Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 6:52 PM, bad_teammate said:

Other than Gabbard, are we worried that there is a candidate who is actually against Congress impeaching Trump?

Expand  

She did change her mind, eventually.

Otherwise, everyone up there should be like YEAH FUCK THAT GUY.  Now let's talk about how Republicans want to rip away your healthcare. 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 6:55 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

Their job as presidential candidates is to win the GE in 2020 and lead this country post-Trump. 

As BT has said, they are all pro-impeachment outside of Gabbard. Talking about it at the debate will just be a contest of who can put out the best one-liner to appease the #Resisters. No thanks. 

Expand  

Really?!?  I suppose you’d prefer they talk about abortion, guns, or socialism?  Because that’s what the debate will be about otherwise.  The front runner has voluntarily decided to make the entire election about Donald Trump.  He should absolutely be able to make his case in light of the new information that has emerged.  It would be negligent not to. 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:09 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Really?!?  I suppose you’d prefer they talk about abortion, guns, or socialism?  Because that’s what the debate will be about otherwise.  The front runner has voluntarily decided to make the entire election about Donald Trump.  He should absolutely be able to make his case in light of the new information that has emerged.  It would be negligent not to. 

Expand  

Yes, let's talk about Donald Trump more. 

 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:23 PM, henrygandorf said:

you want to see 12 people who all have the same opinion answer a yes-or-no question?

i'm sure they'll bring it up, but i hope they don't waste too much time on it.

Expand  

Raise your hand if....

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:23 PM, henrygandorf said:

you want to see 12 people who all have the same opinion answer a yes-or-no question?

i'm sure they'll bring it up, but i hope they don't waste too much time on it.

Expand  

It’s CNN/NYT.  The debate is going to be a shit show with loaded gotcha questions and friendly fire sniping.  If you think anything of substance is going to come out of the debate you haven’t been paying attention.   Might as well tackle the elephant in the room. 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:30 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s CNN/NYT.  The debate is going to be a shit show with loaded gotcha questions and friendly fire sniping.  If you think anything of substance is going to come out of the debate you haven’t been paying attention.   Might as well tackle the elephant in the room. 

Expand  

Yes, no one brings up Trump to the presidential candidates and they never talk about it. 

 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:28 PM, Hank Kingsley said:
Expand  

While I disagree with her, there is a compelling case to be made why Trump shouldn’t be banned.  For one, it plays into his persecution complex that everyone is out to get him and second, he is still the president of the United States.  POTUS being denied a direct line of communication to the population because his rhetoric is harmful could open up more cans of worms than it prevents. 

I would still temporarily ban him if Twitter was my platform though to deter future harmful rhetoric. 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:38 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

While I disagree with her, there is a compelling case to be made why Trump shouldn’t be banned.  For one, it plays into his persecution complex that everyone is out to get him and second, he is still the president of the United States.  POTUS being denied a direct line of communication to the population because his rhetoric is harmful could open up more cans of worms than it prevents. 

I would still temporarily ban him if Twitter was my platform though to deter future harmful rhetoric. 

Expand  

I agree with Warren. 

 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:41 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You know half the candidates on the stag actually have a vote to remove Trump should the house impeach him? 

Expand  

And they've all (now) said they support it, if not outright called for him before the inquiry was opened.  What's the point? 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:43 PM, Js1 said:

And they've all (now) said they support it, if not outright called for him before the inquiry was opened.  What's the point? 

Expand  

It’s an opportunity to nudge public opinion a little more, KEEP HAMMERING THE CASE.  Put on repeat to saturate the public consciousness. This is what Trump does and it’s effective. Keep repeating the case. 

80% of the shit they are going to say on debate night is stuff they’ve said and we’ve heard before.  Might as well get the most bang out of it.

Posted

We know that every single currently-elected rep would vote to impeach Trump, even Gabbard.

What we DON'T know is ...
- How committed they are to guaranteeing 100% of all Americans healthcare regardless of payment
- How committed they are to going carbon-zero in the next 2 decades
- How committed they are to forgiving student and medical debt
- How committed they are to deeply and strongly regulating Wall Street & Silicon Valley
- How committed they are to ending our imperialism abroad
- How committed they are to eliminating funding for despotic, mass-murdering regimes

Now, corporate media debates won't really bother with those important questions anyway, so it's all kind of just farting in the wind.

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 7:51 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s an opportunity to nudge public opinion a little more, KEEP HAMMERING THE CASE.  Put on repeat to saturate the public consciousness. This is what Trump does and it’s effective. Keep repeating the case. 

80% of the shit they are going to say on debate night is stuff they’ve said and we’ve heard before.  Might as well get the most bang out of it.

