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

Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Listen, Pete is having a rough day.

He told Cosmo he only uses bath soap on his face and no moisturizer, only to have his husband point out on Twitter that, yes he actually does use moisturizer and it’s one with SPF! SO EVERYONE CALM DOWN.

Yeah I’m glad the dudes are finally getting these dumbass “What’s your skincare regimen?” questions but it feels gross that it’s the gay guy that gets it first.

Someone ask Bernie that so I can cackle when he snaps back “Cracked concrete, cold water, and capitalists’ plasma”.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89447

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Why do you just assume hundreds of millions of people would abandon it? Do you think most people are angry libertarians? Do people abandon nationalized or state-run utilities? No, of course not.

As long as the features people like remain, they will remain.

 

Not a week goes by that we don't hear of a story about the Trump administration or other Republicans trying to retaliate against somebody they don't like, and currently, as we speak, Republicans in Congress are foaming at the mouth to try and expose the whistleblowers.

And you want to put the first or second largest social media network in the world under the control of that very same US government.  You think that people will still freely post just like they were before, on a platform controlled by a government that is currently led by a man who uses his own social media followers to try and stifle and drown out dissent.

You want to put all of that data, all of those messages, conversations, thoughts, comments, etc. under the umbrella of the government and then you want us to trust the military-industrial complex, trust the intelligence agencies, trust the very government you sometimes rail against, to not abuse that little addition to the government. 

And your only defense to being called out on it, rather than explaining clearly how it could work and people could be protected from a nightmare like the Trump administration, is a classic bad teammate comment: "HURP DERP U R A LIBERTARIAN HURP DERP DERP DERP!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

Bernie got the question in September.

JP: I know you’re a Virgo, just like me, which explains a lot. But do you know your Rising sign?

BS: No.

Sam Feher, assistant to the editor-in-chief: Scorpio!

BS: Oh, Scorpio!

JP: What’s your skincare routine?

BS: Not much.

JP: Do you moisturize?

BS: I put something on. I got something, the doctor gave me something years ago, I put it on. I’m not quite sure....

JP: You’re supposed to moisturize every day. Don’t worry, we’ll send you home with some things. And lastly, what time do you go to bed?

BS: Too late, and I don’t get enough sleep. How’s that?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And you want to put the first or second largest social media network in the world under the control of that very same US government.

Not the same people within that government, no.

You do, realize, don't you, that Trump isn't a king and can't just get every piece of information from anywhere in the nation and do whatever he wants with it... right?

And what the hell do whistleblowers have to do with Facebook?

Is a properly-motivated tyrannical government somehow incapable of getting the information they want from a privately-owned Facebook?

Quote

You think that people will still freely post just like they were before, on a platform controlled by a government that is currently led by a man who uses his own social media followers to try and stifle and drown out dissent.

Yes, they will. Of course they will.

People installed FaceApp to post aged selfies even after finding out it was a basically a funnel to Russian intelligence. We use our phones knowing all of it is in NSA servers. We don't care. You don't care, either.

Quote

You want to put all of that data, all of those messages, conversations, thoughts, comments, etc. under the umbrella of the government and then you want us to trust the military-industrial complex, trust the intelligence agencies, trust the very government you sometimes rail against, to not abuse that little addition to the government.

I don't want any of it stored. I want the NSA destroyed.

It's cute that you think these nefarious government entities are thwarted by Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg. Adorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Kennedy wrote the Citizens United opinion of the court.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

And was a deciding vote in Shelby County v. Holder which has lead to a wonderful amount of voter suppression in the south. He can burn in hell

Edited by GSU&UT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89447

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not the same people within that government, no.

You do, realize, don't you, that Trump isn't a king and can't just get every piece of information from anywhere in the nation and do whatever he wants with it... right?

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is a properly-motivated tyrannical government somehow incapable of getting the information they want from a privately-owned Facebook?

Yes, they will. Of course they will.

So which is it?  

