2020 Democratic Nominee

fattyflattie · February 21, 2020

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Shit, I wish a HEB was by me.

Why? Never fucking open.

henrygandorf · February 21, 2020

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Trump is a battle, not a war. Hyperbolic drama aside, the nation will exist long after Trump. So that's out as for "war, not battle" logic.

he made his 179th ‘joke’ about staying in office for 3+ terms tonight. in 1 or 5 years, he’s not going quietly, and who knows what state of existence the nation will be in when he does.

you’re dismissing him as a battle way too quickly. i assume you just don’t follow the day-to-day bullshit with him, and i can’t say i blame you.

babysdaddy · February 21, 2020

you asked a question. i answered it. accurately.
so what are we talking about now?

You didn’t answer it the ‘right’ way HG. You’re going on BT and Washparks list. To the gulags!

henrygandorf · February 21, 2020

Just now, babysdaddy said:

You didn’t answer it the ‘right’ way HG. You’re going on BT and Washparks list. To the gulags!

that’s actually incorrect. you know you’ve answered a question correctly when bt pivots to a different conversation. stationary goalposts are overrated anyway.

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

It's not a different conversation. Abortion rights are vital, yes, but the larger war for democracy is about more than that.

It's about who has power.

A Mike Bloomberg presidency will give us a handful of good things and accelerate, with greater speed and efficacy than Trump, the destruction of actual democracy.

Trump is constrained by a few things:

- a genuine desire to fight for the little guy

- an impressive level of managerial incompetence

- an inability to find and maintain effective help

- a need to be liked

- very short attention span

- ignorance of how systems work

There's more, but that's enough for now.

Mike Bloomberg does not suffer from these constraints.

Trump talks about maintaining power beyond the number of terms currently set? That's terrible. Bloomberg actually did that.

If the only thing we can think of is judges, then think honestly about what judges he will put in.

- keep Citizens United

- ignore all racial justice questions (voting rights, etc)

- protect all corporate interests

- ignore all financial corruption

And the list of things than will actually destroy democracy goes on.

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

Why the non-Bernies are all calling in the Super PACs

Cheeseweasel · February 21, 2020

Need to change Bloomberg from NA to ∞

Mrs Whiggins · February 21, 2020

Do you really believe Trump has a desire to fight for the little guy? I figure he sees the little guy as a stupid stooge that he can throw some compliments at and then close the deal (votes, whatever) and move on. Hence his stories about his supporters. He says things like, "these lovely ladies, they come up to me, beautiful ladies wearing their bandanas and hats..." or "these hard working big men are so thankful because they were desperate for jobs and I created 15 million jobs so they can work."

I'm not sure I'm understanding you in this regard.

thrillhammer · February 21, 2020

10 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

11 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

if trump/mcconnell get to replace 1+ more judge we’re in deep fucking shit for a couple decades.
any effort by the dems that doesn’t start with beating trump is misguided.
this isn’t about principles.

What kind of judges do you think Bloomberg is going to put in?

you're not seriously arguing with gandorf's point are you? he's right you know.

bernorange · February 21, 2020

12 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm going out for the night, but off the top of my head, the Dems actually believe in the rule of law. That's kind of important.

Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder nods his head. HRC's use of a private server for handling official business (including classified information) broke laws that sent other people to jail. Robert's interpretation of the ACA as a tax (that wasn't supposed to be a tax) was contorted buillshit that Dems loved because it suited their purpose. Don't kid yourself. The political class (whether D, R or other) look out for the power structure. "Rule of law" only exists to the extent that the masses demand it. And the masses don't care about the rule of law. They care about team.

Mrs Whiggins · February 21, 2020

5 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder nods his head. HRC's use of a private server for handling official business (including classified information) broke laws that sent other people to jail. Robert's interpretation of the ACA as a tax (that wasn't supposed to be a tax) was contorted buillshit that Dems loved because it suited their purpose. Don't kid yourself. The political class (whether D, R or other) look out for the power structure. "Rule of law" only exists to the extent that the masses demand it. And the masses don't care about the rule of law. They care about team.

