Who Is Running In 2020?
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 01:47
VIEWED: 46005
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I'm posting this here because - this writer has a way with words that hits me in the funnybone!
Quote:Eh. There's nothing at all that I take seriously about the basic story. It's just another instance of us being groomed.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Eh. There's nothing at all that I take seriously about the basic story. It's just another instance of us being groomed.
I kind of happen to agree with it is all...
I think the dude (or dudette) is a bit naive in their thoughts that Bernie would actually represent anything better, and I think that it's funny how they point out the ridiculous claims that Matthews made after the debate while not drawing parallels with all of the people who did the exact same thing for three years after Trump won, but other than that I think they hit the nail on the head.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, 'more of the same' Hillary didn't work. (That's aside from the fact that for some reason she had historic net negative ratings ... I should look into that. What did so many people find so wrong about her?) I don't know that another 'moderate' democrat with a democrat's message (victim de jour, anyone? we NOW feel your economic pain in flyover country? Trump is the devil?) would do any better than Hillary.
But more than anything, I think I see narratives already being created to skew the election and delegitimize whoever wins that's not favored by tptb. You can't trust Trump to hold a legitimate election. If he wins, it's only because he cheated or uhm, colluded ... Sanders' supporters are unhinged radicals.
I'm just noting it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well... Like I said to T, I had better not hear from him that Trump won because of the Electoral College since he told me to put up citations that he has said that in the past.
We already know that Second and Nilbog will. Captain and JO and SGG probably will too, assuming that they're still posting here at all by then.
You could strip away all of the other bullshit from the last three years, and they will still bitch about the Electoral College. And of course there's the gerrymandering which T has bitched quite a bit about in the past, but overlooks that both parties do it whenever they're in power.
There's just about zero faith in the American Election Process anymore. It's not just Democrats either. Dead people and illegals vote in our elections too, and it's always non-Democrats pointing that out. I still will never understand anybody's reasons for not requiring a legitimate government issue photo ID when you vote.
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
According to realclearpolitics, Biden is tanking fast and Bloomberg is rising almost in mirror image. I don't believe they cycle through the polls quickly enough to be showing any fallout from the last debate. And Bloomberg of course wasn't in the debate, so his polling is all based on his ad campaign. (Do people REALLY believe political ads ??? Apparently so !) So this seems to be an inter-debate phenomenon, taking place over the span of roughly a week. However, only 3 polls were averaged and a tweaked poll or two that line up in the same direction could give that dramatic result. But this bears watching.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah. I've been watching the Bloomberg thing, but didn't want to say anything about it yet. Although he's kind of just been a joke in the background, it appears that the massive amounts of money he's been throwing at the wall has started to stick.
I don't have a freaking clue what it would be based on, but for some time now oddsshark actually has had Bloomberg as a convincing favorite to win against Trump. (Is it maybe the fact that he hasn't been in the debates and that just means he hasn't said anything fucking dumb like the rest of them have been doing for months now?)
What could he possibly have to bring to the table as another ultra-mega-uber-rich old white man?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If I remember correctly, the electors for each state are the total of the number of representatives plus 2 senators. Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming each have 1 member in the House of Reps so adding 2 senators is quite a boost! Most states have between 6 - 9 so a +2 addition is fairly minimal.
You could strip away all of the other bullshit from the last three years, and they will still bitch about the Electoral College.
But then - California has 53 representatives (+2 addition = 55 electors), Florida 27 (+2 addition = 29 electors), New York has 27 (+2 addition = 29 electors), and Texas has 36 (+2 addition = 38 electors). Between those 4 states they have almost a third of all electors. So small states getting a few extra electors isn't a big numerical disadvantage to large states.
I think what's worse is that except for Maine and Nebraska, the rest of the states have a 'winner take all' system. Now THAT'S really unfair.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think that might be it. I've been tracking the debates (watched every blessed one of them, TWICE! except for the last one I watched only once), and tracking the debates with realclearpolitics. For the most part, debates seem a place to lose votes, not gain them.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
(Is it maybe the fact that he hasn't been in the debates and that just means he hasn't said anything fucking dumb like the rest of them have been doing for months now?)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer* have both dropped out.
*This was a rumor reported as news.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKBN2051BN
Sanders narrowly beats Buttigieg in New Hampshire Democratic primary, Biden finishes fifth
Sanders had 26% of the vote and Buttigieg had 25% with more than 91 percent of precincts reporting. Klobuchar had 20%, Warren 9% and Biden 8%.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol @ Sanders win.
I am so hoping for a Trump/Sanders debate cycle.
Must see TV.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Speaking of Bernie...
Remember this old snake looking MF?
https://www.salon.com/2020/02/11/james-carville-democratic-party-would
-turn-into-a-cult-if-it-nominates-sanders-for-president/
It would seem that Gollum is not going to "Vote Blue, no matter who."
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not exactly on-topic, but a discussion of the ideological splits in the Republican and Democratic parties (mostly among Democrats)
Quote:Just to interject a little history: The United States has NEVER signed any agreements not to use these weapons ... not under the Bushes, not under Clinton, and not under Obama. This is not a new thing.
Slavoj Zizek: US enters brutal ideological civil war as four-party system begins to take form
Despite Trump’s impeachment victory, the US is entering into an ideological civil war, because the real conflict is not between the Democrats and the Republicans, but within each of those parties themselves.
Two weeks ago, while promoting his new film in Mexico City, Harrison Ford said that “America has lost its moral leadership and credibility.”
Really? When did the US exert moral leadership over the world? Under Reagan or Bush? They lost what they never had, ie, they lost the illusion (the “credibility” made in Harrison’s claim) that they’ve had it. With Trump, what was already true merely became visible.
Back in 1948, at the outset of the Cold War, this truth was formulated with brutal candor by US diplomat and historian George Kennan: “[The US has] 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period…is to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality…we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.”
In this we find an explanation of what Trump means by “America first!” in much clearer and more honest terms. So we should not be shocked when we read that “the Trump administration, which came into office pledging to end ‘endless wars,’ has now embraced weapons prohibited by more than 160 countries, and is readying them for future use. Cluster bombs and anti-personnel landmines, deadly explosives known to maim and kill civilians long after fighting has ended, have become integral to the Pentagon’s future war plans.”
Quote:As opposed to Obama, the Bushes, and Clinton, who mouthed pious words about democracy while shredding the Constitution and international law. ("Regime change" wars, universal surveillance, torture and extraordinary rendition, executing American citizen without trial, secret drone wars, hacking vote counts, Gitmo, "Patriot" Act, etc etc)
Those who act surprised by such news are simply hypocrites: in our upside-down world, Trump is innocent (not impeached) while Assange is guilty (for disclosing state crimes).
So what IS going on now?
It’s true that Trump exemplifies the new figure of an openly obscene political master in disdain of the basic rules of decency and democratic openness.
Quote:I disagree. There are two extremes who want you to believe that there is no shared ground by focusing on extreme ideas, but in reality there is plenty of shared ground.
The logic that underlies Trump’s actions was spelled out by Alan Dershowitz (who is, among other things, an advocate of legalized torture). The Harvard Law professor stated that if a politician thinks his re-election is in the national interest, any actions he takes towards that end cannot by definition be impeachable. “And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz argues.
The nature of power out of any serious democratic control is clearly spelled out here.
What was taking place in the ongoing debates about Trump’s impeachment was a case of the dissolution of the shared common ethical substance which makes argumentative polemical dialogue possible: the US is entering into an ideological civil war in which there is no shared ground to which both parties to the conflict can appeal – the more each side elaborates its position, the more it becomes clear that no dialogue, even a polemical one, is possible.
[qu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is a more exact count than what I first posted:
Candidate/ % Votes/ Del.
Sanders/ 25.7/ 9
Buttigieg/ 24.4/ 9
Klobuchar/ 19.8/ 6
Warren/ 9.2/ 0
Biden/ 8.4/ 0
Steyer/ 3.6/ 0
If I look at this as nominal left (Sanders, Warren, Steyer) v nominal centrist (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden) I get 38.5 left/ 52.6 centrist. If you add in Bloomberg who didn't run in New Hampshire as a centrist, the centrists obviously have the advantage.
