Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Biden doesn’t have dementia or anything of the sort so stop buying into right wing talking points.

Uncle Joe has been a gaffe machine his entire public life. Maybe it’s because of his stutter maybe his mouth moves faster than his brain, I don’t know.

But I do know he’s had mouth fumbles for ages.

I’m sure he’s not as sharp as he used to be but Ryan Lochte would be a hundred fold improvement over the dumb sociopathic narcissist currently occupying the Oval Office and Ryan Lochte is dumber than most dogs.

So I’m very confident with casting my vote for Biden who is even smarter than Lochte.

And I know Biden will appoint smart, capable, normal actual human beings to work in his administration.

Fucking hell, just give me decent people again. It’s a fucking low bar at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29192

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

Fucking hell, just give me decent people again. It’s a fucking low bar at this point.

yes, i would like a mammal who can walk upright and doesn't spend every waking moment trying to get reelected in order to continue to personally enrich himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

stop trying to speak for others, you have no idea what our motivation is, and you're constantly wrong when you guess. 

Irony is fun for everyone.

Quote

you say i have "an overwhelming need to troll the left and posters online" yet i very rarely do that, if at all.  i fuck with you because that's what we do.

Either be a troll and accept it or don't be one. What you're trying to do now is be a fucking troll then act like you're not. As I've pointed out 100 times before, you're the guy who throws a punch then cries when someone throws a punch back.

It's pathetic. Embrace who you are, which is a centrist troll.
Or stop being a centrist troll and then you won't be internally conflicted.

Quote

i didn't say there was "no future" but if trump wins again, things will be fucked up for decades to come.  this is the only chance to stop (some of) the bleeding.

Will be? This is the problem, henry, you don't realize we are already in hell and have been for a very long time. You have this idea that if we rewind the clock to November 6th, 2016 then everything will be fine.

It won't.

Joseph Robinette Biden winning the presidency will not address the problem that led to Donald Trump. It will only lead to a worse Trump.

There is a chance that we can avoid that if we beat the absolute hell out of the Democratic establishment to force it to enact social and economic reforms to better the lives of working people.

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

For anyone who thinks The Donald is any sharper than Uncle Joe. 

 

Donald Trump is on camera unscripted for an hour+ every single day.Joe can't even get through scripted shit with an earpiece.

It's a battle of mental invalids.

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do you really think the age demographic with the lowest participation rate in 2008 put Barry over the hump?

Maybe. I'm skeptical.

You're the one who is putting the youth vote as the only relevant factor.

- Why did the Democrats lose 1000+ seats under Obama?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18922

Posted
Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

If "young people don't vote" explains Democratic losses, how did Obama win?

Because the percentage of 18-29 year olds who did bother to vote, voted at a 66% clip for Barry. 

They still had a shitty turnout, as per usual. 

But it was better than in previous years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted

OK, I get that part of your shtick is that you don't like young people. That's adorable and everything, but why did Obama get enough youth vote to win but not other Democrats?

Also, what does it say about the Democratic party of the last decade that it can't put together winning coalitions? Is it all just the fault of demographic groups you don't like?

And if Obama won because he was able to attract the youth vote (not my words, yours), shouldn't the Democratic party work for candidates who appeal to those voters instead of against them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29192

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Either be a troll and accept it or don't be one. What you're trying to do now is be a fucking troll then act like you're not. As I've pointed out 100 times before, you're the guy who throws a punch then cries when someone throws a punch back.

It's pathetic. Embrace who you are, which is a centrist troll.
Or stop being a centrist troll and then you won't be internally conflicted.

holy mother-fucking shit.

i find it hard to believe that someone who's as online as you, who spends any amount of time on twitter, sees that post of mine and classifies me as a "troll" and classifies that post as "throwing a punch."  still trying to figure out where i "cried" about someone throwing a punch back, but sure.

the fact that you can't tell the difference between a joke and an attack actually explains a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loch Ness Monster

Loch Ness Monster 3533

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I can't believe the Dems are actually going to nominate someone who's barely mentally competent and risk losing what should be a shoo-in election. It's pretty much the only possible way to lose. As an independent who can't stand the thought of another 4 years of this clown show, it's really starting to piss me off that I am going to have to vote for someone who has declining mental faculties.

This after making me vote for the turd sandwich Hillary last time. 

I hate the fucking two party system. 

Pretty much where I am.

I held my nose and voted for Hillary but dementia Joe is too much. Fuck that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18922

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OK, I get that part of your shtick is that you don't like young people. That's adorable and everything, but why did Obama get enough youth vote to win but not other Democrats?

Also, what does it say about the Democratic party of the last decade that it can't put together winning coalitions? Is it all just the fault of demographic groups you don't like?

And if Obama won because he was able to attract the youth vote (not my words, yours), shouldn't the Democratic party work for candidates who appeal to those voters instead of against them?

Bernie did just that. Why didn't they show up for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3083

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, UDontKnow said:

Too much that you would vote for another four years of Trump?