Sadly, I believe you are correct w/respect to power and especially what 'we' demand. We look the other way when its convenient, we look the other way when we take everything for granted.

Time for a new 'team?' The Surly Rule America For The Greater Good Because Most Of Us Know Jack Shit But We Know Right From Wrong Party?

Thetexashammer · February 21, 2020

14 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder nods his head. HRC's use of a private server for handling official business (including classified information) broke laws that sent other people to jail. Robert's interpretation of the ACA as a tax (that wasn't supposed to be a tax) was contorted buillshit that Dems loved because it suited their purpose. Don't kid yourself. The political class (whether D, R or other) look out for the power structure. "Rule of law" only exists to the extent that the masses demand it. And the masses don't care about the rule of law. They care about team.

DACA was (cough cough) not statutury. Obama spent billions without appropriations, which is what normal people would call theft. Murdering an American teen eating hummus in Yemen. The list is really, really long. He ({almost) literally said, once he couldn't get shit form Congress, that he would just make shit up.

Not excusing Trump or Obama, just saying that corruption is obviously not a one party issue. I mean, look at FDR. Dude just did as he pleased and didn't give a fuck either way. Reagan - Iran/Contra. It's a bipartisan tradition.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Thetexashammer

Zombie · February 21, 2020

DACA was (cough cough) not statutury. Obama spent billions without appropriations, which is what normal people would call theft. Murdering an American teen eating hummus in Yemen. The list is really, really long. He ({almost) literally said, once he couldn't get shit form Congress, that he would just make shit up.
Not excusing Trump or Obama, just saying that corruption is obviously not a one party issue. I mean, look at FDR. Dude just did as he pleased and didn't give a fuck either way. Reagan - Iran/Contra. It's a bipartisan tradition.

Both sides!!!!

6th Street · February 21, 2020

8 minutes ago, Zombie said:

19 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

DACA was (cough cough) not statutury. Obama spent billions without appropriations, which is what normal people would call theft. Murdering an American teen eating hummus in Yemen. The list is really, really long. He ({almost) literally said, once he couldn't get shit form Congress, that he would just make shit up.
Not excusing Trump or Obama, just saying that corruption is obviously not a one party issue. I mean, look at FDR. Dude just did as he pleased and didn't give a fuck either way. Reagan - Iran/Contra. It's a bipartisan tradition.

Read more

Both sides!!!!

Very fine people!

Thetexashammer · February 21, 2020

1 minute ago, 6th Street said:

Very fine people!

The BEST people, very bigly.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Thetexashammer

JBJ · February 21, 2020

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Need to change Bloomberg from NA to ∞

Steyer also, but a littler ∞

Cheeseweasel · February 21, 2020

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Steyer also, but a littler ∞

smol

Bruh Man · February 21, 2020

With his organizational chops and fundraising ability I wish Pete had won that DNC race instead of the lame Perez. Did anybody here follow that race closely? I'm curious if Pete was ever considered a formidable contender.

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Do you really believe Trump has a desire to fight for the little guy?

Absolutely he does. He 100% believes he's a man of the people.

He loves the big strong bikers. He loves the big strong soldiers. He loves the big strong football players. That's not a front, he loves them. He strokes his little Harvey Weinstein pecker at night imagining himself being carried on a golden litter through the streets as the grateful masses chant his name.

This was not cynical. Donald Trump is vulgar in all senses of the word, including the outdated definition "of the masses".

Does he know the little guy? Of course not!
Does he understand what the little guy needs? He actually does far more than most will give him credit for.
Does he understand how to get that accomplished? Nope.
Is he strong enough to fight for them when facing even minimal resistance? NOPE!
Would he actually enjoy living among the masses? Hell no.

Does he believe in his heart that's what he's doing? 100%

I watched at least a dozen of his rallies in 2015/16. This man is a con artist who believes his own con.

