Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
59 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Once my senile dictator president deports all democrats and their voting groups my town will have the violence rate of Switzerland.  So I can finally lay my weapons down.  
 

have fun in Venezuela when dictator Don MAGA deports you.  

 

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I never said I wanted that.  

Whats the above post mean? Or the fact that you've actually broken down what you mean by "(Democratic) voting groups" and their alleged violence many times on these boards.  Your racism is transparent. 

You're a racist. Just own it.   You even revel in it til you get called out on it. You only get squeamish when you think about how it would affect you if your friends and colleagues knew your true feelings. 

Like I said though. New leaf might be good for you. Repent. You already know your beliefs aren't acceptable to the people around you. You already know you're wrong. You can change still.  

  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No when states close hundreds of polling places in minority areas nationwide.

Am I on drugs?

Do you people actually think we are doing this well?

This is America. America is for white people. It's always been this way. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Brew said:

These threads sure have gone off the rails, I guess that’s the genesis of the Cloak Room though.

Walked in today and cast my first vote in a Democratic primary. It felt a little odd just for the record. 

Sounds like we honestly might not agree on much politically, but respect for putting country over party/ideology.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't believe this. Warren has pivoted probably more the anyone in this primary, but angling for a position in Biden's administration seems so sinister that it doesn't make sense to me. 

Then what other plausible reason is there for her to stay in this race?  She has absolutely zero chance of obtaining the nomination in a contested convention with the establishment coalescing around a Biden and her having a minuscule amount of delegates. It’s the only plausible outcome. 

Posted

Not that BT needs me to white knight for him but I don't recall seeing him post anything about minority disenfranchisement costing Bernie anything.  Maybe he just *gasp* wants everybody who wants to vote to be able to vote without spending 3+ hours on it because it's the right way to do things?

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

It seems like exactly the type of thing Elizabeth Warren would do.   But also squarely in the category of things Elizabeth Warren would do, she’s played her political hand poorly enough that she doesn’t really have much leverage left to get a prime position, anyway.  

If Warren endorses Biden or seeks a job in his administration, it pretty much ruins whatever legacy she has created over the last decade. She'd be known as the biggest traitor to the progressive movement. I'd be shocked. 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

I was told this doesn't matter because it's a multi-person race this time.  And that as other candidates dropped out, Bernie would be everyone's 2nd choice.

In seriousness, I've thought for awhile that his lower numbers in 2020 shows that in 2016 he was picking up a huge chunk of never Hillary voters.  And in 2016 that still wasn't enough.

Posted
9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Can someone explain to me what is happening?

Am I saying something weird by pointing out that our electoral process has been jammed up by racist power structures as federal voting protections die and that their purpose is voter disenfranchisement, especially of the poor and minority populations?

When the hell did this become controversial to point out?
 

How about fuck off thinking foreigners should monitor OUR god damned elections?  Are you that far lost that it’s a surprise that suggestion didn’t get a ringing endorsement from everyone here?

Posted
8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Your party just rejected a bill that would require doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion. 
 

You sick fucks have no moral high ground on anything ever.  
 

Ask your minister wife about that one. 

I thought Republicans were for less federal government intervention and less regulation. 

Posted
1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

How about fuck off thinking foreigners should monitor OUR god damned elections?  Are you that far lost that it’s a surprise that suggestion didn’t get a ringing endorsement from everyone here?

Forget it he's rolling

Posted
Your party just rejected a bill that would require doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion. 
 
You sick fucks have no moral high ground on anything ever.  
 
Ask your minister wife about that one. 

Using the abortion issue as a cover for the most loathsome of beliefs, for cruelty and contempt for fellow humans, especially minorities...again, the broken psyche isn’t particularly original.

Never mind that you’re championing a party that’s holding up legislation to work towards treatment/vaccines of a deadly illness...because the legislation would provide govt help, and in return would limit a company to a fair profit...which isn’t enough. Profits over lives. Worship of mammon...my wife has thoughts on that, I know.

You think you’re clever and original. You’re not. You’re an entirely predictable broken soul, who tries in vain to use wealth as a substitute for human worth. It doesn’t work. Nobody’s buying it. Not even you.
  • Like 8
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Then what other plausible reason is there for her to stay in this race?  She has absolutely zero chance of obtaining the nomination in a contested convention with the establishment coalescing around a Biden and her having a minuscule amount of delegates. It’s the only plausible outcome. 

Ego? I don't know. 

But I'm assuming she drops out tomorrow and will endorse Bernie soon. But maybe Bernie's camp is mad at her after tonight. I haven't been paying much attention over the last 3-4 hours. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Irieguy said:

I thought Republicans were for less federal government intervention and less regulation. 

Protecting lives of citizens is a valid function of the government.  

Posted
3 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Biden has won the states he was supposed to win with the moderates/conservatives coalescing around one candidate.

Maine, Mass, Minne, Texas, and Colorado are the canaries in the coal mine. Not Vir, NC, Ala, Tenn. 

California is Sanders firewall. 

Too early to know anything yet. 