Yeah there's no way I could go down without a fight (voting for the alternative). I'll take full blown alzheimers over trump. At least biden appears to have some kind of moral compass and principles. Hopefully the cabinet can run the show under his general guidance. Or there's always the Dave Option. 

spacer.png

What a time to be alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18922

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

@David Dennison

Why was Obama able to win even thought the Democrats as a whole lost 1000+ seats during Obama's two terms?

I appreciate your trolling derail attempt, but it's actually kind of important that we understand how to win.

I'm not trolling. 

What do you think Congress would look like if 18-29 year olds had the same voter participation rate as 65 and over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
Watching Cuomo interview Biden live on CNN. Guys, he’s fine. The dementia accusations are ugly and overplayed.

They’re straight up right wing talking points.

They’re gross and the fact that people are falling for stuff pushed from the far right and the far left is telling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22699

Posted
Posted
Watching Cuomo interview Biden live on CNN. Guys, he’s fine. The dementia accusations are ugly and overplayed.

For those who have fallen for the snippets on twitter:




Again, the dementia allegations are only going to help Biden once people see more of him and not just the ten second Twitter snippets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45691

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I can't believe the Dems are actually going to nominate someone who's barely mentally competent and risk losing what should be a shoo-in election. It's pretty much the only possible way to lose. As an independent who can't stand the thought of another 4 years of this clown show, it's really starting to piss me off that I am going to have to vote for someone who has declining mental faculties.

This after making me vote for the turd sandwich Hillary last time. 

I hate the fucking two party system. 

This is comedy right?  Vohlstein?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Just say what you want to say. People will still respond. 

I already did:

"Over the last decade, the Democratic Party has failed astonishingly to gain or even maintain power. Even when it does, it has failed astonishingly at accomplishing its goals. (Or, honestly, even having an observable set of goals beyond, "THOSE GUYS ARE WORSE!")

We lost power because we gave voters nothing to be excited about or to care about. The Party establishment said, "You like Obama, don't you? He's great!" and then it all died underneath him."

11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

What do you think Congress would look like if 18-29 year olds had the same voter participation rate as 65 and over?

It would be further left.

I asked you why the Democrats lost 1000+ seats and your response was to put the onus on voters, specifically "young people". The voters don't lose elections, candidates and parties do.

Why do you think the Democratic Party cannot turn out the voters who are most amenable to their supposed beliefs?

Why do young voters in South Korea turn out at 70% while ours turn out below 50%? Why are we below the OECD average? (I apologize for asking questions, Hank)

If it was just about the fecklessness of youth and their general rock'n'roll unreliability, we would see both a global and historical consistency to it, but we don't.

Young voters in the 2008 election (I apologize for looking into the past, henry):

In the last three general elections – 2004, 2006, and 2008 — young voters have given the Democratic Party a majority of their votes, and for all three cycles they have been the party’s most supportive age group. This year, 66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama making the disparity between young voters and other age groups larger than in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972.

1031-1.gif

Why did the Democrats lose young voters? (Oh, god a question AND historical numbers?! I'm so sorry Hank and henry!!)

vote_choice_age_2016.jpg

They lost among all voters, but they REALLY lost among young voters.

18-44: -7 (Rep -2, Ind +10)
45-65+: -2 (Rep -1, Ind +3)

My answer?

We lost power because we gave voters nothing to be excited about or to care about.

The signature Democratic program of the last decade was an annual enrollment window into tiers of private healthcare purchases. And lots of moral scolding.

Obama had the personal charisma to sell the dogshit to young voters as if it weren't dogshit, but no one else did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 20966

Posted
Posted

welp.

I am disappointed that we don't have a more inspiring candidate, and how divided the people who are nominally opposed to Trump now are at the end of the primary.  Hope we can make the best out of what we have and where we are and start to move towards a decent America.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdmost

mdmost 43004

Posted
Posted

Definitely a good decision by Bernie. I hope Biden's people will have a long conversation with Bernie and find portions of Bernie's platform that can they can adopt or adapt to work with Biden's platform. The goal is beating Trump now. Time to rally around Biden and build a distinct message about how getting Trump out of office is paramount to this country recovering from this pandemic. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted

Biden was not my pick. But he's not morally corrupt or an raging narcissist. I think he's smart enough to pick right people to be around him and he will be good at smoothing over all the bridges Trump burned with foreign countries. Now on to his VP pick.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted (edited)

Bernie was too nice of a candidate to run an actual insurgent campaign. He didn't hit hard, he didn't get nasty. He focused entirely on policy and theory. It's a classic example of a good guy doing things "the right way" but that not working.

I'm not saying he "should" have been nasty and hit hard. He is him and he is still the most influential and powerful ideological force in the party, so far be it for me or anyone else to say he's been ineffective. I'm just saying his electoral chances would've been different if, during debates and in advertizing, he had actually hit Biden very hard. But that's not Bernie's personality, there was a fundamental disconnect between the need for an insurgent candidate to actually wield a flamethrower and Bernie's unwillingness to do so.

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

Hank Kingsley 20966

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie was too nice of a candidate to run an actual insurgent campaign. He didn't hit hard, he didn't get nasty. He focused entirely on policy and theory. It's a classic example of a good guy doing things "the right way" but that not working.

