjure that?
The media bubble around you must be very strong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If you haven't noticed, there has been a growing consensus on the left, long before Bernie had the heart attack, that if you support Bernie Sanders over Warren that it's because you're sexist.
Democrats, particularly the DNC, are playing the vagina card again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Quote:I'll get to the videos later (I've got things to do today), but you realize that these claims re sexism AREN'T coming from the DNC, or the candidates, or their campaigns ... right? They're coming from the same chattering class (owned by the ultra-wealthy corporatists) that promoted Hillary.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's some links, in case anybody accueses me of making that up.
https://www.newsweek.com/msnbc-pundit-sexism-elizabeth-warren-bernie-s
anders-iowa-poll-gender-glass-ceiling-1461926
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/27/warren-sanders-are-
similar-only-one-seems-know-what-itll-take-win/
This Harpers article is particularly cringe worthy:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26517395/bernie-sander
s-2020-campaign-gender-comments-explained/
Jimmy's take on the MSNBC Bernie slam:
http://www.yout ube.com/watch?v=9l-DnyNjL08
And the MSNBC slam on the slammer's channel since MSNBC likes taking its videos down:
http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=tTCPw8Hr4ew
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I don't see how that really matters. That only means that maybe they've actually learned a little bit from their loss last time when that rhetoric backfired on them.
Remember the "I'm With Her" campaign? The Basket of Deplorables comment? Hillary showing up on the Ellen show with the gals from Ghostbusters 2016 wearing the full Ghostbusters get up?
Just because Warren herself hasn't started with the bullshit doesn't mean that she won't in the future. There really isn't any point to doing that yet since she would probably be viewed as attacking other female candidates up on stage with her. But I doubt very much that behavior will continue when and if she's running against Trump.
What I'd really appreciate from you, Kiki, is to stop jumping on that bullshit feminist platform when I don't say something you approve of regarding gender.
Do I come off to you as somebody who polices my language for anybody?
I'm calling bullshit where I see it. Sorry not sorry if my use of the word vagina offends your delicate sensibilities. It doesn't mean that I hate women. I'm just not a fan of anybody who uses genitalia to assert their dominance over others, nor of anybody who allows somebody else to get away with that behavior.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The connection is there, but I think your org chart is wrong. They're both departments of the internationalist Deep State. (And many republicans - except perhaps Trump who may be a loose cannon - are a department of the more nationalist Deep State.)
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Wait.
Are you conjuring that MSM is not a Department of DNC?
Really? You really conjure that?
The media bubble around you must be very strong.
A bit too tight knit to be lateral sibling departments.
There is no part of the MSM which is not controlled by DNC. But there are parts of the DNC which do not control MSM.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What I'd really appreciate from you, Jack, is to stop pumping that bullshit of criticizing only women for something both sexes do, just because they have a vagina and you have a grotch. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
"What I'd really appreciate from you, Jack, is to stop pumping that bullshit of criticizing only women for something both sexes do, just because they have a vagina and you have a grotch. "
Really.
I don't recall a Trump campaign slogan along the lines of "Vote for me because I have a dick".
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Warren didn't say that. What she said (lied) was - I had an experience many women have. And it's true. Many women have that experience. If they didn't Warren wouldn't have used it as common ground.
Looking at Trump (for example) - he said vote for me because I'm a fabulously successful man who OBVIOUSLY knows how to get things done. (BTW, I suspect that's why he doesn't want his taxes released - not because of any cheating, but because it would show his VIP claims were pretty faked.) And I don't see you criticizing him for his overweening male ego.
Biden lied about an award ceremony, among other things. Hillary lied about landing under fire, among other things. These lies are all told to get people to affiliate with you in some way. And neither sex has the moral high ground on that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Warren didn't say that. What she said (lied) was - I had an experience many women have. And it's true. Many women have that experience. If they didn't Warren wouldn't have used it as common ground.
