Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45495

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Yeah, are you under the impression that reublicsns and Dems operate under the same standards? Not even close.
Let’s remind you - the party of morality and family values is fine with porn-star fucking multiple adulterous affairs, multiple divorce pussy-grabbers, if it’s THEIR candidate....but if it’s a Dem, a picture of him mockingly reaching for boobs is a 100% disqualifier for any office. You need to grasp that standard, and know that it is going to be rigorously applied.

this makes me want to set things on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20702

Posted
Posted

People casually like Biden because he was Obama's buddy.  Pre-Trump, most people weren't hyper aware of his past positions/beliefs. Right now everyone is under the microscope, and Biden won't pass the smell test once they start focusing on him.

I can't imagine the amount of material from 45+ years in DC that people have on Biden. Dems will throw him in the trash heap sooner than later, as they should. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted

Biden's moment was 2016.

Unfortunately, if you wait, you get passed by.  Harris, Warren, Beto and Booker >>>>> Biden.

I like Joe (as a person).  I'd make him SOS to go repair relationships with our allies.  I don't think he's the guy to lead the Democratic Party to 1600 Pennsylvania in November 2020.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Once Obama gets on stage to stump for Biden the Democratic base will rally around him. 

This is not guaranteed that he's going to get Obama's endorsement.  Obama is going to be very selective about getting into this race and for who.  Do not be shocked if he goes with Harris or Beto over Biden. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20702

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Once Obama gets on stage to stump for Biden the Democratic base will rally around him. 

Look, I could be wrong. But people had their heads in the sand in 2016 and it looks like some Ds are still acting like politics can go back to business as usual post-Trump. It ain't happening. I don't think I can overestimate how quickly things have changed over the last 2 years.

Realizing that Trump is a symptom and not the cause, the LAST FUCKING THING we need to do is elect someone like Joe Biden. He's been in office so fucking long that HE is part of the reason we are in this shit show. 

An old, flimsy band-aid like Biden will not stop the blood from continuing to pour out. Luckily I think most Ds will realize this after he announces. 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

And that tweet calling him in neoliberal centrist and quoting his out of touch, boomer garbage about “those fucking millennials, man” is EXACTLY the kind of stuff I was talking about.

And there’s 45 years more of it to go through.

Not gonna lie either, I still hold a bit of grudge for him sitting out 2016.

Times up, Joe. You’ll make a fine SoS or UN Ambassador to repair our international relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28711

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Dems will not vote for him as the Presidential nominee. 

Unless they do. Given the size of the field, it's more likely than not that any given candidate will lose the nomination. The odds are stacked against all of them. It may be that right now none of them have a better than 1-in-10 chance of winning. 

The nomination will depend on a lot of factors including who's running the campaign (something I don't know about any of the candidates yet), their messaging strategy, fundraising, etc. None of us has a clue who is going to win the nomination so I think it's pointless to make bold predictions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

So this is kind of a big deal. 

 

The Left loves Barbara Lee. I'm curious what our resident leftists think of this.

Don’t check twitter. The Bernie Bros who wanted her to be speaker a Month ago have turned on her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

So this is kind of a big deal. 

 

The Left loves Barbara Lee. I'm curious what our resident leftists think of this.

Good for Harris.

Am I... supposed to feel strongly about this?

[edit]

It doesn't make me like Harris any more (I already like her) or respect Lee any less. I'm sure some hardcore Bernie fans are disappointed, and I'm sure they've told their two-dozen followers that, and then I'm sure a million others have (rightfully) piled onto them to get the usual Twitter points.

It also doesn't make Harris a better candidate with a better past or vision than she had before Lee endorsed her.

It's amazing how you guys are literally incapable of thinking about anything other than the horse race.

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Pete Buttigieg in regards to Mike Pence and other fundamentalists who still claim homosexuality is a choice -

f28870117205ce83d1206795c7441201.jpg

Pete was en fuego today.

Love it.  But the Mayor should understand that he said this on late-night television, and VP Pence isn't allowed to watch gay men on TV after 8:00p unless it's the Oscars, a broadway musical, Big Bang Theory, or home movies of himself.  