I'm not saying he "should" have been nasty and hit hard. He is him and he is still the most influential and powerful ideological force in the party, so far be it for me or anyone else to say he's been ineffective. I'm just saying his electoral chances would've been different if, during debates and in advertizing, he had actually hit Biden very hard. But that's not Bernie's personality, there was a fundamental disconnect between the need for an insurgent candidate to actually wield a flamethrower and Bernie's unwillingness to do so.

I agree with you, but if Bernie himself acted nastier and hit harder he would have done worse at the polls. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I agree with you, but if Bernie himself acted nastier and hit harder he would have done worse at the polls. 

Not necessarily. Divisiveness works by making people pick a side. Bernie didn't really push people to do that. So yeah, drawing a hard line in the sand may have tanked him, but it also may have given him a loyal ~40%. Kind of like the Trump strategy, but for good instead of evil.

Again, I'm not saying that's what he should have done or that I would have preferred it. But what he has tried to do is (1) be an insurgent and (2) be a nice guy. That's a very thin wire to walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22699

Posted
Posted
Bernie was too nice of a candidate to run an actual insurgent campaign. He didn't hit hard, he didn't get nasty. He focused entirely on policy and theory. It's a classic example of a good guy doing things "the right way" but that not working.

I'm not saying he "should" have been nasty and hit hard. He is him and he is still the most influential and powerful ideological force in the party, so far be it for me or anyone else to say he's been ineffective. I'm just saying his electoral chances would've been different if, during debates and in advertizing, he had actually hit Biden very hard. But that's not Bernie's personality, there was a fundamental disconnect between the need for an insurgent candidate to actually wield a flamethrower and Bernie's unwillingness to do so.

Someone (Brisket?) nailed it in a post a few weeks back. It’s hard for an insurgent campaign to gain traction when the majority do not want a revolution. I don’t think Bernie was the wrong candidate, I just don’t think the electorate was receptive to the message.

 

I like Bernie, and I admire that he does not waver from his core beliefs. It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the coronavirus struck 6 months ago, because my gut tells me that currently more people are receptive to some of Bernie’s ideas than they were even a month ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdmost

mdmost 43004

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:


I think Brisket nailed it in a post a few weeks back. It’s hard for an insurgent campaign to gain traction when the majority do not want a revolution. I don’t think Bernie was the wrong candidate, I just don’t think the electorate was receptive to the message.

I like Bernie, and I admire that he does not waver from his core beliefs. It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the coronavirus struck 6 months ago, because my gut tells me that currently more people are receptive to some of Bernie’s ideas than they were even a month ago.

Exactly. We're already experiencing what it's like to live through an "insurgent candidate" winning the Presidency and it's pretty damned awful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20966

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not necessarily. Divisiveness works by making people pick a side. Bernie didn't really push people to do that. So yeah, drawing a hard line in the sand may have tanked him, but it also may have given him a loyal ~40%. Kind of like the Trump strategy, but for good instead of evil.

Again, I'm not saying that's what he should have done or that I would have preferred it. But what he has tried to do is (1) be an insurgent and (2) be a nice guy. That's a very thin wire to walk.

Trying to create divisiveness within the Democratic Party while Trump is President is/was a losing proposition. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18922

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I already did:

"Over the last decade, the Democratic Party has failed astonishingly to gain or even maintain power. Even when it does, it has failed astonishingly at accomplishing its goals. (Or, honestly, even having an observable set of goals beyond, "THOSE GUYS ARE WORSE!")

We lost power because we gave voters nothing to be excited about or to care about. The Party establishment said, "You like Obama, don't you? He's great!" and then it all died underneath him."

It would be further left.

I asked you why the Democrats lost 1000+ seats and your response was to put the onus on voters, specifically "young people". The voters don't lose elections, candidates and parties do.

Why do you think the Democratic Party cannot turn out the voters who are most amenable to their supposed beliefs?

Why do young voters in South Korea turn out at 70% while ours turn out below 50%? Why are we below the OECD average? (I apologize for asking questions, Hank)

If it was just about the fecklessness of youth and their general rock'n'roll unreliability, we would see both a global and historical consistency to it, but we don't.

Young voters in the 2008 election (I apologize for looking into the past, henry):

In the last three general elections – 2004, 2006, and 2008 — young voters have given the Democratic Party a majority of their votes, and for all three cycles they have been the party’s most supportive age group. This year, 66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama making the disparity between young voters and other age groups larger than in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972.

1031-1.gif

Why did the Democrats lose young voters? (Oh, god a question AND historical numbers?! I'm so sorry Hank and henry!!)

vote_choice_age_2016.jpg

They lost among all voters, but they REALLY lost among young voters.

18-44: -7 (Rep -2, Ind +10)
45-65+: -2 (Rep -1, Ind +3)

My answer?

We lost power because we gave voters nothing to be excited about or to care about.

The signature Democratic program of the last decade was an annual enrollment window into tiers of private healthcare purchases. And lots of moral scolding.

Obama had the personal charisma to sell the dogshit to young voters as if it weren't dogshit, but no one else did.

2008 was an outlier, and the youth vote was still shitty compared with the other age groups.

 

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...