Looking at Trump (for example) - he said vote for me because I'm a fabulously successful man who OBVIOUSLY knows how to get things done. (BTW, I suspect that's why he doesn't want his taxes released - not because of any cheating, but because it would show his VIP claims were pretty faked.) And I don't see you criticizing him for his overweening male ego.
Biden lied about an award ceremony, among other things. Hillary lied about landing under fire, among other things. These lies are all told to get people to affiliate with you in some way. And neither sex has the moral high ground on that.
My point is, Hillary DID say that. And the Legacy Media couldn't stop saying it.
Though it has toned down in the last three years, you couldn't escape the gender bullshit in 2016.
The fact that Warren hasn't said it yet is actually, no pun intended, PROGRESSIVE. Hey, look at that... it's 2019 and a female candidate for President doesn't need to go around reminding everyone she has a vagina when they're lying to everyone like all the boys do.
But that doesn't stop the media for doing it for her though still, apparently.
Why should I criticize Trump for his overwhelming EGO, male or not. He ain't my daddy. And besides.. I know he's an asshole. That's why I voted for him.
And yanno what? For all the assholishness Trump had on display during his campaign, and all of the shitty things he had to say about Hillary, I don't ever once recall him saying "Don't vote for my opponent because she has a vagina" either.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Warren didn't say that. What she said (lied) was - I had an experience many women have. And it's true. Many women have that experience. If they didn't Warren wouldn't have used it as common ground.
Looking at Trump (for example) - he said vote for me because I'm a fabulously successful man who OBVIOUSLY knows how to get things done. (BTW, I suspect that's why he doesn't want his taxes released - not because of any cheating, but because it would show his VIP claims were pretty faked.) And I don't see you criticizing him for his overweening male ego.
Biden lied about an award ceremony, among other things. Hillary lied about landing under fire, among other things. These lies are all told to get people to affiliate with you in some way. And neither sex has the moral high ground on that.
Quote:So you agree with me. Warren hasn't said 'it'. The Candidates in general haven't said 'it'. The DNC hasn't said 'it'. A relatively few ppl of the chattering class did, but when I read what you posted, they quote other people of the chattering class.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
My point is, Hillary DID say that. And the Legacy Media couldn't stop saying it.
Though it has toned down in the last three years, you couldn't escape the gender bullshit in 2016.
The fact that Warren hasn't said it yet is actually, no pun intended, PROGRESSIVE. Hey, look at that... it's 2019 and a female candidate for President doesn't need to go around reminding everyone she has a vagina when they're lying to everyone like all the boys do.
But that doesn't stop the media for doing it for her though still, apparently.
Why should I criticize Trump for his overwhelming EGO, male or not. He ain't my daddy. And besides.. I know he's an asshole. That's why I voted for him.
And yanno what? For all the assholishness Trump had on display during his campaign, and all of the shitty things he had to say about Hillary, I don't ever once recall him saying "Don't vote for my opponent because she has a vagina" either.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I'll try and dig out that list again, of what intl oligarch owns what major media outlet. They have an agenda all their own.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Watch the jimmy dore video. You'll see who the idiot it working for.
As for agreeing with you, only temporarily. If Warren is the nominee I have serious doubts that she'll continue not to do it.
Not just a relatively few people either. The twitter army of usual idiots can't shut up about it either.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmmmmmmm....
This exchange sounds somewhat vagina monologuey...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/11/warren_men_who_oppo
se_gay_marriage_should_just_marry_one_woman_if_you_can_find_one.html
I shouldn't have to, given my post history, but for the record I'll state that I have no problem with gay marriages or marriage ceremonies performed by churches, so long as the government isn't forcing any particular churches who don't agree with the practice to allow it at the same time.
Just posting this about Warren's dialogue. If I didn't know better, I'd think that Wishy was coaching her.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tulsi Gabbard - now it makes sense
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63318&p=1
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Someone may have already posted this, but Gabbard is in the dem fourth debate tomorrow, fwiw.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They've decided to go with a single debate rather than split it up.
Interesting.