The whole "it's a choice" thing is making a comeback, which we know is bullshit.  But it really does raise an interesting question for the families of gay men and women who have ostracized their (grown) children.  It it was a choice, then it's completely your fault---you raised the kind of person who would make this awful (your opinion, not mine or your kids) decision.  And if you're the kind of idiot that thinks it's more of a genetic impulse that they didn't have to act out on, then they got that DNA from you.  Either way, you're the immoral asshole who should kill themselves and your child should be left free to live a happy life as a gay person.  Or you could grow the fuck up and take the third path, accept that sometimes kids are born gay, left-handed, and tall.  And just love them as much you can for who they are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Who is Barbara Lee?

El Paso-born Congresswoman representing the Oakland area.

She was the only person in Congress to vote against the post-9/11 power giveaway to the executive; the authorization of military force that has survived for two decades after the attacks.

She's good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted (edited)

"Hmm, who is Andrew Yang."

*brings up Wikipedia*

*dies 100 times in 10 seconds*

Quote

Andrew Yang (born January 13, 1975)[1] is an American entrepreneur, the founder of Venture for America, and a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. He has worked in startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive for nearly two decades and was appointed to public office in 2015 by the Obama administration as an Ambassador of Global Entrepreneurship.[2]

This paragraph was custom-designed to be repellent. There is basically nothing about it that is not risible.

I will absolutely tolerate the dimwit that is Joe Rogan to hear this guy out, though.

Edited by bad_teammate
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

Hopefully these people can push Harris into an actual, discernible policy platform. She's lining up some quality folks.

It seems like Bernie is coming, and that will be interesting.

Also, watch the Yang interview on Rogan and I like the guy. UBI is an interesting idea, but he says "entrepreneur" so many times I want to drown him an eternally-flushing toilet. But I'd vote for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12389

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Sounds like he commented fine..... You post a lot slanted tweets.  Do you follow these folks?  

 

What folks?

I don't know what was "slanted" about this - fact is, Booker refused to comment on the Smollett case and then pivoted to white supremacy.  If you're cool with that, bully for you.  Personally, I can't stand oh-yeah-but-whataboutism.  In this case, yes I fully believe that the rise of Trump and Trumpism has allowed to white supremecists to get more comfortable expressing their abhorrent views.  But I believe that Smollett deserves to be ridiculed and punished to the fullest extent of the law, partially because incidents like the Smollett case and the Duke lacrosse case and the Virginia fraternity case make it more difficult for real victims of hate and assault to get justice and compassion from the general public.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3903

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

What folks?

I don't know what was "slanted" about this - fact is, Booker refused to comment on the Smollett case and then pivoted to white supremacy.  If you're cool with that, bully for you.  Personally, I can't stand oh-yeah-but-whataboutism.  In this case, yes I fully believe that the rise of Trump and Trumpism has allowed to white supremecists to get more comfortable expressing their abhorrent views.  But I believe that Smollett deserves to be ridiculed and punished to the fullest extent of the law, partially because incidents like the Smollett case and the Duke lacrosse case and the Virginia fraternity case make it more difficult for real victims of hate and assault to get justice and compassion from the general public.

 

1.  I have no issue with folks criticizing Booker for rushing in and trying to take advantage of an alleged ugly situation for political gain (as did another nominee) -- namely to try and get momentum for his Anti-lynching legislation which just passed the Senate.  Nor do I have any issue with folks lambasting Smollett, if the latest reports are confirmed, as crying wolf often does "the cause", whatever they may be, more harm by a factor of 10.  Booker's most likely (or already has) going to have egg on his face and didn't listen to wise men..... He'd be even dumber to double down on it and instead says he's going to wait until the investigation is over, but doesn't want the larger issue and statistics to be lost due to stupidity -- namely Smollett's and some of his own.  FWIW, Harris and Scott are co-sponsers on the bill.  