Back in 2016 my analysis of the republican primary went like this:
The Tea Party Movement started in 2009, and the Tea Party Party formed in 2010. That was the republicans' first run at populism. By the 2016 primaries the Tea Party had gained such cache in the minds of republican politicians that of the 17 candidates, 13 were Tea Party-esque. (John Kasich traditional moderate republican, Rand Paul libertarian, Carly Fiorina big money, and Trump, were the exceptions.) But by 2016 republican voters had had it with the Tea Party. There were plenty of Tea Party members in Congress - but nothing had changed.
So, because individual Tea Party-esque faux populist republicans had low individual support, even though the Tea Party-esque candidates had the majority, Trump slayed them with his own brand of populism ... individually.
I see Sanders as the so-called democratic party's belated populist conception, which the democratic party is trying mightily to abort, through dirty tricks (Iowa), smear campaigns in major media, stacking the DNC leadership, crafting a plan for a hung convention which releases electors from their states' votes, and so on. WAY back in this thread, somebody posted Buttigieg's mega-wealthy donor/ media owner support (like Bezos/ WaPo). He's BidenB for the extremely wealthy. I posted that he focused his money on Iowa, in order to springboard his campaign from mayor of a small city - MAYOR??!! of a small city - to general campaign, to president. And so far it's working. We'll see how much headwind he faces elsewhere.
So I see the conflict in the democratic party as a struggle between populism with Sanders as its main flag bearer, and TPTB - the democratic party/ wealthy hybrid amoeba.
BTW, I really truly dislike Buttigieg and I have from early on. What does he stand for? What direction does he want? What is his overarching plan? Buttigieg seems to me to be an EXCLUSIVELY tactical candidate, with talking point non-positions instead of answers or goals, and those talking points are carefully crafted to not offend, that he easily deploys at every turn, with very opaque and shifting positions, whose only aim seems to be winning. WHY he wants to win, WHAT he hopes to accomplish? Beats me.
Now, Buttigieg was a Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan, not a foot soldier as he wants people to assume. And, having worked with a former mil intel person, I can tell you, you don't get to be one unless they think you're specially capable, and I imagine ethically flexible. And he worked in a unit known for its close cooperation with the CIA. I wouldn't make much of this, except I've always been puzzled as to why he wants to be president - from day 1. And I recently read an article he may be a CIA plant, something the CIA has been known to do elsewhere. And I think the CIA would be rather ticked off if either Trump or Sanders won, since neither of them are particularly CIA-friendly. Hm. Come to think of it, they've also been implicated in presidential assassinations ... ... Buttigieg as a CIA plant would answer a lot of my questions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I heard that everybody knew Bernie would win because in the past week he had a rally where 7,500 supporters showed up.
Last month, Trump held a rally in New Jersey, and 156,000 folk requested tickets to the event where less than 8,000 could fit in.
I also heard that Trump broke records in NH voting, for unopposed Incumbent Presidents.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/sen-sanders-holds-rally-for-ov
er-7-000-ahead-of-primary-day-78538309998
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/holy-moses-more-than-175000-t
ickets-requested-to-see-president-trump-in-wildwood-new-jersey-on-tuesday/
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/1826675/record-breaker-17
5000-requests-for-tickets-to-trump-rally-in-nj-tonight-hundreds-camp-out-in-cold-videos.html
https://heavy.com/news/2020/01/trump-wildwood-new-jersey-rally-crowd-p
hotos/
https://patch.com/new-jersey/oceancity/trump-rally-officials-expects-m
ajor-overflow-wildwoods-center
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i heard that Buttegieg was campaigning for legalizing Heroin, cocaine, meth, PCP, LSD, Absynthe, and everything else. Is this true?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:idk
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
i heard that Buttegieg was campaigning for legalizing Heroin, cocaine, meth, PCP, LSD, Absynthe, and everything else. Is this true?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:idk
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
i heard that Buttegieg was campaigning for legalizing Heroin, cocaine, meth, PCP, LSD, Absynthe, and everything else. Is this true?
Well, I found something that the search engines forgot to scrub.
https://reason.com/2019/12/30/pete-buttigieg-says-we-should-decriminal
ize-all-the-drugs/
https://www.independentsentinel.com/buttigieg-yang-say-legalize-all-dr
ugs-help-them-shoot-up/
https://freebeacon.com/politics/buttigieg-heroin-possession-wont-be-il
legal/
https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/02/10/buttigieg-lets-just-l
egalize-heroin-possession/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7835637/Pete-Buttigieg-wants-
decriminalize-possession-drugs-including-ecstasy-coke-meth.html
https://rightwing247.com/2019/12/30/buttigiegs-plans-to-legalize-meth-
other-drugs/
https://hightimes.com/news/pete-buttigiegs-plan-decriminalize-possessi
on-drugs/
If you can't believe High Times, then who can you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe it was Yang and Bennett from CO.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Andrew Yang andTom Steyer*have both dropped out.
*This was a rumor reported as news.
Also Deval Patrick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That gosh darned gerrymandering in the Senate, mebbe T is following the retard named Katie Tur?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well... Like I said to T, I had better not hear from him that Trump won because of the Electoral College since he told me to put up citations that he has said that in the past.
We already know that Second and Nilbog will. Captain and JO and SGG probably will too, assuming that they're still posting here at all by then.
You could strip away all of the other bullshit from the last three years, and they will still bitch about the Electoral College. And of course there's the gerrymandering which T has bitched quite a bit about in the past, but overlooks that both parties do it whenever they're in power.
There's just about zero faith in the American Election Process anymore. It's not just Democrats either. Dead people and illegals vote in our elections too, and it's always non-Democrats pointing that out. I still will never understand anybody's reasons for not requiring a legitimate government issue photo ID when you vote.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
http://www.domigood.com/2020/02/msnbcs-katy-tur-is-gerrymandering.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Everyone from James Carville to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews are sounding alarms over Sanders. His victory last night was called the “doomsday scenario” by a Democratic Super PAC. The most shocking was MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd who used a quote from a columnist to compare Sanders supporters to Nazi brown-shirted thugs.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/7/21123518/trump-2020-e
lection-democratic-party-james-carville
Look, Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat. He’s never been a Democrat. He’s an ideologue. And I’ve been clear about this: If Bernie is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. No question. I’ll take an ideological fanatic over a career criminal any day. But he’s not a Democrat.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/chris-matthews-ber
nie-sanders-public-executions-949802/
“I have my own views of the word ‘socialist’ and I’d be glad to share them with you in private. They go back to the early 1950s. I have an attitude about them. I remember the Cold War. ... I have an attitude towards [Fidel] Castro. I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering, okay? So, I have a problem with people who take the other side. I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years. I don’t know what he means by socialist.” When MSNBC’s Chris Hayes interrupted saying that Sanders is “pretty clearly” in favor of the type of socialism found in countries like Denmark, which Matthews had said was harmless, Matthews again suggested Sanders might have supported violent regimes, asking, “Is he? How do you know? Did he tell you that?”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/11/biden-pac-2020-democrats-1136
84
Memo
From: Larry Rasky
To: Interested Parties
Date: February 8, 2020
Subject: Avoid the Train Wreck by Uniting For Biden
As I watched the debate, beyond Vice President Biden demonstrating his leadership through his tribute to Lt. Colonel Vindman, I kept thinking about how Trump’s campaign is viewing the current field and how all of this has the potential of playing out. Below are my thoughts:
1) We all like and respect Mayor Pete. He has run a tremendous campaign. However,
Democrats run the risk of a realignment of the African American vote if Pete is the
nominee. Pete’s lack of answers on serious African American issues during his tenure in South Bend is problematic. Trump will drive a huge wedge with criminal justice reform and economics. What is the path if Trump gets 20%+ of the African American vote? It should also be noted that while Senator Klobuchar had a nice debate performance, her history as a prosecutor has also created problems with our base. Beyond all that, Pete’s answer on decriminalization of all drugs is a nonstarter in the general election. And the stature gap on stage is terrifying.
2) The Sanders-Warren wing of the Party is ready for the Bloomberg fight. Democrats
cannot afford a split Convention. Do you really think the Sanders voters wing will
support Mike Bloomberg? Do you think all the camps who have busted their butts and
played by the rules will happily sign on the Bloomberg’s campaign? It is not going to
happen. And if Warren can’t close on Sanders with her Massachusetts army it looks like Bernie could consolidate the left quickly while moderates battle on.