I'm wondering when and why they made that decision. Last time I heard there were going to be two separate debates.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damn. I didn't realize Buttigieg is only 37.
I look good for 40. 
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sounds like debates are tonight.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
They've decided to go with a single debate rather than split it up.
Interesting.
I'm wondering when and why they made that decision. Last time I heard there were going to be two separate debates.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Tulsi will be on the same stage, the same debate as BiteMe and Faux-cahontas?
O M G
I might need to actually watch this tonight, if merely for the entertainment factor. Surely nothing to learn from the group.
So far, nobody who has been in a debate has dropped out yet, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My memory ... so, looking it up Swalwell, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Inslee, and de Blasio, who were all in the first 2 2-day debates, have formally dropped out.
Others like Williamson are still running though they haven't made today's debate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I asked the question wrong.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
My memory ... so, looking it up Swalwell, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Inslee, and de Blasio, who were all in the first 2 2-day debates, have formally dropped out.
Others like Williamson are still running though they haven't made today's debate.
Those who have qualified for the 3rd or 4th debates have not dropped out, and it looks like you confirmed that. I just wasn't paying enough attention. Thanks for the update.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Was there a debate last night? Did any network carry it? Did anything happen? Haven't heard anything so far. And while channel surfing last night, didn't happen across it.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Sounds like debates are tonight.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
They've decided to go with a single debate rather than split it up.
Interesting.
I'm wondering when and why they made that decision. Last time I heard there were going to be two separate debates.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Tulsi will be on the same stage, the same debate as BiteMe and Faux-cahontas?
O M G
I might need to actually watch this tonight, if merely for the entertainment factor. Surely nothing to learn from the group.
So far, nobody who has been in a debate has dropped out yet, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There WAS a debate, 12 on the stage. CNN carried it and I recorded it, but haven't watched it yet.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see TULSI GABBARD and JILL STEIN got boost in name recognition! THANK YOU, HILLARY CLINTON!
Quote:Wait ... what? The Russians have given up on Trump???
The Democratic Party Should Suspend Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton has gone mad:
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the “favorite of the Russians” to win the 2020 presidential election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
...
The Russians already have their “eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far,” Clinton told David Plouffe, the podcast’s host and the campaign manager for former President Obama’s 2008 campaign.
“And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset,” Clinton added, referring to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.
Quote:
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard - 22:20 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
and
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein - 20:30 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
In light of the latest slanderous allegations from @HillaryClinton, I challenge her to a debate. It's past time to give the American people the real debate they deserved in 2016, but were denied by the phony DNC/RNC-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein - 20:51 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
It's a shame HRC is peddling conspiracy theories to justify her failure instead of reflecting on real reasons Dems lost in 2016. You can slander progressives as “Russian assets”, but you can't hide the fact that the DNC sabotaged Sanders & elevated Trump to set the stage for HRC.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein - 21:12 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
HRC's rant is exhibit A for how the establishment is using the new Cold War to crack down on dissent & feed the war machine. Instead of addressing the crises working people face, they're painting progressives as the enemy. It's as if they're trying to lose to Trump again.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein - 21:43 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
If HRC really believes all independent campaigns are Russian plots, why isn't she calling for #RankedChoiceVoting to make it impossible for evil foreigners to "split the vote"? Until she does, all this Russia hysteria just looks like cynical McCarthyist left-punching.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigans. The phony Ukrainegate 'impeachmNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, as I noted elsewhere Buttigieg seems to be the LATimes pick for democratic nominee http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61954&p=56 A thread for Democrats Only ...
... and to further support that theme, today from the LATimes- Column: Mayor Pete has the pedigree to clean up after Trump. But is that enough to win in 2020?
Oct. 18, 2019
... while Warren is being damned with faint praise, Sanders and Biden are being ignored, and now - for your 15 minutes of hate - Gabbard is being vilified with every untrue smear in the book by your 'Corruptress-in-Chief Hillary and the M$M' (it's the name of a new band with very old music).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I see TULSI GABBARD and JILL STEIN got boost in name recognition! THANK YOU, HILLARY CLINTON!Quote:Wait ... what? The Russians have given up on Trump???