For Biden - strength across the map. His strategy person knows how to work the channels of power. Nice switch on his roster. That is Sanders' weakness - lines of communication with the  the moneyed interests of the third way democrats - who are again asserting their theory of Democratic Party loyalties. That is where Bernie is losing the message. Current Biden supporters want to make sure Trump loses so we can return to "normalcy."  Period. They have wants beyond that, but no Trump is the one demand. Fair?

For Sanders - Flatfooted on the strategy switch from the Centrists (Resist and Never Bernie's, among others) and Never Trumpers. They needed to pivot quickly back to the earlier strategy against Biden and learn from those who took him down this cycle and in other elections. That's fixable, but what emerges beyond that is Warren or Bloomberg. Remember, candidates can release their delegates before the numbers are tallied - on a state by state basis. The rules vary.

So Bernie may be facing all these candidates again if Biden falters  - not an unlikely occurrence. They learned from 2016. Don't coronate a candidate as inevitable - it creates hubris and blind spots.. Smart. So - still in the race among the Centrists - Biden (current frontrunner) then a choice of Blomberg on the right of him or Warren to the left. Biden is more Bloomberg than Warren. So it proves the Never Bernie case that people don't care about wants - they just want a return to the world before Trump. 

The Party is split. Biden needs to be on task and focused. Bernie needs to switch issues and make case to older Americans - 40-90 on relatable issues.

Young people have been great, in my dealing with them. They want sincerity - not lip service. An unlivable world is their future. That's is as bad as the Cold War was for older Americans when we were prepared for world annihilation via nuclear weapons. It may be worse for them. I grew up on military bases or near them. Nuclear war meant I would did in a nanosecond. They would have to try and survive. And the economics insecurity is real. Maybe not for your kids, but maybe for some of your friends. 

Leave you with this - from a group of young people:

 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Your party just rejected a bill that would require doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion. 
 

You sick fucks have no moral high ground on anything ever.  
 

Ask your minister wife about that one. 

Can you provide some current data about how many abortions fail these days?

Maybe speak to existing laws about how doctors care for babies too. I know that you don't want the government wasting time on passing needless laws.

Edited by Seger78
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:


Using the abortion issue as a cover for the most loathsome of beliefs, for cruelty and contempt for fellow humans, especially minorities...again, the broken psyche isn’t particularly original.

Never mind that you’re championing a party that’s holding up legislation to work towards treatment/vaccines of a deadly illness...because the legislation would provide govt help, and in return would limit a company to a fair profit...which isn’t enough. Profits over lives. Worship of mammon...my wife has thoughts on that, I know.

You think you’re clever and original. You’re not. You’re an entirely predictable broken soul, who tries in vain to use wealth as a substitute for human worth. It doesn’t work. Nobody’s buying it. Not even you.

That isn’t the abortion issue you crazy off the deep end fuck. It’s requiring doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion.  Your party is fucking sick.  
 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Seger78 said:

Can you provide some current data about how many abortions fail these days?

Maybe speak to existing laws about how doctors care for babies too. I know that you don't want the government wasting time on passing needles laws.

Can we apply this to anti lynching legislation too?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If Warren endorses Biden or seeks a job in his administration, it pretty much ruins whatever legacy she has created over the last decade. She'd be known as the biggest traitor to the progressive movement. I'd be shocked. 

 

LOL she doesn't care. She will do what she's told. 

Democratic Machine always wins.

Posted
1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Protecting lives of citizens is a valid function of the government.  

 

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

That isn’t the abortion issue you crazy off the deep end fuck. It’s requiring doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion.  Your party is fucking sick.  
 

 

Requiring treatment without consideration of condition is too restrictive. Regardless of age of the individual. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Suburban college educated women.

Then Dallas must have gone to Biden cause poc. 

Which makes me wonder if those same women will sit out for the presidential election if Biden is nominated. I could be wrong.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Your party just rejected a bill that would require doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion. 
 

You sick fucks have no moral high ground on anything ever.  
 

Ask your minister wife about that one. 

Why should there be a federal law requiring doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Why should there be a federal law requiring doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion?

Yikes, that thinking seems to go down a dark road. 

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Why should there be a federal law requiring doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion?

This is gonna be awesome

giphy.gif

  • Haha 2
Posted

Sack is shit-the-bed-tonight drunk. Poor Lupe is gonna have a mess to deal with after she packs his kid’s lunches and gets them to the bus stop.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Why shouldn’t there be?

Because it’s too restrictive. We don’t force doctors to keep patients on life support indefinitely. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Why should there be a federal law requiring doctors to treat babies born alive after a failed abortion?

What should we do, put them in the kid cages built by Obama and Biden?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What should we do, put them in the kid cages built by Obama and Biden?

Is this really an issue so widespread and egregious that the states need the federal government to step in and handle it? Or is it just showing off for the base?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Is this really an issue so widespread and egregious that the states need the federal government to step in and handle it? Or is it just showing off for the base?

What’s your thought on the anti lynching act?  



×
×
  • Create New...