3) The Sanders Socialist issue is real and dangerous. Biden is 100% correct. Democrats in swing areas in the country will have to hide from Sanders. In 2018, Sanders backed candidates went 0-40 in swing areas. We cannot risk the House, state Houses, and also have no shot of dislodging McConnell with Bernie at the top of the ticket.
4) Donors hedging their bets on Biden because of Bloomberg could be creating a
doomsday scenario for Democrats everywhere. As Van Jones pointed out last night, a
Bloomberg-Bernie confrontation at the Convention will be a train wreck. Especially if Bernie has more delegates, do you really think the Br
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Everyone from James Carville to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews are sounding alarms over Sanders. His victory last night was called the “doomsday scenario” by a Democratic Super PAC. The most shocking was MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd who used a quote from a columnist to compare Sanders supporters to Nazi brown-shirted thugs.
Yeah. I posted about that weasel Carville yesterday.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Speaking of Bernie...
Remember this old snake looking MF?
https://www.salon.com/2020/02/11/james-carville-democratic-party-would
-turn-into-a-cult-if-it-nominates-sanders-for-president/
It would seem that Gollum is not going to "Vote Blue, no matter who."
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-belief-that-everything-will-be-fine-once-trumps-gone-is-more-dangerous-than-trump-8c76c411a4a7
The Belief That Everything Will Be Fine Once Trump’s Gone Is More Dangerous Than Trump
Buttigieg closed at a tight second place behind Sanders and both were awarded the same number of delegates, which with the bizarre Iowa shenanigans means the former South Bend mayor is now leading the pack in total delegates despite receiving fewer votes than Sanders in both states. (comment - God forbid the voters should decide!)
So of course “Buttigieg leads” is the information that the mainstream media is placing special emphasis on today.
It is entirely possible that we’ll continue seeing strange electoral results combined with mass media manipulation result in Buttigieg riding a contested convention into a superdelegate-boosted nomination, even if Sanders has more votes overall. (comment - Hon, that's how the game is played rigged.))
Whether it winds up being Buttigieg, Bloomberg, or one of their ideological alt-centrist clones like Amy Klobuchar or the floundering Joe Biden, the mainstream narrative will soon converge around one candidate in a very positive way, with the only important qualification being that they aren’t Bernie Sanders. Many powerful people will do everything they can to prevent a Sanders nomination, whose presidency they oppose more than Trump’s. As journalist Matt Taibbi recently pointed out, the Democratic establishment has “every incentive to play every conceivable card. Trillions at stake.”
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saw a funny comment on YouTube yesterday.
"Trump is a professional bootyjudge. Mayor Pete is a bootyjudge in name only. Democrats lose again."
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sooner or later, folk are going to catch on that you peeps are just writing this stuff out of whole cloth. Can't your stories be a little more believable? Just because Schiff is a failed Hollyweird scriptwriter doesn't mean you need to use him every time to make up your stories.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-belief-that-everything-will-be-fine-once-trumps-gone-is-more-dangerous-than-trump-8c76c411a4a7
The Belief That Everything Will Be Fine Once Trump’s Gone Is More Dangerous Than Trump
Buttigieg closed at a tight second place behind Sanders and both were awarded the same number of delegates, which with the bizarre Iowa shenanigans means the former South Bend mayor is now leading the pack in total delegates despite receiving fewer votes than Sanders in both states. (comment - God forbid the voters should decide!)
So of course “Buttigieg leads” is the information that the mainstream media is placing special emphasis on today.
It is entirely possible that we’ll continue seeing strange electoral results combined with mass media manipulation result in Buttigieg riding a contested convention into a superdelegate-boosted nomination, even if Sanders has more votes overall. (comment - Hon, that's how the game isplayedrigged.))
Whether it winds up being Buttigieg, Bloomberg, or one of their ideological alt-centrist clones like Amy Klobuchar or the floundering Joe Biden, the mainstream narrative will soon converge around one candidate in a very positive way, with the only important qualification being that they aren’t Bernie Sanders. Many powerful people will do everything they can to prevent a Sanders nomination, whose presidency they oppose more than Trump’s. As journalist Matt Taibbi recently pointed out, the Democratic establishment has “every incentive to play every conceivable card. Trillions at stake.”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When you post 'you peeps' - do you mean me?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah! I think see what the problem is! You think I want the DNC to have a democratic process as long as it comes up with the 'right(left)' result!
Boy are you mistaken!
As most people know, the 2016 DNC (and the m$m) severely distorted the DNC's purported democratic process to shoehorn Hillary in. Yep. They blew past her historic net negative ratings and Sanders' popularity and failed to learn the lesson that Hillary had a serious lack of enthusiasm. They thought they knew better. OOPS.
As most people know, the 2020 Iowa caucus was a debacle for the idea of democracy.
And as most people will find out, NH was statistically sketchy - at best.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary
UMass Lowell Sanders +8
WHDH/Emerson Sanders +7
Boston Globe/Suffolk Sanders +8
CNN/UNH Sanders +7
I honestly don't give a rat's ass who wins the democratic primary. Because, as you SHOULD know, I have no problems voting for 'NOT THE DEMOCRAT' or for a republican specifically if they address my two major criteria sufficiently.
Yanno, the democrats used to stand up for us ordinary folk. Now they just mouth the platitudes to hide their actions. The party needs to redeem itself. So I want the so-called 'democratic' party to pick the candidate by normal, democratic rules, instead of Chicago rules.
Capiche?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally, I hope the Democratic party gets smashed and Trump comes up with at least 380 electoral votes.
I'm hoping that if that happens it will be a referendum on the party and they will work to improve themselves instead of talking about the other guy all the time. I used to lean Democrat 15 years ago. I don't like being this far on the right in 2020.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Would you consider not voting either D or R, but simply the candidate who best represents your positions?
I don't like being this far on the right in 2020.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I am sorry.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
When you post 'you peeps' - do you mean me?
I am really sorry, for wasting your time chasing down this tangent.
I had thought my post was obviously soaked in sarcasm. Looking at it now, it still seems to me obviously sarcastic.
But, more obviously, sarcasm does not translate well on the board. And for that, I am sorry that I didn't make it clear.
My mention of "peeps" was to whoever is writing the script for the DNC - like for the past 4 years. My post was akin to the phrase "folks, you can't make this stuff up" or maybe "truth is stranger than fiction" perhaps.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I only found out about this today.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/02/tulsi-gabbard-sends-love-and-bes
t-wishes-to-rush-limbaugh/
I have made no secret of the fact that I find Tulsi the most threatening candidate on the Dem side for defeating Trump. Although I am unlikely to vote for her. (nor for Trump).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I am sorry.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
When you post 'you peeps' - do you mean me?
I am really sorry, for wasting your time chasing down this tangent.
I had thought my post was obviously soaked in sarcasm. Looking at it now, it still seems to me obviously sarcastic.
But, more obviously, sarcasm does not translate well on the board. And for that, I am sorry that I didn't make it clear.
My mention of "peeps" was to whoever is writing the script for the DNC - like for the past 4 years. My post was akin to the phrase "folks, you can't make this stuff up" or maybe "truth is stranger than fiction" perhaps.
I had actually assumed that you were being sarcastic here, but I figured I'd let you explain that.
Sometimes I can't tell when you're serious or not. You've made a few claims about me that aren't true since you came back. They didn't seem sarcastic, and when I replied to you you did not reply back.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That hasn't been the case during my lifetime. Unless you mean "ordinary folk" are the racists, bigots, criminals, intolerants, vote frauds.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Yanno, the democrats used to stand up for us ordinary folk.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I vividly remember back through Kennedy, if that helps clarify my timeline.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/18/politics/michael-bloomberg-surge-20
20-democrats/index.html
Here's exactly how Michael Bloomberg is surging
It's because people really DO believe ads!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Although JFK was the most recent decent Democrap in the White House, do you deny he defrauded the 1960 Dem Primary Elections (against LBJ), and then the 1960 general Election in IL and TX? (against Nixon)
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I vividly remember back through Kennedy, if that helps clarify my timeline.
BTW, who was the President after JFK? And then the President after that? And what historical connection did Ford have to JFK?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I vividly remember back through Kennedy, if that helps clarify my timeline.