Bloomberg is disgusted by even the concept of working class people. He hates humanity.

Mrs Whiggins · February 21, 2020

You know, in a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker kind of way, I see your point.

Edit to add-as I look at the photo, I don't see the burgers I'm looking at the wonderful furnishings and thinking how awe-inspiring and encouraging it would be to work and live there surrounded by all that came before. Knowing that our current President does not seem to feel the same makes me sad.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
Addition

Hank Kingsley · February 21, 2020

1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

With his organizational chops and fundraising ability I wish Pete had won that DNC race instead of the lame Perez. Did anybody here follow that race closely? I'm curious if Pete was ever considered a formidable contender.

I did not follow closely at the time, but have read some about it.

Everyone was generally impressed by him and he got an endorsement from Howard Dean, but he did not have enough insider status to really compete against Ellison and Perez.

Here's an article about it that I just found: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-pete-buttigieg-dnc-chair-2017-2

Here's an interesting quote from Bernie's current campaign manager:

Many progressive figures in the party were equally impressed by the South Bend mayor.

"I thought he ran an impressive campaign," Jeff Weaver, Sen. Bernie Sanders' former campaign manager, said on Saturday. "He coalesced a lot of support coming from a red state, and I think people were very impressed with his ability convey a powerful message. I think there is certainly a future for him in the party if he wants to have a national profile."

TXSG8R · February 21, 2020

8 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

You know, in a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker kind of way, I see your point.

Edit to add-as I look at the photo, I don't see the burgers I'm looking at the wonderful furnishings and thinking how awe-inspiring and encouraging it would be to work and live there surrounded by all that came before. Knowing that our current President does not seem to feel the same makes me sad.

I can imagine some poor archivist weeping trying to figure out how to get taco bell sauce stains out of the resolute desk.

Mrs Whiggins · February 21, 2020

6 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I can imagine some poor archivist weeping trying to figure out how to get taco bell sauce stains out of the resolute desk.

If the Depends leak at all, the whole place is going to reek.

Hank Kingsley · February 21, 2020

gmr548 · February 21, 2020

DACA was (cough cough) not statutury. Obama spent billions without appropriations, which is what normal people would call theft. Murdering an American teen eating hummus in Yemen. The list is really, really long. He ({almost) literally said, once he couldn't get shit form Congress, that he would just make shit up.
Not excusing Trump or Obama, just saying that corruption is obviously not a one party issue. I mean, look at FDR. Dude just did as he pleased and didn't give a fuck either way. Reagan - Iran/Contra. It's a bipartisan tradition.

Seen stronger But Obamas on campus. 5/10.

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

I can't get too mad at Liz's blatant hypocrisies because it's just kind of a sad desperation.

Major Tim Ryan energy going on in that quote.

henrygandorf · February 21, 2020

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not a different conversation. Abortion rights are vital, yes, but the larger war for democracy is about more than that.

It's about who has power.

eh, sort of. it's more about what you do with the power, and what guard rails are placed on ability to wield it.

by definition, bloomberg cannot be nearly as dangerous as trump without a mcconnell type of lapdog doing his bidding. he has completely eliminated the congress and their ability to check the power of the executive and has completely trashed the system and purpose of checks and balances. do you have any tangential evidence that bloomberg has the ability or motive to behave this way?

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Trump is constrained by a few things:

- a genuine desire to fight for the little guy

- an impressive level of managerial incompetence

- an inability to find and maintain effective help

- a need to be liked

- very short attention span

- ignorance of how systems work

There's more, but that's enough for now.

Mike Bloomberg does not suffer from these constraints.

trump doesn't suffer from any constraints. he's literally doing whatever he wants because he does not suffer from the constraint of the law that actually limits the power of the executive. he has surrounded himself with sycophants and yes-men, most of whom are ridiculously unqualified to hold the positions they're appointed to (see the dni as latest example). he has abused the judicial system to avoid all transparency and hide the fraud in which he's constantly engaged. he has allowed the senate to sit on bills that he and mcconnell aren't interested in moving forward on.

your list, while quaint, is more of an aspirational "what could keep trump from being a truly great president", but certainly isn't a list illustrating that trump has been ineffective in wrecking the democratic republic he claims to lead.

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Trump talks about maintaining power beyond the number of terms currently set? That's terrible. Bloomberg actually did that.

if you can't see the difference and the precedence of a mayor doing this, and the effect it has on the country, then i can't help you. this is apples and monkeys.

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If the only thing we can think of is judges, then think honestly about what judges he will put in.

that's not "the only thing we can think of", it's just the best example to explain why trump is not just a "four-year problem" for this country. what he's doing now and what he could "accomplish" over the next 5 years will be felt long after he's gone.

that said, installing judges should never ever be overlooked. and presidents don't nominate judges that share every specific potential misdeed they might possess (bloomberg did stop-and-frisk, so he'll nominate judges that promote racial inequality!!!1). that's greatly oversimplifying it. think in broader terms. another trump justice will keep us unbalanced for a long time. this is a conservative/liberal breakdown, not a specific smaller issue breakdown. you can't be this naive about it.

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

And the list of things than will actually destroy democracy goes on.

trump is currently destroying democracy. he's demonizing the press. he's circumventing the other branches. he's abusing the judicial. he's encouraging foreign interference. he's compromised our elections. he's selling out our country for personal enrichment and the enrichment of those close to him or those who can help him keep power. he's treated our allies like shit and changed the world's perception of america, while embracing despots and dictators who wish us harm. he's turned the doj into his own goon squad, and has overreached and abused his power in every possible, imaginable, conceivable way. i could go on, but i don't think i should have to.

i'm not defending bloomberg. but he's not in the same fucking universe as trump. your little propaganda campaign needs to end.

Zonahorn · February 21, 2020

Edited February 21, 2020 by Calihorn

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

Trump has the Republican Senate and nothing in the House. He can only get what he wants via the constantly-expanding unitary power of the executive.

Bloomberg will use his money to buy both houses of Congress plus the constantly-expanding unitary power of the executive.

I know you didn’t watch the debate (who needs the actual information about this stuff? Better to not pay much attention but still be a know-it-all!), but Bloomberg himself said in the debate that he buys Democrats and Republicans (in his testy tax-related exchange with Sanders). It's right there in front of our faces. None of this is even vaguely hidden.

His history as mayor shows him buying whoever he needs to buy (via Bloomberg Philanthropies) to get what he wants. Again, the history is right there if anyone cares to look at it.

Quote

if you can't see the difference and the precedence of a mayor doing this, and the effect it has on the country, then i can't help you. this is apples and monkeys.

I'm pulling this out specifically because it's just so ridiculous.

"Look, I know he stole $20 from the box that only had $20 in it, but that's WILDLY different from stealing $2,000 from a box that has $2,000 in it!"

It's like you just don't want to see what's in front of you because you have a built-in narrative and you're desperate to just keep it alive because research is hard and changing positions is emasculating.

He is telling you both with his actions and his mouth what he wants to do, and your response is to stick your fingers in your ears.

Quote

that's not "the only thing we can think of", it's just the best example to explain why trump is not just a "four-year problem" for this country. what he's doing now and what he could "accomplish" over the next 5 years will be felt long after he's gone.

Who said "four-year problem"? Why did you quote that like it's a thing someone said?

Trump is a temporary problem. Even justices he appoints are temporary problems if the next president has courage. Don't like an SC justice? Fine, pack the court. Rotate the conservatives off.

And again, you're either blindly ignorant of what Michael Bloomberg is or you're just lying, but I want you to seriously tell me what you think Michael Bloomberg's selection criteria will be for judges. Be honest. Think.

Skipper · February 21, 2020

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Trump is a temporary problem. Even justices he appoints are temporary problems if the next president has courage. Don't like an SC justice? Fine, pack the court. Rotate the conservatives off.

JFC

henrygandorf · February 21, 2020

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Trump has the Republican Senate and nothing in the House. He can only get what he wants via the constantly-expanding unitary power of the executive.

you say this like it's nothing. trump has shown he doesn't need the house. they control the purse-strings, so trump diverts billions from military projects to build his wall. the house controls the only investigatory process into the president's actions, but trump says, "no thank you, we don't feel like acknowledging or participating in these investigations, please see yourselves out." that is both ground-breaking and absolutely horrifying.

54 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I know you didn’t watch the debate (who needs the actual information about this stuff? Better to not pay much attention but still be a know-it-all!), but Bloomberg himself said in the debate that he buys Democrats and Republicans (in his testy tax-related exchange with Sanders). It's right there in front of our faces. None of this is even vaguely hidden.

well this is fucking rich. the debate was on wed night. it's friday morning. i don't spend my days sitting on various boards, i actually have to travel a fair amount for some of my work, and was disengaged from the past 40 hours of political news because i was in dc. i'm sure you can appreciate the irony of that. i watched the first half of the debate last night when i got back, and have read plenty about it since it aired. are you really going to paint me as the uninformed know-it-all? this is the only debate i didn't watch fully within 24 hours of air, and i'll still make it under 48, so spare me the theatrics.

it's one thing to offer some loose conjecture about what you think someone might or might not do based on previous campaign contributions. it's a whole other thing to base it on what trump is currently doing - which is controlling by fear, and ignoring the rest. trump doesn't need to buy politicians. he's shown he doesn't need them at all to do whatever he wants and remain unchecked.

59 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm pulling this out specifically because it's just so ridiculous.

"Look, I know he stole $20 from the box that only had $20 in it, but that's WILDLY different from stealing $2,000 from a box that has $2,000 in it!"

you read what i wrote and you think my comparison is based on scale? you're right, it is ridiculous.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It's like you just don't want to see what's in front of you because you have a built-in narrative and you're desperate to just keep it alive because research is hard and changing positions is emasculating.

He is telling you both with his actions and his mouth what he wants to do, and your response is to stick your fingers in your ears.

what's my built-in narrative? what position change am i resisting?

explaining to someone who clearly doesn't follow trump's actions isn't defending bloomberg. pick one story and tell that story. stop accusing other people of things.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Who said "four-year problem"? Why did you quote that like it's a thing someone said?

Trump is a temporary problem.

"nobody said four year problem!"

"trump is a temporary problem!"

lol, ok. you said he's a battle, not a war. you made comments about what the nation will be when he's gone. he's gone in 1 year or 5 years. we can all connect the dots and decipher what you meant.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Even justices he appoints are temporary problems if the next president has courage. Don't like an SC justice? Fine, pack the court. Rotate the conservatives off.

well i guess i didn't realize how easy it would be. thanks for pointing it out.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

And again, you're either blindly ignorant of what Michael Bloomberg is or you're just lying, but I want you to seriously tell me what you think Michael Bloomberg's selection criteria will be for judges. Be honest. Think.

i don't care about michael bloomberg. i don't care about his criteria for judges. this is where the disconnect is. i'm not arguing for bloomberg. i'm arguing against trump.

look, i get it. bloomberg is a threat to bernie, and everything bernie is trying to accomplish. you hope bernie wins, and so do i. but to go around and act like bloomberg is basically a more effective trump is beyond your normal paranoia and idiocy. it's also dangerous. but hey, hearts and minds right? people hate trump. let's make it to where bloomberg is trump. then, people will hate bloomberg. not a terrible idea. but be straightforward about it here.

we actually have eyes and ears and many of us follow trump and the current presidency a lot closer than we follow the race. for every post i make about pete, i make 20 posts about trump/the current administration/impeachment/etc (10 posts about the astros, 5 about tv shows, 3 about movies, 2 about craps, and 1 about strip club stories).

you are painting with your brush. we all get it. and let me be the first to say this to you - you're not wrong. bloomberg is not a good option, and he would make a bad president. we agree. but saying that he's rich and corrupt and trump is rich and corrupt so they're the same is wildly inaccurate, so fucking knock it off.

and if you're gonna attempt to tear apart something i've said, be a man and quote me directly so i get a notification.

TwiceHorn · February 21, 2020

21 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

So now Warren is smug? The sexism is dripping from your keyboards.

I like her, she's my candidate. But, I think "weasel" or a certain degree of disingenuousness is there. She's highly principled, until she isn't.

tantric superman · February 21, 2020

I'll admit my negative opinions of Warren are based almost 100% on sexism. Her voice and mannerism are just incredibly off putting to me, especially that little whisper she does when she is about to say something profound. I think she's the smartest of the lot left, and I think she really would be a very good President, so if she makes it, I'm going to work for her, but I wish she was less goofy. The majority of her gestures make me cringe.

At least she's not big on the vocal fry. That would be a deal breaker.

It's like I had a grade school teacher who in a past life was really mean to me, and Warren somehow reminds me of that person.

JimmyJames · February 21, 2020

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Absolutely he does. He 100% believes he's a man of the people.

He loves the big strong bikers. He loves the big strong soldiers. He loves the big strong football players. That's not a front, he loves them. He strokes his little Harvey Weinstein pecker at night imagining himself being carried on a golden litter through the streets as the grateful masses chant his name.

This was not cynical. Donald Trump is vulgar in all senses of the word, including the outdated definition "of the masses".

Does he know the little guy? Of course not!
Does he understand what the little guy needs? He actually does far more than most will give him credit for.
Does he understand how to get that accomplished? Nope.
Is he strong enough to fight for them when facing even minimal resistance? NOPE!
Would he actually enjoy living among the masses? Hell no.

Does he believe in his heart that's what he's doing? 100%

I watched at least a dozen of his rallies in 2015/16. This man is a con artist who believes his own con.

Bloomberg is disgusted by even the concept of working class people. He hates humanity.

Trump is a narcissist who cares about absolutely nothing except himself.

Bloomberg sucks but to argue he is somehow more dangerous or even in the same ballpark as trump is asinine. If trump wins in November legitimate elections in this country are done and America’s decline accelerates greatly. That’s not the case if Bloomberg wins and you know that.

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

39 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you say this like it's nothing. trump has shown he doesn't need the house. they control the purse-strings, so trump diverts billions from military projects to build his wall. the house controls the only investigatory process into the president's actions, but trump says, "no thank you, we don't feel like acknowledging or participating in these investigations, please see yourselves out." that is both ground-breaking and absolutely horrifying.

Yes, all of this is terrible.

Now imagine all of that PLUS...
- massive reach within the internal decision-making of basically all mass-media
- profound control of a "charity" which buys influence in the House and Senate
- an actual ability to manage systems to get what is wanted

That's Bloomberg.

Quote

you read what i wrote and you think my comparison is based on scale? you're right, it is ridiculous.

What is it based on, then? Do you think Michael Bloomberg is just a better and more noble human being than Trump?

Quote

what's my built-in narrative? what position change am i resisting?

That the biggest imaginable problem we face electorally is Donald Trump.

Quote

i don't care about michael bloomberg. i don't care about his criteria for judges.

Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up as the argument as to why he's superior to Trump. You're just trying to avoid the obvious answer because you don't even want to entertain the notion that this is about more than Donald Trump.

It is.

Quote

but saying that he's rich and corrupt and trump is rich and corrupt so they're the same is wildly inaccurate, so fucking knock it off.

Why are you pretending there is no actual history to Michael Bloomberg?

Quote

and if you're gonna attempt to tear apart something i've said, be a man and quote me directly so i get a notification.

I responded right fucking underneath you, tough guy. Is this serious? lol christ

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

If trump wins in November legitimate elections in this country are done and America’s decline accelerates greatly. That’s not the case if Bloomberg wins and you know that.

Which one of the two has already used his power to eliminate term limit restrictions on his powerful office?

henrygandorf · February 21, 2020

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Now imagine all of that

nah.

your agenda is clear. no need to continue to pull your pants down in front of the other kids. we're pulling in the same direction.

enjoy your friday.

BradInATX · February 21, 2020

3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This is awful. Bernie has been the same person with the same values for 60 years and pow-wow Chow focus-group Liz wants to attack him from her platform of "rock solid values"? GTFO. She is your typical completely full-of-shit politician hiding behind her little grandma school-nerd facade. She should be ashamed of herself.

Edited February 21, 2020 by BradInATX

TXSG8R · February 21, 2020

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which one of the two has already used his power to eliminate term limit restrictions on his powerful office?

So you think a supreme court justice can be rotated out, and a president can eliminate his own term limits?

JimmyJames · February 21, 2020

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which one of the two has already used his power to eliminate term limit restrictions on his powerful office?

Bloomberg. As the mayor of New York.

He won’t be able to accomplish that as president. Trump will if he wins. He will just use the executive office to shut down democracy. He’s already started that process, with a big assist from Moscow Mitch of course.

You think the dems will roll over to Bloomberg in the same manner that the republicans rolled over to trump? Most dems can’t stand Bloomberg. The only way he’s president is if the party ignores a majority of its base.

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

your agenda is clear.

Which is... what?

If it's "you're just scared Bernie will lose to Bloomberg" then no. I don't think Bloomberg has a hope in hell. If a threat remains to Bernie it's Pete.

gsoda3 · February 21, 2020

this just came across my newsdesk

Quote

Michael Bloomberg is lobbying Democratic party officials to block Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at a potential brokered convention and nominate him instead, according to Politico

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

So you think a supreme court justice can be rotated out, and a president can eliminate his own term limits?

An SC justice can be rotated out, absolutely.

A president cannot unilaterally remove his term limits, but he can use influence and power to make basically anything happen via amendment or legislation. After all, the 2-term limit itself is an amendment.

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

He won’t be able to accomplish that as president. Trump will if he wins. He will just use the executive office to shut down democracy. He’s already started that process, with a big assist from Moscow Mitch of course.

What does this mean? What does this look like? Is there a big shutoff switch on the wall in the Oval Office?

Quote

You think the dems will roll over to Bloomberg in the same manner that the republicans rolled over to trump?

Fucking absolutely they would. How do you think he got on the god damned debate stage?

JimmyJames · February 21, 2020

Just now, bad_teammate said:

An SC justice can be rotated out, absolutely.

A president cannot unilaterally remove his term limits, but he can use influence and power to make basically anything happen via amendment or legislation. After all, the 2-term limit itself is an amendment.

What does this mean? What does this look like? Is there a big shutoff switch on the wall in the Oval Office?

Fucking absolutely they would. How do you think he got on the god damned debate stage?

Yes, there is a big shut off democracy switch in the Oval Office. Trump just hasn’t found it yet. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. Glad you finally got it.

bad_teammate · February 21, 2020

Then explain what you mean. What is Trump going to do?

I'm not even saying you're wrong, I just want to know what it is.

TXSG8R · February 21, 2020

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

An SC justice can be rotated out, absolutely.

A president cannot unilaterally remove his term limits, but he can use influence and power to make basically anything happen via amendment or legislation. After all, the 2-term limit itself is an amendment.

A surpreme court justice can be impeached, and it requires a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove. You have a citation for this rotation process, specifically with how the president is part of it?

It would take an amendment to the constitution to change term limits for the president.

Again, where do you think a president is involved in that process?

Or do you think Bloomberg can money whip 2/3rd votes in the senate at will?

Edited February 21, 2020 by TXSG8R

henrygandorf · February 21, 2020

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Which is... what?

If it's "you're just scared Bernie will lose to Bloomberg" then no. I don't think Bloomberg has a hope in hell. If a threat remains to Bernie it's Pete.

no, you don't behave like a scared person.

your narrative/agenda is to make sure that people see a clear divide between your progressive stance and establishment democrats. to ensure people don't lump the bloombergs and bidens of the world with the bernies and warrens (sort of) of the world just because they're all technically under the same big tent.

to get this point across, you're suggesting that electing someone from the establishment wing, in bed with the shitty and corrupt dnc who could potentially try to rig the convention, is no different than four more years of donald j trump because corruption is corruption is corruption, and it needs to end.

like i said, you're not wrong (about certain things). but you are wrong about the parallels with trump, and the lasting damage he's already done and continues to do.

i feel dirty 'defending' bloomberg, and i'm not interested in wasting more time doing that. at the end of all of this, it comes down to what you consider "a win". i consider getting trump out of the white house a win. that's where we differ.

if bloomberg somehow wins the nomination through some bullshit pulled by the dnc, who will you root for in the general? i'm not asking you who you'd vote for, i already know that answer. who will you personally hope becomes president?

JimmyJames · February 21, 2020

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Then explain what you mean. What is Trump going to do?

I'm not even saying you're wrong, I just want to know what it is.

The list is too long but for starters he is openly encouraging foreign election interference by undermining the conclusions of the intelligence community.

If he loses he will simply declare that the election was invalid due to the very same foreign interference that he encouraged and will refuse to leave.

Then what? Moscow Mitch and the Republican senate to the rescue? A military coup?

Reminds me of a Nigerian cab driver I had shortly after trump was elected. I said something about this will end in 4 years and he just laughed and laughed. “You think those guys just leave?” At the time I dismissed it because I was unaware how far gone Moscow Mitch and the Republican Party was gone. I was wrong.

henrygandorf · February 21, 2020

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Then explain what you mean. What is Trump going to do?

I'm not even saying you're wrong, I just want to know what it is.

i'm just spitballing here, but he could call a national emergency in late october and say that our elections are under attack, and need to be investigated, and that until we get to the bottom of things, the date of the general election has been postponed indefinitely. then he could assign yet another crony to be the special investigator.

on his current trajectory, that's not even an outlandish prediction.

i have no doubt that he'll file 500 lawsuits in every state contesting election results and will refuse to leave the white house. we're talking about a guy who still contests the results of the 2016 election and he fucking won.

GW Hayduke · February 21, 2020

21 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

This is awful. Bernie has been the same person with the same values for 60 years and pow-wow Chow focus-group Liz wants to attack him from her platform of "rock solid values"? GTFO. She is your typical completely full-of-shit politician hiding behind her little grandma school-nerd facade. She should be ashamed of herself.

Her point is that Bernie spent decades as a politician who barely enacted any noticeable change through development and passage of legislation. That’s why his wiki is so lacking. Bernie wasn’t a “doer” or a guy that got things done. He was the guy that stood out on the left side of the room and held down that line while others were doing things.

It is a big difference between the two candidates

Edited February 21, 2020 by GW Hayduke

Sign In

2020 Democratic Nominee

Recommended Posts

fattyflattie 4,640

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry

henrygandorf

Bill Clinton

Posted Images

henrygandorf 29,225

Link to comment

Share on other sites

babysdaddy 2,731

Link to comment

Share on other sites

henrygandorf 29,225

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13,524

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13,524

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Cheeseweasel 26,439

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

thrillhammer 686

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bernorange 8,385

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thetexashammer 1,062

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Zombie 284

Link to comment

Share on other sites

6th Street 6,692

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thetexashammer 1,062

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JBJ 3,827

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Cheeseweasel 26,439

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bruh Man 3,160

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13,524

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hank Kingsley 21,785

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TXSG8R 3,362

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Link to comment