The Democratic Party Should Suspend Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton has gone mad:
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the “favorite of the Russians” to win the 2020 presidential election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
...
The Russians already have their “eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far,” Clinton told David Plouffe, the podcast’s host and the campaign manager for former President Obama’s 2008 campaign.
“And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset,” Clinton added, referring to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.Quote:
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard - 22:20 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
and
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein - 20:30 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
In light of the latest slanderous allegations from @HillaryClinton, I challenge her to a debate. It's past time to give the American people the real debate they deserved in 2016, but were denied by the phony DNC/RNC-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein - 20:51 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
It's a shame HRC is peddling conspiracy theories to justify her failure instead of reflecting on real reasons Dems lost in 2016. You can slander progressives as “Russian assets”, but you can't hide the fact that the DNC sabotaged Sanders & elevated Trump to set the stage for HRC.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein - 21:12 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
HRC's rant is exhibit A for how the establishment is using the new Cold War to crack down on dissent & feed the war machine. Instead of addressing the crises working people face, they're painting progressives as the enemy. It's as if they're trying to lose to Trump again.
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein - 21:43 UTC · Oct 18, 2019
If HRC really believes all independent campaigns are Russian plots, why isn't she calling for #RankedChoiceVoting to make it impossible for evil foreigners to "split the vote"? Until she does, all this Russia hysteria just looks like cynical McCarthyist left-punching.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:When you get a chance, could you fill us in on your perception regarding the balance or interaction btween Tulsi, Bernie, Biden, Faux-cahontas? Or any others of pertinent interest?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
There WAS a debate, 12 on the stage. CNN carried it and I recorded it, but haven't watched it yet.
Did Tulsi take down the top 3?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll be happy to!
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When you get a chance, could you fill us in on your perception regarding the balance or interaction btween Tulsi, Bernie, Biden, Faux-cahontas? Or any others of pertinent interest?
Did Tulsi take down the top 3?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW JSF, I STILL haven't managed to get through the debate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW... Warren may have hit her peak and be in the middle of the recession process.
5 of the 6 polls in the Dem Primary aggregate have Biden in a comfortable lead again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zombie Nation: the Democratic Party Is Dead, and Everyone Knows It but Them
Book tour publicity campaign ... or just campaign? This writer thinks that Hillary is going to run because of 1) that 'campaign', 2) the DNC is once again broke and is once again ready to be rescued (and dictated to) by Hillary, 3) she still seems to feel entitled to her 'turn', and 4) the democratic party is so broken, bereft of legitimate ideas, and corrupt it can't field a legitimate candidate with legitimate ideas and is stuck on the identity of being anti-Trump (except Andrew Yang who, the author states, correctly opined “When we are talking about Donald Trump, we’re losing.”).
Is Hillary running? Time will tell.
http://www.helenofdestroy.com/index.php/129-zombie-nation-the-democrat
ic-party-is-dead-and-everyone-knows-it-but-them
Zombie Nation: the Democratic Party Is Dead, and Everyone Knows It but Them
Here are some other tidbits from the article:
"Such an endorsement (of Warren, from Harry Reid) should be a death knell for her progressive support, especially after the revelation that she has been in constant contact with Clinton. Warren emphasizes in communications with donors that she doesn’t actually intend to upend the status quo, and has flip-flopped repeatedly on accepting big-dollar donors and PACs, only rejecting them once she’d stockpiled a healthy war chest from those very donors."
"The other candidates are largely distractions aimed at getting the selection process at the 2020 convention to a second ballot. With voters clamoring for reform after the 2016 disaster, the party obliged by doing away with superdelegates on the first round, but for any round beyond that, they’re fair game — and the DNC refuses to leave the selection up to chance, or anything so small-d democratic as a vote. With a handful of votes thrown to Pete Buttigieg — the anti-Gabbard, a gay pro-war vet — and Beto O’Rourke — the face of privilege whose Spandering caused the cringe heard ‘round the world in the first primary debate — the convention will progress to a second round, and the superdelegates will slither out of their holes to crown their king — or queen."