Expand  

They should all dress as Trump for the debates. Then just answer questions about Trump in their best Trump impersonations. 

  • Like 1
Posted

The election IS A REFERENDUM ON TRUMP.  

If the tables were turned and Obama was running in 2020 for his fourth term, the Republicans would be slamming Obama all debate long and it would be more effective on the audience than talking about fiscal responsibility or free trade. 

And they would be strategically correct to do so.

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 6:35 PM, Js1 said:

 

Expand  

Elite 8

West Division

Biden v. Booker   winner Booker

Sanders v. Harris  winner Sanders

East Div

Warren v. O'Rourke  winner Warren

Butt v. Yang  winner Butt

Final 4

Booker v. Sanders  winner Booker

Warren v. Buttigieg  winner Warren

Final

Booker v. Warren = ???

Profit

 

 

 

 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 8:07 PM, tantric superman said:

Elite 8

West Division

Biden v. Booker   winner Booker

Sanders v. Harris  winner Sanders

East Div

Warren v. O'Rourke  winner Warren

Butt v. Yang  winner Butt

Final 4

Booker v. Sanders  winner Booker

Warren v. Buttigieg  winner Warren

Final

Booker v. Warren = ???

Profit

 

 

 

 

Expand  

You ain't gonna give the top 2 in each division a bye so that 3-6 and 4-5 play first? Come on man, that's some CFP shit right there. 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 8:10 PM, Biff Tannen said:

How about we get deep in the weeds on M4A vs public option vs furthering Obama care again?  It's been super fun the last three fucking debates.

Expand  

Oh this is absolutely going to happen again.  The candidates will have 30 seconds each to go over their plan to overhaul a fifth of the United States economy and then scream about socialism. 

Posted

Beto said that because Pete took a shot at him earlier; implying Beto didn’t care about guns until the El Paso shooting and calling buybacks “the latest shiny thing”.

On that note -

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 10:14 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

BEECD63C-9E27-4DC0-ADEA-E5AA58C4239B_zps

 

Tell me more about Joe Biden’s 20 point lead in South Carolina...

Expand  

I assume this is some Hugo point that because black voters are still considering more than 1 candidate (as are white voters!) and therefore Joe doesn’t have a 20 point lead in SC but....

Joe Biden still has a 20 point lead in SC and Liz only got 9% of black voters in that poll just saying 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 10:31 PM, Js1 said:

I assume this is some Hugo point that because black voters are still considering more than 1 candidate (as are white voters!) and therefore Joe doesn’t have a 20 point lead in SC but....

Joe Biden still has a 20 point lead in SC and Liz only got 9% of black voters in that poll just saying 

Expand  

More of a jab at how hyper focused everyone is on South Carolina now that all the other Joe Biden talking points and advantages are disintegrating.  

“Ignore all other data, what about South Carolina!” 

Clearly he’s going to build on that lead over the next four months and not dissolve into an afterthought by June.  

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 10:31 PM, Js1 said:

I assume this is some Hugo point that because black voters are still considering more than 1 candidate (as are white voters!) and therefore Joe doesn’t have a 20 point lead in SC but....

Joe Biden still has a 20 point lead in SC and Liz only got 9% of black voters in that poll just saying 

Expand  

South Carolina is nearly 5 months away.  It's not the present standing that matters but the trajectory. 

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 10:31 PM, Js1 said:

I assume this is some Hugo point that because black voters are still considering more than 1 candidate (as are white voters!) and therefore Joe doesn’t have a 20 point lead in SC but....

Joe Biden still has a 20 point lead in SC and Liz only got 9% of black voters in that poll just saying 

Expand  

I don't understand the argument that Biden wins due to Black support in Southern states. Southern states that are 20 percent or more Black are: Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, and North Carolina.

If those are the only states he wins, where does that get him? And, I am not sure he can win North Carolina.

Posted

that video is great.  what a fucking embarrassment those people are. “yeah we called her names and chased her into the parking lot. sure, she’s a 70 year old college professor, but she wants to hurt the businesses of really rich people that i read about on the library internet.”

warren should use that footage in her own ads. 

there was a scene in succession last week where there was one lone protestor standing holding a sign. dude was like, “it’s more awkward when there’s only one, like, you try not to make eye contact.”

Posted
  On 10/2/2019 at 10:06 PM, Bama Chick said:
Beto said that because Pete took a shot at him earlier; implying Beto didn’t care about guns until the El Paso shooting and calling buybacks “the latest shiny thing”.

On that note -



Naw, that’s not fair. What Beto is doing is more like John Cusack with the jam box.


×
×
  • Create New...