Snowden out front shoulda told you everything you need to know.

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And what the hell do whistleblowers have to do with Facebook?

You're asking a shit-ton of people to continue having private conversations on a platform controlled by a government, one of whose branches is trying to expose the identities of people they don't like, because they said bad things about Trump.  

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's cute that you think these nefarious government entities are thwarted by Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg. Adorable.

Oh, I don't think they thwart them fully (but they do more than you think), but so far you have yet to make the case of why the government should take control of Facebook. 

Somehow the Europeans are starting to get a grasp on the data privacy thing without privatizing companies.  Maybe you should read up on that.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89447

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How can a "50 Most Wanted Democrats in Iowa" list exist? This primary race in Iowa is idiotic.

Linn County Supervisor? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

The entire county is 87% white and has 200k people. What the hell are we even doing?

There's more people in the Houston area than the entirety of Iowa, so yeah, why are we still talking about Iowa in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted



Somehow the Europeans are starting to get a grasp on the data privacy thing without privatizing companies.  Maybe you should read up on that.   


You mean Option 1 out of my 3? lol

You're trying to frame private vs nationalized (the final of my 3 proposed options) by ascribing nobility to the private and tyranny to the government, which is a dishonest framing common among libertarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If not Iowa, which state should vote first?  

If the goal is to produce the best and exhaustively evaluated candidate, it should probably be a lower populated but diverse state.  

Nevada should be first then.  They are the third most diverse state in the country.  Iowa and New Hampshire are among the bottom 5.  South Carolina is #20. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
If not Iowa, which state should vote first?  
If the goal is to produce the best and exhaustively evaluated candidate, it should probably be a lower populated but diverse state.  


Rotate that shit.

Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina having such outsized influence every election is bullshittery.

Shorten the primary process. No candidate can declare their candidacy more than two months before the first primary. Start in January, end in May. Proportional delegates. Divide the states into five groups of 10. Have a “Super Tuesday” every three weeks. Rotate the group order every four years.

Bam. Get rid of the Iowa/NH/SC bias, shorten the time frame, reduce the costs involved.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What does this achieve?  

(Asking for grassroots movement trying to overthrow establishment.)

It achieves a shorter primary like every other developed democracy in the world, versus the fact we have an 8-10 month pre-primary that is just fucking dumb. 

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

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
What does this achieve?  
(Asking for grassroots movement trying to overthrow establishment.)


It is aimed at combatting voter fatigue.

This shit is way too long currently and leads to 95% of voters checking out and not paying attention until the last minute.

Tighten that up and make it important from beginning to end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It achieves a shorter primary like every other developed democracy in the world, versus the fact we have an 8-10 month pre-primary that is just fucking dumb. 

I agree the process is too long but wouldn’t it open the door to more Trumps and dilettantes riding on their celebrity if you shorten the process?  

The grueling primary weeds out the not serious candidates and allows candidates like Obama and Sanders to catch fire through hard work and organizing.  

Trump is the exception that breaks all the rules but the longer process gives everyone a better opportunity to get it right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26283

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Wouldn't want to get Dems to spend a lot of time in a state where they might pick up a significant number of EVs later. Might accidentally win.

Right?! 
I do think we should go back to the old two-step primary-caucus system though. Getting rid of it was pure deck stacking for Clinton's 2016 primary campaign because they recognized her grassroots weakness. Maybe that should have given them pause, but learning lessons is not something she ever did in politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Texas. The answer is always Texas. 

Texas went for Donald Trump and probably will again.   It'll take awhile to recover from that taint.  I'd go with Virginia.  Good mix of demographics, North/South, and urban/rural, and it didn't go for Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26283

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Texas went for Donald Trump and probably will again.  

Maybe three decades of institutional failure, a culture of recidivist loserism, and neglect mixed with outright contempt had something to do with that. Just spitballing here. 

23 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It'll take awhile to recover from that taint. 

This sentence is like a write-your-own-your-mom-joke kit. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Pete wants more Kennedy justices? I’d give him a pass on that but I know he’s uber smart. So that’s what he actually believes. 

Ok, I will actively oppose him in the future no matter what. He is a Rockefeller republican in well articulated gay sheep clothing.  No wonder Wall Street loves him so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20705

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Pete wants more Kennedy justices? I’d give him a pass on that but I know he’s uber smart. So that’s what he actually believes. 

Ok, I will actively oppose him in the future no matter what. He is a Rockefeller republican in well articulated gay sheep clothing.  No wonder Wall Street loves him so much. 

Nuance and context are dead.

 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Nuance and context is dead.

Kennedy was the most pro business justice on the court. Pete seemingly gets a lot of his money from Wall Street. He used to work for McKinsey Consulting. The corporatist wing of the Democratic Party is supporting him if Joe stumbles. I’m seeing a definite pattern here. 

Its ok to support him if that’s what you believe in. I don’t. Not anymore anyway. I’d rather have Joe with a better chance to defeat president shitstain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20705

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Kennedy was the most pro business justice on the court. Pete seemingly gets a lot of his money from Wall Street. He used to work for McKinsey Consulting. The corporatist wing of the Democratic Party is supporting him if Joe stumbles. I’m seeing a definite pattern here. 

Its ok to support him if that’s what you believe in. I don’t. Not anymore anyway. I’d rather have Joe with a better chance to defeat president shitstain. 

That’s cool. Though I’d recommend not listening to the echo chamber and do your own investigation into the candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted

Pete was probably going with Kennedy because he’s been focus group tested as the justice most people think was some principled maverick for civil rights and the right is okay with him.

Pete just wants to win, why can’t everyone see this!?!

23 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

do your own investigation into the candidates.

And this is the double edged sword with Pete.  There’s not much to investigate because he’s so inexperienced so everything he says now gets scrutinized with added intensity.  

His lack of a track record works to his advantage too because he can shape-shift on a dime when it’s politically expedient.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29177

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pete was probably going with Kennedy because he’s been focus group tested as the justice most people think was some principled maverick for civil rights and the right is okay with him.

i'll give you this - you got your pete talking points categorized and ready to go.  i can't tell yet if it's a bit, but i fear it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

He said Kennedy or Souter.  Republicans hate Souter.  He was just trying to name drop swing votes that supposedly could go either way.  His point was to say we need more judges that aren’t party line votes.

I don’t think Pete Buttigieg is a Constitutional Law expert trying to signal how much he appreciates Kennedy’s specific views on the commerce clause or securities regulation.

I suppose you’re right. But if the guy is gonna talk about potentially packing the court he needs to be well versed on the matter. Packing the court with a bunch of Kennedy’s would make it worse then it already is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29177

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I suppose you’re right. But if the guy is gonna talk about potentially packing the court he needs to be well versed on the matter. Packing the court with a bunch of Kennedy’s would make it worse then it already is. 

i get that any talk of restructuring the sc is seen as "court-packing" but he's been pretty consistent in his desire to "depoliticize the supreme court".  and he has mentioned a few different solutions, none of which are exclusively his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

He said Kennedy or Souter.  Republicans hate Souter.  He was just trying to name drop swing votes that supposedly could go either way.  His point was to say we need more judges that aren’t party line votes.

I don’t think Pete Buttigieg is a Constitutional Law expert trying to signal how much he appreciates Kennedy’s specific views on the commerce clause or securities regulation.

It’s a very nuanced position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted



maybe he felt like kennedy's opinion spoke to him in a personal way? 


Yes, that's the whole problem. A bad justice made a decision that benefitted him personally and it made him decide that Republicans need to be made Great Again.

maybe he's trying to highlight the idea of sc decisions that don't ride the party line for a minute?


"BIPARTISANSHIP!" I scream as the world burns.

Pathetic
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...