To bring this to the thread at hand, Booker and Harris will have to navigate this as both tried to do the same thing:

2.  I simply asked a question about your twitter follow or feed,  Perhaps slanted tweets weren't accurate and slanted sources would be better.  Andy Ngo, Tom Elliott, Bill Mitchell, even Guy Benson are pretty slanted or extreme media personalities who have a noted slant to their perspectives.  Just asking how you come across these folks or if you follow them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12389

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

1.  I have no issue with folks criticizing Booker for rushing in and trying to take advantage of an alleged ugly situation for political gain (as did another nominee) -- namely to try and get momentum for his Anti-lynching legislation which just passed the Senate.  Nor do I have any issue with folks lambasting Smollett, if the latest reports are confirmed, as crying wolf often does "the cause", whatever they may be, more harm by a factor of 10.  Booker's most likely (or already has) going to have egg on his face and didn't listen to wise men..... He'd be even dumber to double down on it and instead says he's going to wait until the investigation is over, but doesn't want the larger issue and statistics to be lost due to stupidity -- namely Smollett's and some of his own.  FWIW, Harris and Scott are co-sponsers on the bill.  

To bring this to the thread at hand, Booker and Harris will have to navigate this as both tried to do the same thing:

2.  I simply asked a question about your twitter follow or feed,  Perhaps slanted tweets weren't accurate and slanted sources would be better.  Andy Ngo, Tom Elliott, Bill Mitchell, even Guy Benson are pretty slanted or extreme media personalities who have a noted slant to their perspectives.  Just asking how you come across these folks or if you follow them.

 

I'm probably best described as a never Trump conservative, or what conservative "should" mean, and that's who I follow.  Guys like Kristol, David Frum, Rick wilson, Tom Nichols, Popehat.  Mitchell is a clown and if I post stuff from him it's done purely tongue-in-cheek or for irony or for ridicule (like most of DJT's tweets).  As for the others...a stopped clock is right twice a day,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

On 2/13/2019 at 11:06 AM, Born to Run said:

 


That really is amazing. Democrat overstates heritage. We don’t even know if she was deliberately dishonest or not and that’s disqualifying for a Trump voter. I mean Trump has repeatedly violated any measure of integrity brazenly beyond any doubt.

 

This rages me out so hard -- why didn't Warren counter Trump with his claim -- in his fucking autobiography, no less -- that he was of Swedish extraction? It was a blatant lie, a ploy to placate New York Jewish real estate investors who loathed Germans and looked favorably on Swedes for their aid during the Holocaust. Unlike Warren, there was no family lore about distant Swedish ancestry -- his fucking grandfather came here from Germany. 

2 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

1.  I have no issue with folks criticizing Booker for rushing in and trying to take advantage of an alleged ugly situation for political gain (as did another nominee) -- namely to try and get momentum for his Anti-lynching legislation which just passed the Senate.  Nor do I have any issue with folks lambasting Smollett, if the latest reports are confirmed, as crying wolf often does "the cause", whatever they may be, more harm by a factor of 10.  Booker's most likely (or already has) going to have egg on his face and didn't listen to wise men..... He'd be even dumber to double down on it and instead says he's going to wait until the investigation is over, but doesn't want the larger issue and statistics to be lost due to stupidity -- namely Smollett's and some of his own.  FWIW, Harris and Scott are co-sponsers on the bill.  

To bring this to the thread at hand, Booker and Harris will have to navigate this as both tried to do the same thing:

 

 

Accepting Smollett's patently ridiculous tale as fact does not speak well on Harris's ability as a prosecutor. Seriously, anyone with an IQ of 75-plus could see the bullshit there instantly from ten miles away simply on the story's face, and once you examine the alleged facts, it falls apart completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12389

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Those numbers aren't too bad for Trump, and they'll be even better a year from now when, to appease the base/fringe, the Democratic candidates come out in support of child homicide if the mother's mental health would be negatively impacted by caring for her children, reparations, universal basic income of at least 6 figs for every man, woman, and child, and firing every customs agent at every airport and port of entry.

I'm kidding, obviously...maybe...I hope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...