ren hoek
Footballguy
The McCarthyite redbaiting stuff hasn't gotten stale yet, good material.Her problem is he’s kowtowed to the wrong billionaires. She prefers the Russian kind.
The McCarthyite redbaiting stuff hasn't gotten stale yet, good material.Her problem is he’s kowtowed to the wrong billionaires. She prefers the Russian kind.
McCarthyism wasn’t about teasing politicians for their odd political views; it was about persecuting and blacklisting innocent NON-politicians for their friendships and connections. It’s amazing how people misuse this term these days.The McCarthyite redbaiting stuff hasn't gotten stale yet, good material.
“Done” but not going away.Tulsi calling on the DNC Chair to step down
LINK
“Under the leadership of Tom Perez, the DNC has kowtowed to billionaires, caused a debacle in Iowa, and undermined the voter’s trust in our elections,” she added
Perhaps. She is right though. Perez is terrible.“Done” but not going away.
Bloomberg? Buying the candidacy? He's a non-starter for me for that reason. if he showed up to debates, did normal campaigning, I'd consider him, but no.Rooting big time for Amy tonight.
Amy or Bloomberg I’m thinking, for the win. Biden just doesn’t have it I’m afraid. Still love Pete but I can’t see him getting it done.
Warren in 5th now? Catastrophic for her.
Particularly after they have been corrected multiple timesMcCarthyism wasn’t about teasing politicians for their odd political views; it was about persecuting and blacklisting innocent NON-politicians for their friendships and connections. It’s amazing how people misuse this term these days.
Your points would be valid except for this election. Just keep repeating this question. Who beats Trump?Bloomberg? Buying the candidacy? He's a non-starter for me for that reason. if he showed up to debates, did normal campaigning, I'd consider him, but no.
And Amy...I like her, and would vote for her if she won, but I don't see a ton there that makes her stand out above Pete.
Since he is self financing AFAIK he doesn't qualify for the debates (there is a minimum amount of donors to appear). I'm sure he'd love to get free airtimeif he showed up to debates
Trump barely won in 2016. He's not some juggernaut. We need a competent candidate who the party can get behind, who not only can beat Trump, but who can govern effectively during his/her term.Your points would be valid except for this election. Just keep repeating this question. Who beats Trump?
For instance you know why I like Bloomberg? Because he drives Trump crazy!! That’s a good thing. That makes up for any faults he has. And you know what makes Amy stand out above Pete? Because she will do better in the swing states. She’s got a better shot in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. Eyes on the Prize.
It's his choice to self finance and bypass the debates rather than building up a base of supporters who believe in/support him and shows they have americans behind him. Apparently all he needs is insane amounts of cash to equate to the millions of supporters the other candidates have. It's undemocratic to me to buy in like this. If he wanted to be a viable standard candidate, announce like the rest of them, and garner support in order to justify that folks want him as president.Since he is self financin he doesn't qualify for the debates (there is a minimum amount of donors to appear). I'm sure he'd love to get free airtime
All I was saying is that he didn't make the rules that don't allow him to debateIt's his choice to self finance and bypass the debates rather than building up a base of supporters who believe in/support him and shows they have americans behind him. Apparently all he needs is insane amounts of cash to equate to the millions of supporters the other candidates have. It's undemocratic to me to buy in like this. If he wanted to be a viable standard candidate, announce like the rest of them, and garner support in order to justify that folks want him as president.
Rooting big time for Amy tonight.
Amy or Bloomberg I’m thinking, for the win. Biden just doesn’t have it I’m afraid. Still love Pete but I can’t see him getting it done.
Warren in 5th now? Catastrophic for her.
Yeah, and you're right. Just looking to chat about it, not necessarily disagree with you.All I was saying is that he didn't make the rules that don't allow him to debate
"He didn't have it 12 years ago, what has changed that makes him have it now other than being picked by Obama to shore up votes for Obama's campaign?"
After all this time telling us all that Biden was our only hope when most of us could see he’s out of it.
I did go back and reread the beginning of the Biden thread where I had a discussion with Tim.
After all this time telling us all that Biden was our only hope when most of us could see he’s out of it.
This is just horrible. You'd seriously advocate for a candidate simply because he annoys the sitting President?Your points would be valid except for this election. Just keep repeating this question. Who beats Trump?
For instance you know why I like Bloomberg? Because he drives Trump crazy!! That’s a good thing. That makes up for any faults he has.
I'm not talking about Pete here, but if there was a normal Republican running I know I would agree and I might be willing to support a "riskier" candidate. But I don't see this election as electing a Democrat as much as it is removing the national emergency currently occupying the White House.Me, I say if they are not worth adhering to during hard times they are not principles. I say if they are for sale that makes those selling whores, no better than what the say they will replace. Stand for something. If Pete is the best, put him forward.
He could very easily have done the Tom Steyer move of asking people to donate $1 to his campaign.All I was saying is that he didn't make the rules that don't allow him to debate
Nobody is shying away from Pete as being unelectable. That term is used, almost exclusively, on Bernie and Warren.I find a bit of irony in Democrats, the progressive, inclusive, forward thinking party morally situated, so they believe, to lecture others on diversity, inclusion, and equal rights, shying away from a gay candidate as unelectable, or less electable. Principles are one thing we are being told, but electability and power another. once power is obtained, we are told, then, then we can enact our principles.
Me, I say if they are not worth adhering to during hard times they are not principles. I say if they are for sale that makes those selling whores, no better than what the say they will replace. Stand for something. If Pete is the best, put him forward.
I respectfully disagree. We have seen that very argument made in this thread many times.Nobody is shying away from Pete as being unelectable. That term is used, almost exclusively, on Bernie and Warren.
I've seen a number of people on this board saying he can't win in the south because he's gay.Nobody is shying away from Pete as being unelectable.
Trump has sexually assaulted dozens of women, stole from a charity, created a fraudulent university, and used campaign money to pay hush money to a porn star that he was banging while his wife was pregnant, but I have a moral standard to uphold so he gets my vote because the other guy is gay.I've seen a number of people on this board saying he can't win in the south because he's gay.
Honestly outside of this forum and a couple references to his being gay hurting him with southern black voters (which I don't fully agree with), I haven't ever really seen his sexuality be an issue. The left hates him because they think he's a neolib owned by the oligarchy (which I think is def exaggerated).I find a bit of irony in Democrats, the progressive, inclusive, forward thinking party morally situated, so they believe, to lecture others on diversity, inclusion, and equal rights, shying away from a gay candidate as unelectable, or less electable. Principles are one thing we are being told, but electability and power another. once power is obtained, we are told, then, then we can enact our principles.
Me, I say if they are not worth adhering to during hard times they are not principles. I say if they are for sale that makes those selling whores, no better than what the say they will replace. Stand for something. If Pete is the best, put him forward.
Fair enough. I’ve stayed mostly out of Oete threads. I certainly haven’t heard close to that narrative in the media.I've seen a number of people on this board saying he can't win in the south because he's gay.
No, the media has, to my observations, which are sporadic, not done this at all. They have mentioned that he has not connected with back voters, yet, but have not pursued why that might be.Fair enough. I’ve stayed mostly out of Oete threads. I certainly haven’t heard close to that narrative in the media.
There was that Iowa caucuser who wanted her vote back after she found out he was gay.Honestly outside of this forum and a couple references to his being gay hurting him with southern black voters (which I don't fully agree with), I haven't ever really seen his sexuality be an issue. The left hates him because they think he's a neolib owned by the oligarchy (which I think is def exaggerated).
I want to clarify my thoughts on this because it's important (to me):I've seen a number of people on this board saying he can't win in the south because he's gay.
Jim Clyburn came out and said it. He regards homosexuality as immoral. Clyburn is arguably the most influential player in politics, has been for years. His endorsement of Obama over Hillary won South Carolina for Obama. His endorsement of Hillary over Bernie won South Carolina for Hillary. Etc.No, the media has, to my observations, which are sporadic, not done this at all. They have mentioned that he has not connected with back voters, yet, but have not pursued why that might be.
Clearly he also chose not to follow them. Not sure I've heard an argumentation asto why.Yeah, and you're right. Just looking to chat about it, not necessarily disagree with you.
Hah yeah, that's true. Forgot about that brilliant mind.There was that Iowa caucuser who wanted her vote back after she found out he was gay.
I agree (see my post above this one)He could very easily have done the Tom Steyer move of asking people to donate $1 to his campaign.
I don't think it means he can't win, but I have no doubt that Trump will absolutely make it an issue.Fair enough. I’ve stayed mostly out of Oete threads. I certainly haven’t heard close to that narrative in the media.
FWIW, he qualified it was older voters (who I do realize are more likely to vote). His grandson is a paid staffer for Buttigieg.Jim Clyburn came out and said it. He regards homosexuality as immoral. Clyburn is arguably the most influential player in politics, has been for years.
Oh, I’m sure Trump will make limp-wrist gestures and start lisping, but he’ll do something like that for anyone. If Bernie’s the nominee he’ll probably wear a Shylock wig.I don't think it means he can't win, but I have no doubt that Trump will absolutely make it an issue.
Not for nothing, but the primary system isn't exactly a constitutional mandate. It's political parties using taxpayer money/time/airwaves etc. to help fund their own decision making process in an effort to make it look like they don't "smoke cigars in the back room and play with people's lives." It's show. It's always been show.It's his choice to self finance and bypass the debates rather than building up a base of supporters who believe in/support him and shows they have americans behind him. Apparently all he needs is insane amounts of cash to equate to the millions of supporters the other candidates have. It's undemocratic to me to buy in like this. If he wanted to be a viable standard candidate, announce like the rest of them, and garner support in order to justify that folks want him as president.
And besides, anybody who gets the nomination is going to annoy the sitting president. Those radiation poisoning victims in Chernobyl had thicker skin than Trump.This is just horrible. You'd seriously advocate for a candidate simply because he annoys the sitting President?
That makes up for ANY faults he has?
How about supporting a candidate because like their policies and believe in their vision for America?
It would be entertaining but I think that particular pairing would really expose the divisions in the party.I think it would be entertaining for the Democratic race to ultimately come down to Bloomberg versus Sanders -- two non-Democrats.
I agree. I don't know what an optimal primary season option would look like, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't resemble the insanely wealthy buying into campaigns like Bloomberg is doing.Not for nothing, but the primary system isn't exactly a constitutional mandate. It's political parties using taxpayer money/time/airwaves etc. to help fund their own decision making process in an effort to make it look like they don't "smoke cigars in the back room and play with people's lives." It's show. It's always been show.
Bloomberg is the opposite end of the system that designed Iowa and New Hampshire to be the initial arbiters of who is the front runner to be President of the United States. The whole thing is silly in that way.
the suspense is killing me.If the New Hampshire turnout is as bad as the Iowa turnout....
I was reading something about bad turnout, and apparently part of it was "I am voting for whoever wins, I don't really care who", so they did not bother to waste time caucusing for hours. I cannot find where I read that at the moment, so no idea if it is true or not.If the New Hampshire turnout is as bad as the Iowa turnout....
Conventional political theory has always been more people show up to vote for something than show up to vote against something. I guess come November we will find out if that's accurateI was reading something about bad turnout, and apparently part of it was "I am voting for whoever wins, I don't really care who", so they did not bother to waste time caucusing for hours. I cannot find where I read that at the moment, so no idea if it is true or not.
With the special accommodations the DNC is giving Bloomberg, the DNC is continuing to lose cred. But I agree with you it will be entertaining.I think it would be entertaining for the Democratic race to ultimately come down to Bloomberg versus Sanders -- two non-Democrats.
Might be different if it is a caucus where you know it will take 4 hours, vs mail in ballots or some other lower effort method of voting, but I have no idea if my initial premise is correct, so not going to think to hard about it. I probably could not find time to vote in a caucus, even if I would want to. Luckily I have like 3 weeks to vote by mail.Conventional political theory has always been more people show up to vote for something than show up to vote against something. I guess come November we will find out if that's accurate