Quote:Perhaps you can answer both. Quotes and especially links are required, because I don't recall either being a historical fact.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Although JFK was the most recent decent Democrap in the White House, do you deny he defrauded the 1960 Dem Primary Elections (against LBJ), and then the 1960 general Election in IL and TX? (against Nixon)]
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/life-of-john-f-kennedy/fast
-facts-john-f-kennedy/results-of-1960-presidential-election-primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election
Morton did challenge the results in 11 states,[62] keeping challenges in the courts into mid-1961; however, the only result of these challenges was the loss of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount.
Nixon never led in Illinois.
In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon had carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican ... the Republican-dominated State Board of Elections unanimously rejected the challenge to the results. More than a month after the election, the Republican National Committee abandoned its Illinois voter fraud claims.
In Texas, Kennedy defeated Nixon by a 51 to 49% margin, or 46,000 votes.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump goes on clemency spree and falsely claims he's 'chief law enforcement officer' (CNN)
I seem to recall that usually people do this at the end of their last term. Maybe Trump is hedging his reelection bets?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Election prediction I've been hearing.
November 4 Headline News: Yesterday the Doomberg/Hilliary ticket won the Election, and in totally unrelated news, last night Doomberg committed suicide via multiple gunshots to the back of his head, and now comment from next President Hilliary.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Regarding hedging, that does not really compute. If that were the case, he would wait until after the election. If won, he has 4 years to do this. If lost, then he has over 100 days for this. i do't understand the logic of your comment.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Trump goes on clemency spree and falsely claims he's 'chief law enforcement officer' (CNN)
I seem to recall that usually people do this at the end of their last term. Maybe Trump is hedging his reelection bets?
Regarding CLEO, I'm not bothered by his comment (he has make far worse). Under The Constitution, he is. The Judiciary Act created the AG, as well as many other things like the make-up of SCOTUS. AG is part of the Executive Branch, which the President is the Constitutional leader of. As such, he has the power to do anything he wants with it, and any restraints of that power have not yet been tested.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ... !!!
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Election prediction I've been hearing.
November 4 Headline News: Yesterday the Doomberg/Hilliary ticket won the Election, and in totally unrelated news, last night Doomberg committed suicide via multiple gunshots to the back of his head, and now comment from next President Hilliary.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Trump goes on clemency spree and falsely claims he's 'chief law enforcement officer' (CNN)
I seem to recall that usually people do this at the end of their last term. Maybe Trump is hedging his reelection bets?
Quote:OK.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Regarding hedging, that does not really compute. If that were the case, he would wait until after the election. If won, he has 4 years to do this. If lost, then he has over 100 days for this. i do't understand the logic of your comment.
Regarding CLEO, I'm not bothered by his comment (he has make far worse). Under The Constitution, he is. The Judiciary Act created the AG, as well as many other things like the make-up of SCOTUS. AG is part of the Executive Branch, which the President is the Constitutional leader of. As such, he has the power to do anything he wants with it, and any restraints of that power have not yet been tested.
NEVERmind!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Midget Mike Doomberg has been heard to mention several things to women, particularly those who work for him.
Women need to wear ultra short skirts, and high heels.
If you get pregnant, you need to kill the baby in order to remain working for him.
If you complain after you are raped by your superior, he will fire you.
Only he can decide how many ounces of soda you can consume.
I don't think I currently know any rational Democrat women IRL. For Democrat women, which of these statements/practices/policies are most offensive to you? Which of these are the least offensive?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The case for Sen. Amy Klobuchar comes down to three words: the Electoral College.
Whoever runs against Trump will want to put Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania back in the Democratic column, and they’ll have to win over rural voters to do it.
Klobuchar, from Minnesota, has the most convincing record on this score. In Minnesota she’s not only won statewide three times (besting her Republican opponents by double digits), she’s also consistently won by wider margins than other Democrats. Clinton won Minnesota by 1.5 percentage points in 2016. In 2018, Klobuchar won statewide by 24 points. She outperformed every other Democrat running statewide that year — by a lot.
And, crucially, in 2018 she won 42 counties that Trump carried in 2016, including 39 in rural areas.
“What I have done is win. I’ve won districts Trump carried by 20 points. I have won every race, every place, every time. And I’ll do it again in 2020,” Klobuchar tweeted this fall.
The secret to Klobuchar’s success seems to be that a lot of rural voters like her brand of moderate politics, pragmatism, and openness to compromise.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In Pennington County, Minnesota, a rural, farm-based community home to a computer parts distribution company and Arctic Cat snowmobiles, Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 by 27.6 points. Two years later, Senator Amy Klobuchar won it. That’s a hell of a swing, and it’s a win in an extremely Trump-friendly area.
Klobuchar has continued to overperform. She’s the most popular politician in Minnesota by far. She’s able to appeal broadly to the electorate. She’s been able to build a strong base vote, and able to win a state like Wisconsin.
Klobuchar is considered a moderate, but she should still appeal to voters on the further left of the Democratic Party. She’s one of the 15 most progressive members of the US Senate per FiveThirtyEight’s analysis of Congress members’ voting records, for example.
The biggest problem for her might be name recognition. But as voters get to know her, even Democrats outside of Minnesota, they like her. She rose in the polls after a strong debate performance in New Hampshire.
www.vox.com/2020/2/21/21133969/case-for-amy-klobuchar-electoral-colleg
e-democrats
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The DNC is at it again!!
From WaPo:
In Nevada, a last-minute scramble to make voting technology work
Nevada’s Democratic Party had planned to use software developed by the same company behind Iowa’s botched caucus app. After Iowa’s debacle, the party cobbled together its own system using iPads and Google software.
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Joke for the day:
Q - What does SECOND fear more than a republican win ?
A - A Sanders win!
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I went to a number of betting sites last night just to see. It's not true that Sanders will derail democrats. Because while Trump is a good bet for reelection, the best bet to derail him is Sanders. None of the other democrats even come close.
The only thing SECOND fears more than a republican presidential victory is a Sanders' one.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Joke for the day:
Q - What does SECOND fear more than a republican win ?
A - A Sanders win!
Quote:I'd vote for Sanders. In the Texas primary I already mailed in my ballot with Amy Klobuchar. I think Democrats would win more Senate seats if Sanders was not the candidate.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
So I went to a number of betting sites last night just to see. It's not true that Sanders will derail democrats. Because while Trump is a good bet for reelection, the best bet to derail him is Sanders. None of the other democrats even come close.
The only thing SECOND fears more than a republican presidential victory is a Sanders' one.
We recommend Amy Klobuchar in Democratic primary for president
www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Amy-Klobuchar-Demo
crat-primary-election-2020-potus-15060430.php
It’s difficult to watch even now — that graceless moment during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation when he cracked under pressure, shattering the fine shell of judicial temperament and hurling contempt at a senator across the room.
That senator, whose name many Americans couldn’t pronounce at the time, asked if Kavanaugh had ever drunk so much he couldn’t recall the previous night. No, he responded before turning the question back on Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who only moments before had described her father’s struggle with alcoholism.
“I’m curious if you have,” Kavanaugh said, his mouth twisted with rage.
“I have no drinking problem, judge,” Klobuchar responded calmly.
There in that exchange, we see some of what plagues American political discourse and one thing that can save it: a strong leader who can outwit anger, rise above contempt and exercise the good sense to walk us back from the edge rather than push us closer to it.
For Democrats, that person is Amy Klobuchar, the third-term senator from Minnesota.
Said to be surging after her head-turning third-place finish in New Hampshire, Klobuchar, 59, the daughter of an elementary teacher and newspaperman, had been dismissed by some as a milquetoast, midwestern moderate who couldn’t hold a candle to the burn of Bernie Sanders’ revolution or the ambition of Elizabeth Warren’s fully foot-noted vision.
“Being a progressive, the last time I checked, meant that you should make progress,” Klobuchar says.
It’s time for Democrats to look beyond fiery speeches, beyond big ticket promises devoid of price tags, (that's Bernie Sanders in a nutshell) and if possible, beyond the cinematic beckoning of that billionaire button-down Messiah stalking your smartphone, and ask: Who can really get things done?
More at www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Amy-Klobuchar-Demo
crat-primary-election-2020-potus-15060430.php
There are lots of rich businessmen in America who have serious qualms about Trump but support him because they think low taxes and business-friendly regulation are more important than the rule of law. If I did not care that Trump is insane & a tax cheat & a rapist & a non-stop liar, I'd vote for him but because he is, I can't.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did they already announce Hilliary as the winner?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
The DNC is at it again!!
From WaPo:
In Nevada, a last-minute scramble to make voting technology work
Nevada’s Democratic Party had planned to use software developed by the same company behind Iowa’s botched caucus app. After Iowa’s debacle, the party cobbled together its own system using iPads and Google software.
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OUCH!
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did they already announce Hilliary as the winner?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WAS THE DEBATE BEATDOWN FATAL FOR MIKE BLOOMBERG?
Quote:https://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/was-the-debate-beat-down-fatal-for-mayor
Wednesday night in Las Vegas, Mayor Mike Bloomberg learned what it is like to be thrown up against a wall and frisked.
At the opening of the Democratic debate, his first, Mayor Mike was greeted by his nearest neighbor on stage, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, with this warm welcome:
“We’re running against … a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And, no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”
Bloomberg was not only charged with misogyny and sexism but racism for his stop-and-frisk policy, which the NYPD pursued during his three terms as mayor. By Bloomberg’s own admission, stop and frisk singled out black men between 16 and 25.
Undiscussed were the positive results of the policy.
Gun homicides in New York fell to levels below those attained by his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. And if those most often frisked were black and Hispanic men, the lives saved and the woundings prevented were also mostly those of people of color.
Yet, a question that remains after this debate was one that was puzzling even before the debate.
Why did he do it? Why did Bloomberg, who is not on the Nevada or South Carolina ballot, decide to join the debates before these contests?
Today, the mayor’s campaign is probably buying tens of millions of dollars in ads to undo the damage done to him under the remorseless fire on his character, campaign and record from his rivals Wednesday night.
These attacks were predictable and predicted. Why did he submit to this? Who counseled Bloomberg to climb into the ring?
By investing $350 million in ads in primary states since November and crafting scheduled appearances while avoiding adversarial talk shows and candidate debates, Bloomberg had propelled himself from nowhere into the top tier of candidates in every state on Super Tuesday.
Why did he abandon a winning strategy to walk out, unprepared, onto a stage full of enraged and exasperated rivals who think he is buying and stealing a nomination for which they have fought for a year?
-mike/
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yanno, the one point that voters ... fff.net posters included ... keep missing:
A PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER DOMESTIC POLICY
That is up to Congress. I mean look at Obama: He talked about Medicare for All, he promised the Public Option, but in the end he had to sign whatever the fuck it was that Congress had crafted, and that was an overly-complex piece of legislation that had one good point (coverage of pre-existing conditions) and one really bad one (being shoved into the maw of corporate insurances with a government subsidy sweetener). None of which controlled costs a bit.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU'VE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE SENATE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED AS MAYOR, PETE. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU'VE MADE IRL. WHAT MATTERS IS: CAN YOU GRAB HOLD OF THE DEEP STATE, THE CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE NSC (AND THE FBI) AND THE PENTAGON AND CRAFT YOUR OWN FOREIGN POLICY?
Presidential candidates can promise the sun, moon, and stars, domestically, but unless they can get Congress and the M$M to go along with them ... unlikely, if Congress is split or controlled by the other party and domestic policies run athwart of M$M ideological bent ... your promises will come to naught.
The Presidential wheelhouse is foreign policy and protecting the borders of the USA. What does Klobuchar think about Israel and the Mideast? What does Pete think of illegal immigration? How does Bernie feel about the petrodollar? Elizabeth Warren on free trade and American manufacturing ... her thoughts?
Gun control, LGBTQ equality, Medicare for All (or for none), even our crumbling infrastructure: It's all piss in the wind. So much empty virtue signalling, if you're campaigning for President.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:HA HA !! OUCH !!
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WAS THE DEBATE BEATDOWN FATAL FOR MIKE BLOOMBERG?Quote:
Wednesday night in Las Vegas, Mayor Mike Bloomberg learned what it is like to be thrown up against a wall and frisked.
Reading the article, unless I'm misinterpreting it, it looks like the author was in favor of Bloomberg and was agonizing over why he shot himself in the foot, and worrying if it was fatal handicap in the race. And he seems to be anti-Sanders.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think there are two ways a presidential candidate can get a hold of domestic policy - by shifting the pull-along vote to gain control of Congress (if the party doesn't already have it), and using the power of the bully pulpit once in office to to gain control of Congress (if the party doesn't already have it) in the mid-terms.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno, the one point that voters ... fff.net posters included ... keep missing:
A PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER DOMESTIC POLICY
That is up to Congress. I mean look at Obama: He talked about Medicare for All, he promised the Public Option, but in the end he had to sign whatever the fuck it was that Congress had crafted, and that was an overly-complex piece of legislation that had one good point (coverage of pre-existing conditions) and one really bad one (being shoved into the maw of corporate insurances with a government subsidy sweetener). None of which controlled costs a bit.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU'VE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE SENATE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED AS MAYOR, PETE. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU'VE MADE IRL. WHAT MATTERS IS: CAN YOU GRAB HOLD OF THE DEEP STATE, THE CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE NSC (AND THE FBI) AND THE PENTAGON AND CRAFT YOUR OWN FOREIGN POLICY?
Presidential candidates can promise the sun, moon, and stars, domestically, but unless they can get Congress and the M$M to go along with them ... unlikely, if Congress is split or controlled by the other party and domestic policies run athwart of M$M ideological bent ... your promises will come to naught.
The Presidential wheelhouse is foreign policy and protecting the borders of the USA. What does Klobuchar think about Israel and the Mideast? What does Pete think of illegal immigration? How does Bernie feel about the petrodollar? Elizabeth Warren on free trade and American manufacturing ... her thoughts?
Gun control, LGBTQ equality, Medicare for All (or for none), even our crumbling infrastructure: It's all piss in the wind. So much empty virtue signalling, if you're campaigning for President.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
I think FDR was a great example of it.
But I don't see it happening with any of the candidates there still are, even IF they were to get elected.
I think your frustration is with democratic voters ... why they allow themselves to be so willingly misled, and so engaged and enraged, by pointless vapors.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, I watched the debate. It was a cross between a cage match and a Roman arena 'war of all against all'.
I think Warren pretty effectively pulled Bloomberg down based on the NDAs during the debate ... which Bloomberg is nullifying by releasing (a few of? some of? most of? all of?) the women from even as I post. What could have been a severe debit for him I think he's either zeroing out or turning into a credit. As for his racist policies as mayor and refusal to release his taxes that he was challenged with - that may resonate with some audiences significantly, but I'm not sure if it will hurt him across the board.
Anyway, I thought Warren did a good job on Bloomberg for as long as it lasted, but I'm not sure it gained her any points (similar to how Gabbard took down Harris but didn't boost herself).
Buttigieg was as tactical as ever, specifically going after Klobuchar as his nearest competitor. I just find him to be full of evasive talking points that he endlessly deploys at will. And there seems to be no 'there' there. There's no overarching sense of mission ... there's no purpose, no goals, no policies, or deeply held reason to be president. All I see in him is "BE PRESIDENT BY EVERY TACTIC NECESSARY". And why he's still there as former not particularly successful mayor of a small town with no national-level experience at anything at all is beyond me. He could be a CIA plant for all I know. And his programing, lack of apparent purpose, and evasiveness give me the creeps. But that's just me.
After-debate analysts said Biden was the strongest he's ever been. Along with Warren, I thought he did a good job unloading on Bloomberg, but for some reason he came across to me as a querulous old man. But that's just me. I don't think he boosted himself.
Klobuchar just strikes me as too small-minded for the downright existential problems we're facing. And she obviously wants to 'do the job', and 'bring people together', but she's pretty short on specifics. What specifically does she want to accomplish? She made her points - do the job, bring people together - as always, they just didn't carry with me.
Sanders was ... Sanders. I could be reading the tea-leaves wrong, but I think he had an epiphany many years ago about why things are as jacked as they are (maybe it had to do with his mother dying young, alone, after a failed heart surgery in a charity hospital that was miles from the family), and he wants other people to have that epiphany as well. So that seems to be his goal, and the way he frames his arguments. And I think because of it, he constantly misses what seem to be obvious arguments to me. For example: health care. Biden - as always, repeatedly whined about the taxes like a wheezy old man. But the argument against that is that PEOPLE ARE PAYING THE COST ALREADY. Whether it's in premiums, deductibles, or co-pays, or bankruptcy ... or inability to fill a prescription, or unaddressed medical issues that get worse and lead to disability and/ or early death, or being uninsured entirely. It's only a question of which of the people's pockets do you pull the money out of. Do you pull it out of their wallet pockets? Do you pull it out of their wages pockets they had to give up for benefits? Do you pull it out of their health and lifespan pockets? Or instead do you pull it out of the single payer pocket ... with the understanding that if you pull it out of single payer pocket - on average - you'll only have to pull out half as much. I don't know about anyone else, I don't really care which of my pockets it comes out of, but if I can save half, why should I do anything else? To me, it's a no-brainer argument. So I wonder why he misses it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bernie Sanders wins Nevada caucuses, Biden running a distant second
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-takes-lead-in-e
arly-nevada-caucus-returns/ar-BB10hnED
final numbers later
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The last democratic debate was on the 19th Feb 2020, so as of today, RCP polls aren't showing the effects, if any, of the debate on the polling numbers.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno, the one point that voters ... fff.net posters included ... keep missing:
A PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER DOMESTIC POLICY
That is up to Congress. I mean look at Obama: He talked about Medicare for All, he promised the Public Option, but in the end he had to sign whatever the fuck it was that Congress had crafted, and that was an overly-complex piece of legislation that had one good point (coverage of pre-existing conditions) and one really bad one (being shoved into the maw of corporate insurances with a government subsidy sweetener). None of which controlled costs a bit.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU'VE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE SENATE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED AS MAYOR, PETE. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU'VE MADE IRL. WHAT MATTERS IS: CAN YOU GRAB HOLD OF THE DEEP STATE, THE CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE NSC (AND THE FBI) AND THE PENTAGON AND CRAFT YOUR OWN FOREIGN POLICY?
Presidential candidates can promise the sun, moon, and stars, domestically, but unless they can get Congress and the M$M to go along with them ... unlikely, if Congress is split or controlled by the other party and domestic policies run athwart of M$M ideological bent ... your promises will come to naught.
The Presidential wheelhouse is foreign policy and protecting the borders of the USA. What does Klobuchar think about Israel and the Mideast? What does Pete think of illegal immigration? How does Bernie feel about the petrodollar? Elizabeth Warren on free trade and American manufacturing ... her thoughts?
Gun control, LGBTQ equality, Medicare for All (or for none), even our crumbling infrastructure: It's all piss in the wind. So much empty virtue signalling, if you're campaigning for President.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
Quote:As was mentioned in the post-debate analysis, the debaters are for the most part addressing the topics asked them by the moderators.
https://www.unz.com/emargolis/fat-women-are-not-a-national-priority/
As a foreign affairs specialist, what really dismayed me was that there was only one significant mention of international policy. That’s when the abrasive, loud-mouthed Sen. Amy Klobuchar could not remember the name of the president of Mexico. For God’s sake, she's on a senate committee that deals with Mexico.
While our presidential debate focuses on overweight women and health care, the US and Russia have come terrifyingly close to open war in the Mideast.
But barely any mention of this in the debates. Trump and his big money men from New York and Las Vegas are trying to push Iran into an air war. The US is seeking to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and Iran. Clashes between China and the US are a major danger. Former defense chief Sam Nunn warns the US and Russia are closer to a nuclear conflict than any time since the 1960’s Cuban missile crisis. No matter.
Americans want entertainers for their made-for-TV politicians. Poor, dignified Mr. Bloomberg didn’t know he would face professional actors, not legislators.
The moderators, our so-called news experts, seem to have hijacked the process for more entertainment/ propaganda purposes (just like the nightly so-called news).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
As a foreign affairs specialist, what really dismayed me was that there was only one significant mention of international policy. That’s when the abrasive, loud-mouthed Sen. Amy Klobuchar could not remember the name of the president of Mexico. For God’s sake, she's on a senate committee that deals with Mexico.
That made me giggle.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who's running in 2020?
PUTIN! (Apparently)
Quote:
James Carville Says The Big Winner In Nevada Is Putin
Sun, 02/23/2020 - 12:15
With Bernie Sanders having solidified his status as clear front runner for the Democratic nomination by his commanding victory in Nevada last night, also dominating across demographic groups, especially Latinos and young voters, get ready for eight more months of hysterical and anonymously sourced "Russian interference" claims.
Perhaps to be expected it started right away on MSNBC, with longtime Democratic strategist James Carville declaring Putin is very thrilled with the Bernie landslide win.
“Right now, it’s about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I promise you. He’s probably staying up watching this right now. How you doing, Vlad?” Carville quipped in an interview with MSNBC. James Carville says the big winner in Nevada is Putin pic.twitter.com/KV2TjpNiCD
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) February 22, 2020
SERIOUSLY???? Now the DNC is targeting progressives with the RUSSIA!RUSSIA! meme??
Yanno, the longer they stretch this out, the thinner it becomes. I expect that more and more people will drop out of that idiocy and realize that it's just a desperate DNC trying to shoehorn Hillary in (again) or some other droid.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
During the debates, has a question been asked similar to the following?
Will you pledge to endorse and support any leading candidate, as long as they are a Democrat?
Or are you willing to become a Democrat to be the Democrat nominee?
Do you pledge to endorse only Democrats for the Democrat nomination?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see Doomberg ads claiming he was Mayor during 9-11. He was not Mayor until 2002.
Such an obvious lie, why bother? He assumes his voters are so stupid they won't know?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is later going to be this month? When will Hilliary be declared the winner?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Bernie Sanders wins Nevada caucuses, Biden running a distant second
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-takes-lead-in-e
arly-nevada-caucus-returns/ar-BB10hnED
final numbers later
I heard Bootyjudge actually won, but Nevada is refusing to release the detail results, only the Fake Total.
You peeps that wrote the script for this need more believable stories.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Bernie Sanders wins Nevada caucuses, Biden running a distant second
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-takes-lead-in-e
arly-nevada-caucus-returns/ar-BB10hnED
final numbers later
Quote:https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is later going to be this month? When will Hilliary be declared the winner?
I heard Bootyjudge actually won, but Nevada is refusing to release the detail results, only the Fake Total.
You peeps that wrote the script for this need more believable stories.
CANDIDATE COUNTYDELEGATES% PLEDGEDDELEGATES#
Sanders 46.8% 18
Biden 20.2% 7
Buttigieg 14.3% 2
Warren 9.7% 0
Steyer 4.7% 0
100% Precincts in
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the more they accuse Sanders of being a Russian asset, the more people are voting for him.
But his response to the (baseless) allegation was as weak-kneed as when the DNC rolled over him in 2016, and he endorsed Hillary after being shafted. THis time around, instead of laughing off the (laughable) story that Russians were helping him, he tossed his tiny fists into the air and said that he would prevent Russia from interfering, and called Putin names.
Seriously? He should have demanded evidence.
This guy bends over any time he comes under a bit of pressure. What makes anyone think he can achieve his Presidential goals if he's spineless? I thought I might vote for him if he ran with Tulsi, but even in the unlikely event that he picked her as a running mate he's proven that he's worthless.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd LIKE to think he did what he did because he thought it was a strategic move, and not something he did because he believed it was true.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think the more they accuse Sanders of being a Russian asset, the more people are voting for him.
But his response to the (baseless) allegation was as weak-kneed as when the DNC rolled over him in 2016, and he endorsed Hillary after being shafted. THis time around, instead of laughing off the (laughable) story that Russians were helping him, he tossed his tiny fists into the air and said that he would prevent Russia from interfering, and called Putin names.
Seriously? He should have demanded evidence.
This guy bends over any time he comes under a bit of pressure. What makes anyone think he can achieve his Presidential goals if he's spineless? I thought I might vote for him if he ran with Tulsi, but even in the unlikely event that he picked her as a running mate he's proven that he's worthless.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
The idea that Sanders is a Russian is so obviously stupid that only people who believe that Gabbard is and that Trump is a Putin puppet would believe it.
That being said, for the first time in years they're actually saying it about somebody who is a Communist and actually has something in common with Russian politicians.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eh Jack ... Sanders has as much in common with Russia as the Swiss, or the Swedes, or the Spanish do. Pretty much every developed or even semi-developed country in Europe already has what Sanders is proposing. Even CANADA has a lot of it! Not to mention, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. It's not a 'European' thing, a 'Russian' thing, or even a generic 'communist' thing. It's a 'first-world, modern, industrialized nation' thing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sanders just came out and praised Fidel Castro. So there's that.
Though it's highly unlikely that Trump would lose Florida anyhow, Democrats just lost Florida for sure if Sanders is their nominee. There's a lot of Cubans in Florida who are not fans of the man.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You don't have to be a communist to make a point that even someone with the 'wrong label' can do good things for the people.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Sanders just came out and praised Fidel Castro. So there's that.
Quote:For sure. Those Cubans were the wealthy, living under the advantage of a brutal dictator who starved, abused, and even murdered the peons (everyone else) in the country. You have no idea Jack how bad things were in Cuba. You have the internet. You have the time. You should look it up. But anyway, yeah, it hurts to lose that kind of power and wealth. And they've been aggrieved ever since. That doesn't exactly give those Floridians a moral leg to stand on. But then, we allow even the murderously morally corrupt - like those Floridians who easily overlook starvation, torture, and murder in their name - to vote.
Though it's highly unlikely that Trump would lose Florida anyhow, Democrats just lost Florida for sure if Sanders is their nominee. There's a lot of Cubans in Florida who are not fans of the man.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
At the very least, Sanders is Communist adjacent.
The fucking balls of the Left today to have the nerve to praise Castro should be enough to make sure people never vote Democrat until the uber-left is purged.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:lol.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
At the very least, Sanders is Communist adjacent.
The fucking balls of the Left today to have the nerve to praise Castro should be enough to make sure people never vote Democrat until the uber-left is purged.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Jack jumps on board the red-baiting train.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:lol.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
At the very least, Sanders is Communist adjacent.
The fucking balls of the Left today to have the nerve to praise Castro should be enough to make sure people never vote Democrat until the uber-left is purged.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Jack jumps on board the red-baiting train.
When the Bernies and AOCs are either purged from the party or stop acting like Communists then I won't call them Communists.
I used to find it funny, but now I really just resent how the Democrats and the media constantly talk about how Trump is a Putin puppet and Russia hacks our elections, but they're the closest thing we have in this country to Communism in 2020.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Between your coronavirus 'social experiment' comment (yes! all those scientists in all those countries are part of a grand coronavirus conspiracy !!), and you calling the democrats and the m$m communists ( instead of, say, puppets of the wealthy), I seriously wonder if you've suddenly slipped a cog, Jack. Or have you thought this all along and you're just saying it now? I'm almost tempted to post Where is Jack and what have you done with him?!. Because the Jack I know is extremely cynical but pretty analytical. And this is just out there.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just like most people throw the word "fascist" and "Nazi" around without knowing what those words mean, many people (libertarians especially) throw the word "communist" around without knowing what THAT means, either. For them, "communist" means anyone they don't like.
My personal favorite: "cultural Marxist". I have no idea what that means, and I don't think people who use that term know, either. (I think what they really mean is Trotskyist, but I'm not sure.)
SIX, when you opined that the only thing that matters is CLASS, you came closer to being a Marxist than anyone else around here.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
My personal favorite: "cultural Marxist". I have no idea what that means, and I don't think people who use that term know, either. (I think what they really mean is Trotskyist, but I'm not sure.)
https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/276018/just-because-anti-semites-talk
-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In brief, it is a belief that cultural productions (books, institutions, etc.) and ideas are emanations of underlying power structures, so we must scrutinize and judge all culture and ideas based on their relation to power. Following from this premise, advocates for the persecuted and oppressed must attack forms of culture that reinscribe the values of the ruling class, and disseminate culture and ideas that support “oppressed” groups and “progressive” causes.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's a good article written on it that doesn't take one extreme side or the other.
It absolutely does exist and it absolutely is a problem. But it's pretty much probably not a huge Jewish conspiracy, the likes of some old PirateNews thread title.
The last paragraph was great:
Quote:
Cultural Marxism was no conspiracy, but it is also no mere right-wing “phantasmagoria.” It was and remains a coherent intellectual program, a constellation of dangerous ideas. Aspects of these ideas, to their credit, brought the West’s dirty laundry into the limelight and inaugurated a period of necessary housecleaning that was, indeed, overdue. But their obsessive focus on our societal dirt—real and perceived “injustice,” “oppression,” “privilege,” “marginalization” and the like—quickly became a pathological compulsion. We started to see dirt everywhere. We cleansed and continue to cleanse ourselves tirelessly but are never satisfied, always eager to uncover more dirty deeds and historical sins and stage more ritualized purges. We end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And all our hard-won collective attainments and achievements, all that is great and good and glorious in our midst, gets swept up, spat on and discarded with the rest of the trash.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh... and btw...
I do hope that after you read that article that you realize that Marxism and Cultural Marxism are two very different things. At least to the intelligent people that aren't just the low IQ extremists on the "right" that actually do hate Jewish people and throw that phrase around as if they have a clue what they're talking about so they can sound like the smartest guy at the Klan rally.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What to make of 'Mayor Pete'.
I've mentioned a few times already that I don't see a 'there' there. He doesn't seem to have an overarching personal reason to be president - no search for justice, drive for public duty, itch for power, plan to save the world, scheme to make money, desire to get the gig and get the babes, or anything. He's an assemblage of disparate talking points, each delivered with the same unemphatic cleverness as the previous one or the next. And every step of the way has been EXTREMELY strategic, with a collage of shifting opinions and aims, to satisfy whatever will play best at the time. It all seems synthetic.
WAY back when I posted a chunk of an article that outlined how MUCH money 'Mayor Pete' was getting from ultra-wealthy mega-billionaires. At the time I thought he was being positioned as BidenB, to represent tptb, should BidenA stumble or slow.
A month or so ago I read some speculation that he's a CIA plant (being ex-army intelligence that worked closely with black-ops CIA). He's enough of a droid to be that and the CIA reportedly has enough of a history of doing that.
Recently I looked at polls AND betting sites, and they're both in agreement about 'Mayor Pete' - he has a snowball's chance in hell of being the next president.
So why is he still in the race?
As I've been slogging my way through the last debate, it occurred to me he's really reduced his prescriptions for what he wants to do, and focused far more on criticizing Sanders. The shift in direction was dramatic and obvious. It looks to me like he's still in there, spending SOMEBODY'S money, as a spoiler. It looks like right now, that's his job.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bernie has a 51% chance of dying in the next 5 years, and 65% at 8 years. That's his motivation for being President -- to make his mark just before he croaks.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/02/28/more-on-bernie-sanderss-life-
expectancy/
In response to my post about Bernie Sanders’s heart condition, a reader who is a professor of medicine at a major academic medical center, emailed me the following:
I am a cardiologist.
I think Senator Sanders’ risk of mortality is underappreciated because the importance of his heart attack is underappreciated. In a man of this age with a heart attack, good evidence suggests he has a median survival of 5 years. Here is the data, and the figure of it.
www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/jaha.117.007230?etoc=&;
It would be reasonable to argue that care is better now than it was in 2005. That is true. However, the patients in this study were doing all the things that are currently recommended in the 2014 AHA/ACC guidelines for care after a heart attack. The patients in the registry well treated: 80 percent on statins, 94 percent on aspirin, 70 percent on ACE/ARBs, 70 percent on clopidogrel. Thus, these outcomes are salient to outcomes now. In my opinion, this just does not bode well.
As a cardiologist, to make a better assessment, I would like to know the following:
Which vessel was blocked and required the stenting?
Did he have ST segment elevations or depressions on his ECG?
How many vessels have significant blockage (>50%)
Is his heart pumping function normal or reduced?
Does he have diabetes?
How is his kidney function?
Does he have other vascular disease (stroke, known carotid artery stenosis, peripheral artery disease) as well?
What medications is he on now?
Are his blood pressure and cholesterol controlled?
With that information, we can provide more insight.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another internet doctor doing an internet diagnosis.
That's malpractice.
And if democrats don't do any different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, who do you think has a chance? Is it still Hilliary? Or NOTA?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
What to make of 'Mayor Pete'.
I've mentioned a few times already that I don't see a 'there' there. He doesn't seem to have an overarching personal reason to be president - no search for justice, drive for public duty, itch for power, plan to save the world, scheme to make money, desire to get the gig and get the babes, or anything. He's an assemblage of disparate talking points, each delivered with the same unemphatic cleverness as the previous one or the next. And every step of the way has been EXTREMELY strategic, with a collage of shifting opinions and aims, to satisfy whatever will play best at the time. It all seems synthetic.
WAY back when I posted a chunk of an article that outlined how MUCH money 'Mayor Pete' was getting from ultra-wealthy mega-billionaires. At the time I thought he was being positioned as BidenB, to represent tptb, should BidenA stumble or slow.
A month or so ago I read some speculation that he's a CIA plant (being ex-army intelligence that worked closely with black-ops CIA). He's enough of a droid to be that and the CIA reportedly has enough of a history of doing that.
Recently I looked at polls AND betting sites, and they're both in agreement about 'Mayor Pete' - he has a snowball's chance in hell of being the next president.
So why is he still in the race?
As I've been slogging my way through the last debate, it occurred to me he's really reduced his prescriptions for what he wants to do, and focused far more on criticizing Sanders. The shift in direction was dramatic and obvious. It looks to me like he's still in there, spending SOMEBODY'S money, as a spoiler. It looks like right now, that's his job.
I've heard of the Heart Attack Race. Which of the Dems is most likely to have a Cardiac Arrest or Stroke first? Whether or not Hiliary is the Veep.
Also, are any of these likely to be the first elected woman Veep?
For each of the remaining candidates, who is the most likely woman in America that they might choose as their running mate?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If Bernie wants to claim malpractice, his cardiologist needs to be at the next debate.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Another internet doctor doing an internet diagnosis.
That's malpractice.
A 78-year old man who had a heart attack less than five months ago and refuses to release his complete medical records is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. If Bernie Sanders is nominated and elected president, what are the odds he can complete his first full term? The answer is about 50-50. If Bernie disagrees, bring his cardiologist on the campaign trail to say so.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, you know, there's a lot of time between now and then. All I have to go on is current data. But Buttigieg and Klobuchar seem destined to not make it. I have a personal sense of why Klobuchar is still running (she believes in her accomplishments too much to quit). I believe 'Mayor Pete' is still running as a spoiler. But neither is going to go anywhere towards the WH.
]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, who do you think has a chance? Is it still Hilliary? Or NOTA?
I've heard of the Heart Attack Race. Which of the Dems is most likely to have a Cardiac Arrest or Stroke first? Whether or not Hiliary is the Veep.
Also, are any of these likely to be the first elected woman Veep?
For each of the remaining candidates, who is the most likely woman in America that they might choose as their running mate?
But there could be a brokered convention coming up with over 500 superdelegates involved, and if that happens afaik all hell breaks loose on the 'democratic' side.
That's as far as I'll suppose.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Biden 51.5%
Sanders 17.8%
Steyer 11.1%
Buttigieg 7.9%
Warren 6.8%
17.51% precincts reporting
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:President Donald Trump called on Republicans to take part in South Carolina’s Democratic primary and vote for the candidate who would be easiest to beat but still has a real shot at the nomination. After polling the audience via cheers and clapping, Trump determined that the one who fit the bill was Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Biden 51.5%
Sanders 17.8%
During his rally in South Carolina on Friday, Trump first expressed hope that “this is OK from a campaign finance standpoint.” He even asked South Carolina Sens. Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham for some legal advice: “Are we allowed to tell them who we would like them to vote for?” It seems Trump decided that he’d be in the clear if he conducted it as a poll. “Who would be the best candidate for us?” he asked, having made clear he was looking to identify the “weakest” contender in the Democratic field. South Carolina has an open primary system where members of any party can participate in the Democratic primary and some are urging conservatives to take part in the vote.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/trump-calls-supporters-sou
th-carolina-vote-bernie-sanders-in-primary.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
After Sanders refused at his town hall on Monday to say whether he'd accept financial help from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, Sanders' senior campaign adviser, Jeff Weaver set the record straight in an NBC News interview. "It's a hard no," he said, adding, "I think we can raise over a billion dollars in small-dollar contributions."
The position Sanders landed on is a very peculiar one. It suggests that he would rather lose to Trump than to tarnish his ideological purity by taking money from a billionaire. That his campaign would turn down hundreds of millions — perhaps even $1 billion or more — in financial help is a revelation that should be very troublesome for Democrats across the country who have set their sights on removing Donald Trump from office, no matter his successor.
It's important to highlight that Bloomberg's offer is not a random gesture from some random billionaire. I don't think anyone would criticize Sanders if he declined to take money from, say, conservative oil, ranching and textile baron Charles Koch or casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. Such help would be suspect at best. But in turning down Bloomberg's dollars, Sanders isn't just turning down cash that can buy valuable TV, radio and Facebook ads.
The support Bloomberg is offering up potentially includes campaign offices and resources — things a nominee's campaign might need to confront Trump. Wall Street would call this type of assistance "smart money."
Even Warren, who Democratic strategist James Carville recently said, "hates Michael Bloomberg more than she wants to win," allowed that she would accept Bloomberg's offer to help fund her campaign if she emerges as the standard bearer for the Democratic Party.
Other top Democratic contenders have said they would accept Bloomberg's funding should they find themselves facing off with Trump this fall.
Sanders' refusal of aid from Bloomberg shows how hard it would be for him to actually unite the party should he emerge as the nominee at the Milwaukee convention. Perhaps Sanders is most interested in maintaining his ability to continue blaming the billionaire class for so many of modern society's shortcomings.
If Sanders becomes the Democrats' nominee, refuses to take Bloomberg's money and ends up losing to Trump in the fall, he will become the bête noire of the Democratic party, shouldering the blame for four more years of a Trump presidency that has already weakened our institutions, eroded the rule of law and gravely undermined America's standing in world. And that could very well end up being Sanders' true legacy.
www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/opinions/sanders-bloomberg-financial-support-op
inion-wierson/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Even Warren, who Democratic strategist James Carville recently said, "hates Michael Bloomberg more than she wants to win," allowed that she would accept Bloomberg's offer to help fund her campaign if she emerges as the standard bearer for the Democratic Party.
Of course she did. She is a whore and a liar.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tom Steyer Drops Out After Getting Spanked By Joe Biden In South Carolina
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I could never figure out why Tom Steyer was running. Everything sounded kinda schizophrenic: I'm a rich guy who doesn't believe there should be rich guys. But, of course, he has been using his money to push the Democratic party, even as he decries the influence of money on politics.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I could never figure out why Tom Steyer was running. Everything sounded kinda schizophrenic: I'm a rich guy who doesn't believe there should be rich guys. But, of course, he has been using his money to push the Democratic party, even as he decries the influence of money on politics.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
Of course he did. He's a whore and a liar.
(Equal opportunity hater here).
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I heard Nate Silver says Bernie sweeps Super Tuesday except for Klobuchar in MN.
Has DNC announced Hilliary as winner yet?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I never looked it up, but apparently 10 years ago Steyer took the 'giving pledge' afaik to give his money back to the people, and divested from amoral companies. But I really haven't looked it up, not even once. What I find puzzling is that he did all this supposedly in California, which you would think would give him some support here. But his support is really low in CA, which I find counter-intuitive. I can't think of why that would be the case.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I could never figure out why Tom Steyer was running. Everything sounded kinda schizophrenic: I'm a rich guy who doesn't believe there should be rich guys. But, of course, he has been using his money to push the Democratic party, even as he decries the influence of money on politics.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Happy New Year, WISHY. I edited out your psychopathic screed!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And therein lies the mystery of Biden's 'surge'. Thanks to SECOND for posting something relevant and factual, even if it was an accidental tidbit that was buried in other stuff.
South Carolina has an open primary system where members of any party can participate in the Democratic primary and some are urging conservatives to take part in the vote.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since very few democratic primaries are closed, https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020-presidential-primary-s
chedule-calendar/ Biden may have more 'surges' in other states.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess all those multi-billionaires now see a non-Buttigieg pathway to a Sanders defeat, and decided to stop throwing good money after bad. Oh well. Easy come - easy go.
Pete Buttigieg is dropping out of the US presidential race
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME