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

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So you'll be cool with Tulsi when you see her taxes?

I haven’t accused or suspected Tulsi of anything except being an idiot.  Her tax returns aren’t going to change that assessment.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elguapo

elguapo 4586

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So you'll be cool with Tulsi when you see her taxes?

You're missing the point. Russian propaganda is supporting her, and when questioned about this her response is to call it Fake News.

There are many better ways for her to handle this issue, but maybe she has a Trumpian style reptile brain that can only respond to attacks with false tropes.

Edited by elguapo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13221

Posted
Posted

If there's nothing to validate any connection to Russian intelligence, government, or finance, why do positive stories in Russian media matter? That's their business, not hers. The implication that she's compromised or colluding fits "fake news" just fine.

Attack the policies, sure, but "uh RUSSIA sure likes you!" is contemptible BS not worthy of acknowledging seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I admit that I'm slow on the uptake. What's this about Tulsi and Russian propaganda?

Russia influence operations are boosting Tulsi.  This isn’t Tulsi’s fault and she probably has nothing to do with it but she is denying it’s occurring when there is overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise.  It’s exactly what Trump did in 2016 when they were boosting him.  Deny, deny, deny... It’s not a good look. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
If there's nothing to validate any connection to Russian intelligence, government, or finance, why do positive stories in Russian media matter? That's their business, not hers. The implication that she's compromised or colluding fits "fake news" just fine.
Attack the policies, sure, but "uh RUSSIA sure likes you!" is contemptible BS not worthy of acknowledging seriously.



No.

When white nationalists or David Duke voice support for Trump or someone on the right, we expect them to denounce that support and distance themselves from that kind of support.

If they don’t - lie Trump didn’t - we rightly excoriate that behavior.

Same goes in this instance. Just because you like what someone has to say or support their policies shouldn’t change not wanting a politician to reject support from heinous people or hostile foreign governments.

Don’t be a hypocrite.

“NAZIS sure like you!” is something that you yourself have pointed to when talking about Trump being a racist.

“I don’t know if he’s racist but the racists think he is” is not faulty logic.

Neither is “I don’t know if she supports the goals and policies of the Russian government but the Russians think she does”.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

 


No.

When white nationalists or David Duke voice support for Trump or someone on the right, we expect them to denounce that support and distance themselves from that kind of support.

If they don’t - lie Trump didn’t - we rightly excoriate that behavior.

Same goes in this instance. Just because you like what someone has to say or support their policies shouldn’t change not wanting a politician to reject support from heinous people or hostile foreign governments.

Don’t be a hypocrite.

“NAZIS sure like you!” is something that you yourself have pointed to when talking about Trump being a racist.

“I don’t know if he’s racist but the racists think he is” is not faulty logic.

Neither is “I don’t know if she supports the goals and policies of the Russian government but the Russians think she does”.

 

 

Hillary openly bragged about being buddies with people far more evil than Putin but Tulsi has to apologize for not receiving blanket negative coverage from RT? lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Don’t play coy.

I’m talking about rejecting the support of “bad people”.

Be it nazis, Russia, North Korea, Michael Avenatti, or Jared from Subway.

If someone - an individual/a group/a government - that is bad supports a candidate, I would like to see that candidate reject that support.

It’s not complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elguapo

elguapo 4586

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Hillary openly bragged about being buddies with people far more evil than Putin but Tulsi has to apologize for not receiving blanket negative coverage from RT? lol

But Hillary!!!!! Not a very bright troll are you?

No one is asking her to apologize, we'd like her to not to be so fucking stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13221

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Other than Putin and his inner circle are huge White Supremacists and homophobes. 

Sure, and so is the leadership of our own nation. Should foreign candidates be expected to release, "I DENOUNCE THE UNITE DSTATES!" statements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Where’s the bragging?

And I’m not going to bother answering the dumb question about why the Russian government is on a list of bad guys.

She had no trouble rejecting the support of David Duke and Steve Bannon, why can’t she say the same thing about the Russian government?

“You should ask them,” she said. “Look, I have denounced strongly, time and again, the white nationalist views of David Duke and racist and bigoted views of people who are fomenting hatred and even violence. This is something that is unacceptable and something we should all stand up and condemn,” Gabbard added.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

That comparison is absurd.  If a candidate were "supported" by Iran or North Korea on the basis of decreasing tensions between the US and those states, would that candidate need to apologize for that support because those states are not our clients?  Refusing to apologize would somehow be akin to refusing to apologize for receiving support from a white supremacist troll like Duke? lol.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
What about US candidates supported by Saudi Arabia? Or Israel?
If there's no connection between the candidate him/herself and some specific organization then the talk is all complete and total idiocy.


Yes. I think any candidate who receives vocal support from any foreign government - even an ally - should reject it.

Our leaders shouldn’t be influenced by or feel beholden to any foreign government.

And bullshit on the “as long as there is no connection” excuse.

The Russian government is currently, actively pursuing multiple avenues to undermine our government and our citizens. They admit that. I do not trust anyone who does not reject their support.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Oh give me a fucking break you halfwit.

I actually have much bigger problems with her past anti-LGBT positions, her very vocal Republicanesque statements on Islam, and her affinity for Fox News than her wishy washiness on Russia.

There’s a way to be anti-imperialist and still acknowledge that there a countries/organizations that mean our country harm.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Oh give me a fucking break you halfwit.

I actually have much bigger problems with her past anti-LGBT positions, her very vocal Republicanesque statements on Islam, and her affinity for Fox News than her wishy washiness on Russia.

There’s a way to be anti-imperialist and still acknowledge that there a countries/organizations that mean our country harm.
 

Who else in the field is as critical of US imperialism as Tulsi?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22709

Posted
Posted
HarrisX 5/6
Joe - 46%
Bernie - 14%
Pete - 8%
Liz - 7%
Kamala - 6%
Beto - 3%
HarrisX 5/22
Joe - 33% (-13)
Bernie - 14% (even)
Liz - 8% (+1)
Pete - 6% (-2)
Harris - 6% (-2)
Beto - 5% (+2)
Unsure - 19% (not in previous poll)

So basically everyone on the fence picks Biden when forced to choose? Not great for everyone else when he already has a huge lead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16590

Posted
Posted
There was a fivethirtyeight link to a poll floating around here that documented Trump's faves and unfaves compared to other presidents and his unfaves are significantly higher than anyone in history, except Bush late into his second term.  They start off in the mid 50's from Day 1 and haven't moved.
This election might be a blood bath, especially as he becomes more unhinged.  I can see him refusing to debate Biden (or whoever) and just campaigns by going to rallies.  Meanwhile, the Democratic nominee just runs a normal campaign talking about issues like health care.

That's pretty much the 2018 midterms in a nutshell.

Trump had to have the perfect storm to to win in 2016. The majority of the electorate didn't vote for him and he has convinced approximately zero of them that was a mistake. Yes, he'll have the incumbency advantage, but he still has to have a lot of things go right to win. Hitting it big on one five-team parlay doesn't mean they're all of a sudden good odds for you going forward.

A majority of this country has an opinion that ranges from disapproval to hatred and isn't going to vote for him. A sound D candidate and message results in an Obama 2008 type EC landslide.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

What’s not to get?

We don’t need Israel endorsing Trump.

Or Mexico endorsing Beto.

Or Germany advocating for Warren.

And Canada buying ads touting Sanders.

What foreign governments want should have no bearing or influence on our elections.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

What’s not to get?

We don’t need Israel endorsing Trump.

Or Mexico endorsing Beto.

Or Germany advocating for Warren.

And Canada buying ads touting Sanders.

What foreign governments want should have no bearing or influence on our elections.

i'm not really involved in this conversation, but i think the phrase "vocal support" was the issue.

if prince harry* said "i really like elizabeth warren, she knows her stuff", then liz shouldn't turn around and denounce that statement and any other coming from anywhere outside the borders.  although i'd pay $50 for a video clip of warren saying, "oh, fuck off, harry."

 

*yes, i purposely used an absurd example, that was kinda the point

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Well, Prince Harry isn’t involved in government.

He actually isn’t *allowed* to have public political opinions.

He’s a celebrity so that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m talking about

But if Teresa May was the one advocating for Warren, I wouldn’t expect her to say “Fuck off, Teresa!” (although that would be hilarious).

I would expect her to say “While I appreciate the kind words and if elected president I look forward to working with the British PM, I do not find it appropriate to accept the endorsement of of any foreign government while am I a candidate. Our country is still trying to discover all the ways in which our previous election may have been compromised by outside influences. Accepting endorsements or help from foreign governments, even allies, while condemning what Russia did during the 2016 election sends the wrong message to our citizens.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NBMisha

NBMisha 224

Posted
Posted

We can only wish our candidates would do this.  They should, I agree.

Now, an interesting case is, for example, how the Norks are dissing Biden.  Should he brag about this?   My first thought is that it would be schoolyardish nonsense.  But that doesn't mean it's bad political calculus.    I suppose his response would be something like what they say doesn't matter.  Or the long version above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13221

Posted
Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

What in the sister fucking incest abortion is happening on this thread?

Russia Derangement Syndrome

The proper response to foreign government commentary is to shrug and ignore it. It's meaningless and has always been meaningless.

Quote

Just re-elect Trump, y'all are acting like regards. 

Odds of this are pretty good, but it has nothing to do with libs screeching at each other about Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6450

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, NBMisha said:

We can only wish our candidates would do this.  They should, I agree.

Now, an interesting case is, for example, how the Norks are dissing Biden.  Should he brag about this?   My first thought is that it would be schoolyardish nonsense.  But that doesn't mean it's bad political calculus.    I suppose his response would be something like what they say doesn't matter.  Or the long version above.

I wouldn't expect any kind of response from Biden. He knows the nomination is his to lose and is playing prevent defense with the occasional poke at Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85459

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

I wouldn't expect any kind of response from Biden. He knows the nomination is his to lose and is playing prevent defense with the occasional poke at Trump. 

Tom Herman versus OU and Georgia? 

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...