"As much as those Democratic establishment stalwarts with presidential ambitions — Clinton and the two dozen-odd candidates determined to dislodge Trump in 2020 — want to get rid of the Bad Orange Man, the benchwarmers in Congress have learned to love him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer can merely rail against Trump instead of actually governing, floating whatever irresponsible fantasy bills they want with the knowledge that they’ll die in the Republican-controlled Senate or — at worst — be vetoed by Trump. House Democrats got the chance to virtue-signal about ending the war in Yemen, helping voters forget Obama had gotten the US involved in the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century, knowing Trump would kill the bill to serve their shared Saudi paymasters."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If Hillary joined the race right now, I think she'd start off in 3rd place behind Biden and Warren, and there aren't any debates left.
She is not popular, even within her own party. Even CNN and other candidates have been calling her out on her Russiabaiting bullshit with Gabbard.
I don't see how she could even possibly get the nomination at this point. As far as classic lefties go, they'd rather vote in Obama's VP than put the future two time loser to Trump in for a rematch. I can't imagine she's going to play nice with Warren either, and anybody voting based off of genitalia is much more likely to back Warren than Clinton at this point as well.
Clinton is just a disgusting human being. Warren, for all of her many flaws, at least comes across like a pretty nice person outside of politics.
It's also very doubtful that once Bernie bows out and those votes get split between Biden and Warren that Hillary would get any of them after what happened last time. Biden might actually be in trouble once Bernie finally calls it quits too. I suspect that a majority of his base is going to back Warren over Biden based off of policy. The only way this wouldn't happen is if for some reason the Democrats believe that Biden would have a better chance against Trump in the General and they abandon Warren altogether.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, it's probably Hillary just shilling her book, and taking advantage of the primary campaign to pretend to be relevant and remind people she exists ... and buy her book because ... something.
But the idea that democrats have built their identity on being anti-Trump because they have nothing else to say, is a point I've been making for quite a while.
For example:
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to add this because people keep forgetting and I forgot - that unpopularity was no barrier to Hillary getting shoehorned-in in the 2016 primary. She had net negative ratings - and not just any net negative ratings but historic ones - all the way from her announcement through the nomination and to the election result.
Which is why some democrats became Obama / Trump voters, and many more stayed home. But Hillary's unpopularity was no barrier for the democratic party.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I just wanted to add this because people keep forgetting and I forgot - that unpopularity was no barrier to Hillary getting shoehorned-in in the 2016 primary. She had net negative ratings - and not just any net negative ratings but historic ones - all the way from her announcement through the nomination and to the election result.
Which is why some democrats became Obama / Trump voters, and many more stayed home. But Hillary's unpopularity was no barrier for the democratic party.
Admittedly, I didn't pay any attention at all to either the GOP or Dem primaries last time until after the fact, so I'll have to take your word on that. Easy to do since the DNC and the media were proven to be in cahoots with her because of the 100% legitimate emails that were leaked.
That was pre-Trump though. And she got her ass kicked by him when the entire Legacy Media lied through rigged polling methodology to make everyone believe she had it in the bag.
I don't think the DNC would back her this time. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
They've got both Biden and Warren now. Last time it was just Hillary vs. Bernie. There's no way Bernie's getting the nomination. Warren isn't really all that unlike Clinton if you look at her past. She's lying about being a progressive. The DNC loves her and doesn't really care if it's her or Biden that get the nod.
As bad as the Dem choices are right now, I think they'd still view Hillary as a liability... and rightfully so.
There would be no end to my amusement if I was proven wrong here and the DNC did shoehorn her in there.
Imagine the hypocrisy on full display in the RWED here when all of the people who have said they don't like Hillary fall in love with her all over again if it was her against Trump in 2020.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
What I find interesting is the up/down Biden pattern unrelated to external events, debates, or poaching the other candidates. It turns out that The Economist poll persistently down-rates Biden, while the Politico poll persistently up-rates Biden, and the pattern is an artifact of when the respective polls comes out.
So, trying to average-out each candidate's variations, the longer-term recent Biden average would be about 27, while the longer-term recent Warren average would be about 25, and the Sanders average about 16. Harris overall keeps slowly dropping (couldn't happen to a nicer opportunist), and Buttigieg keeps slowly rising. I can't find a reason for Buttigieg - because his rise seems unrelated to external events, debates, or poaching the other candidates - except his over-the-top big-donor support.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wanted to make a longer comment about Gabbard plus some about the 4th debate.
She was given very little time during the 4th debate; and while other candidates were allowed to go on and on with a back-and-fourth between two or more, she was very forcefully cut off, ESPECIALLY after she made the point that US troops need to be taken out of overseas conflict.
When it came to getting US troops out of Syria, some of the candidates were asked (to the effect), if Trump didn't withdraw troops in the right way, HOW would you would have done it?
NOBODY who was asked the question had a straightforward answer, instead simply trotting out non-responsive talking-points that Trump didn't do it in the right way and they would have done it in cooperation with others - and that includes Warren and Buttigieg (who got on his high horse about his own personal courage, as if Gabbard didn't also serve in a war zone).
Of all the people in the debate, very few consistently answer questions directly - and they are Sanders, Gabbard, Yang, and Steyer.
As for Gabbard, she announced that she won't be running for her congressional seat. That's because the democratic party punished her by endorsing- and providing massive funds to- her challenger.
So now you know what the democratic party stands for - endless WAR. If it wasn't obvious after the extensive smear campaign against the only democratic anti-war candidate ... they just made it official.
I hope to provide links and more data later.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup.
But the mindless drones will scream "NO! IT'S BECAUSE SHE'S RUSSIAN!!!"
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to mention that sadly for the world - and us - Trump will not be able to drain the swamp of the internationalist deep-state - and that's because its tentacles are up the asses of most of democratic party: and that includes Biden (of course), Warren, and Buttigieg, Pelosi, Schifty - I mean Schiff - and many, many others.
The only guaranteed exception is Gabbard.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I just wanted to mention that sadly for the world - and us - Trump will not be able to drain the swamp of the internationalist deep-state - and that's because its tentacles are up the asses of most of democratic party: and that includes Biden (of course), Warren, and Buttigieg, Pelosi, Schifty - I mean Schiff - and many, many others.
The only guaranteed exception is Gabbard.
Did you hear how NYT tried to quietly change the narrative of what Clinton tweeted about her, saying now that Republicans were grooming her and not the Russians?
Anybody who can't see how rigged the game is at this point is hopeless.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just shake my head in sad and disgusted wonderment. And it's not just about the NYTimes - it's also about everyone who believes the propaganda they're fed every day.
Yanno, you're (pl) probably not going to understand what's really going on entirely. But at least get a clue that you're (pl) being bullshitted.
And now - on to ordering some highly-rated individually-switched power strips from Grainger.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I just shake my head in sad and disgusted wonderment. And it's not just about the NYTimes - it's also about everyone who believes the propaganda they're fed every day.
Yanno, you're (pl) probably not going to understand what's really going on entirely. But at least get a clue that you're (pl) being bullshitted.
And now - on to ordering some highly-rated individually-switched power strips from Grainger.
I'm sure it didn't go unnoticed by you that the thread where you, I and Sigs were trying to be rational and non hypocritical about moralism sees the only post by one of those hypocritical propaganda inhalers very late in the discussion dismissing that fact completely.
I'm just as quick to call out FoxNews for bullshit as any of the other fake news trash out there today. Not only is FoxNews equally culpable, but it could be argued that FoxNews started it, and outfits like CNN have spent the last decade perfecting the art.
In the meantime, Tweedle-Dumb here makes posts insinuating that I look at Trump as some sort of deity now.
Brainwashed monkeys...
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME