Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

Has any other candidate come out in support of Wikileaks?  All the braying over Trump's disrespectful comments regarding corporate media and yet people seem real quiet about the substantive things his admin does to really threaten freedom of the press.

 

 

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

Js1

Js1 85056

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

He's probably just trolling the dupes from the #RESISTANCE crowd.  I believe he's a hawk, so I don't know where he could find common ground with her.

You're trolling.  Gabbard is a darling of the alt-right.  Not surprised by this at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

His answer was cut short in that video. I'll try to find the longer one. 

But what he said in that clip is DEAD ON. The best way to rid ourselves of Trump and Trumpism is for the American people to reject and vote against it. 

meaning never impeach a POTUS -- unless he shoots people as Time Square 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack Straw

Jack Straw 2953

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NowThis said:

meaning never impeach a POTUS -- unless he shoots people as Time Square 

the standard shouldn’t be “only if there is smoking gun evidence of collusion with a foreign governent,” or anything close to that.  it should be more than enough if the president is wholly unfit to lead and is actively working to undermine US interests while placing his own interests and pocketbook above those of the country at every turn.  both of which Trunp sped by a long, long time ago.  Trump and his entire administration should have been removed - by force if necessary - within 24 hours of him stepping off the stage in Helsinki.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85056

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

the standard shouldn’t be “only if there is smoking gun evidence of collusion with a foreign governent,” or anything close to that.  it should be more than enough if the president is wholly unfit to lead and is actively working to undermine US interests while placing his own interests and pocketbook above those of the country at every turn.  both of which Trunp sped by a long, long time ago.  Trump and his entire administration should have been removed - by force if necessary - within 24 hours of him stepping off the stage in Helsinki.  

Should it be the standard? No.

But the complicit Senate Republicans have decided that is the standard.  And even then, it might not be enough for them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

the standard shouldn’t be “only if there is smoking gun evidence of collusion with a foreign governent,” or anything close to that.  it should be more than enough if the president is wholly unfit to lead and is actively working to undermine US interests while placing his own interests and pocketbook above those of the country at every turn.  both of which Trunp sped by a long, long time ago.  Trump and his entire administration should have been removed - by force if necessary - within 24 hours of him stepping off the stage in Helsinki.  

that's the deeper meaning of the 2nd amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Here’s my first knock on Pete: He avoids answering this question by giving a prepackaged politically correct answer. 

A better answer would have been:  “Congress needs to do their constitutional duty without being intimidated by public opinion polls or doing the politically strategic thing.  If there is evidence the president has committed crimes and/or abused his power, Congress needs to take those allegations very seriously, lay out the evidence before the American people, and decide if removing this president through impeachment is necessary, in the best interest of the country.”

he did give a more expanded answer, obviously, as it's been pointed out.  i think what he actually did here was speak to his personal involvement in this issue.  he's a mayor, not a congressman.  he has nothing to do with impeachment proceedings.

the question also seemed to be there to 'trip' him up.  it wasn't "do you think the president should be impeached" it was about beginning proceedings (the timeline on which has been widely reported - and pete knows the election is 20 months away).

i thought he avoided the easy "bait" and gave an honest answer.  a lot of what pete says seems "prepackaged" because he's well spoken and smooth.  dude is a born politician.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

he did give a more expanded answer, obviously, as it's been pointed out.  i think what he actually did here was speak to his personal involvement in this issue.  he's a mayor, not a congressman.  he has nothing to do with impeachment proceedings.

the question also seemed to be there to 'trip' him up.  it wasn't "do you think the president should be impeached" it was about beginning proceedings (the timeline on which has been widely reported - and pete knows the election is 20 months away).

i thought he avoided the easy "bait" and gave an honest answer.  a lot of what pete says seems "prepackaged" because he's well spoken and smooth.  dude is a born politician.

Yeah, I think what I was trying to point out was Pete didn’t necessarily give a purely candid answer but a politically correct one to offend the least amount of people. 

For once I’d love to hear a candidate say something like: “Yes, Trump should be impeached because he’s a lying traitorous corrupt con man that continues to destroy everything that makes this country great. Whether it’s degrading the public’s faith in our democratic institutions like law enforcement, the validity of elections,  or the press; this man is a danger to our republic when he takes the word of our enemies over his fellow Americans.  Trump should have been removed from office when he fired Comey to obstruct justice for Vladimir Putin.  There’s only been a few dozen more reasons to remove him since then. If the founders didn’t put impeachment in the constitution for unloyal grifters like Trump, why do we even have it in there?”

 

Jennifer Rubin published a nice Buttigeig puff piece in wapo:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, I think what I was trying to point out was Pete didn’t necessarily give a purely candid answer but a politically correct one to offend the least amount of people. 

For once I’d love to hear a candidate say something like: “Yes, Trump should be impeached because he’s a lying traitorous corrupt con man that continues to destroy everything that makes this country great. Whether it’s degrading the public’s faith in our democratic institutions like law enforcement, the validity of elections,  or the press; this man is a danger to our republic when he takes the word of our enemies over his fellow Americans.  Trump should have been removed from office when he fired Comey to obstruct justice for Vladimir Putin.  There’s only been a few dozen more reasons to remove him since then. If the founders didn’t put impeachment in the constitution for unloyal grifters like Trump, why do we even have it in there?”

i doubt he avoided it out of fear of offending anyone.  i actually think he did the opposite.  i think slamming trump is low-hanging fruit and many would consider it pandering.  "hell yes, let's ride him out on a rail!" probably gets him a standing o at sx, but doesn't make the headlines he's trying to make today, or get his actual message out to the people.

the issue of impeachment is also tricky because beginning proceedings is a political maneuver that can backfire, which is why many dems are against it.  again, i think that's why the question was phrased "do you think they should begin..." instead of "do you think he deserves to be..."  i think it's also a misconception that bringing proceedings means there's a ticking clock before he's booted out of office for [all your reasons].  it typically doesn't work like that and almost surely wouldn't this time either.

there seems to be a concerted effort to avoid speaking directly about trump by dems at this stage in the process.  there will come a time where this will change - it has to - because it's one of the only things the entire democratic field of hopefuls is completely aligned on.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13125

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, I think what I was trying to point out was Pete didn’t necessarily give a purely candid answer but a politically correct one to offend the least amount of people. 

For once I’d love to hear a candidate say something like: “Yes, Trump should be impeached because he’s a lying traitorous corrupt con man that continues to destroy everything that makes this country great. Whether it’s degrading the public’s faith in our democratic institutions like law enforcement, the validity of elections,  or the press; this man is a danger to our republic when he takes the word of our enemies over his fellow Americans.  Trump should have been removed from office when he fired Comey to obstruct justice for Vladimir Putin.  There’s only been a few dozen more reasons to remove him since then. If the founders didn’t put impeachment in the constitution for unloyal grifters like Trump, why do we even have it in there?”

 

Jennifer Rubin published a nice Buttigeig puff piece in wapo:

 

Rubin throwing some shade at Beto there lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i doubt he avoided it out of fear of offending anyone.  i actually think he did the opposite.  i think slamming trump is low-hanging fruit and many would consider it pandering.  "hell yes, let's ride him out on a rail!" probably gets him a standing o at sx, but doesn't make the headlines he's trying to make today, or get his actual message out to the people.

the issue of impeachment is also tricky because beginning proceedings is a political maneuver that can backfire, which is why many dems are against it.  again, i think that's why the question was phrased "do you think they should begin..." instead of "do you think he deserves to be..."  i think it's also a misconception that bringing proceedings means there's a ticking clock before he's booted out of office for [all your reasons].  it typically doesn't work like that and almost surely wouldn't this time either.

there seems to be a concerted effort to avoid speaking directly about trump by dems at this stage in the process.  there will come a time where this will change - it has to - because it's one of the only things the entire democratic field of hopefuls is completely aligned on.  

The problem is no one wants to take Trump head on for “political reasons” or give the appearance of pandering.  Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns and fuck the optics.  This was the appeal of Trump’s schtick.  The tough guy who’s not afraid to make decisions even if they’re not popular or politically correct.  People respect that shit.  It also helps if you actually believe in those decisions because they’re the right thing to do.

There was nothing wrong with Pete’s response but it could have been better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28659

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The cattiness at Bernie flares up around 4:45 for those of y'all who like the drama.

Also, what's up with his accent? What is with the way he says "check"?

It's sounds like a Dave Chappelle impersonation of what a white guy sounds like.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13125

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

Just donated to Mayor Pete.

I already did a while back, but everyone here who liked his CNN town hall needs to do this. He needs tens of thousands of individual donors to make the debate stage and we NEED Mayor Pete on the debate stage.

Throw him $5. Get him on the stage.

Also, here's the most recent overall poll with "if Biden doesn't enter the race"

imgur

Edited by bad_teammate
  • Like 1
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
The problem is no one wants to take Trump head on for “political reasons” or give the appearance of pandering.  Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns and fuck the optics.  This was the appeal of Trump’s schtick.  The tough guy who’s not afraid to make decisions even if they’re not popular or politically correct.  People respect that shit.  It also helps if you actually believe in those decisions because they’re the right thing to do.
There was nothing wrong with Pete’s response but it could have been better.



And if he handled it your way, all his coverage today would be about how he’s just anti-Trump and impeachment instead of the glowing coverage he’s getting about how thoughtful and positive he is and how voters really should be giving him a look.

I feel like he would prefer the coverage he’s getting today as opposed to what would’ve happened had he gone on an impeachment rant.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20636

Posted
Posted

Buttigieg twitter following is picking up. 

February 1st. - around 100k

March 1st - around 150k

Pre-Town Hall yesterday - 160k

Right now - 191k. 

 

I think his patience with formally announcing will pay off. Town Hall officially got his name out there, contributions picking up, then a formal announcement of his candidacy in the near future to keep the Buttimentum (credit: Dave Weigel) going. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19327

Posted
Posted
On 3/7/2019 at 1:42 PM, GSU&UT said:

I donated money to him just because of this stupid rule of needing however many thousands of individual donors to see the debate stage in the primary. If he was more well-known coming into this it would have really made things interesting, but I think he still has too sep of a hill to climb.

I just threw him $20 to get him on the stage. He probably has the most thought out and well reasoned positions I've heard so far and he needs to be on the debate stage. With his background in Big Data, he probably understands the issues we will be facing around data privacy, and automation taking blue collar jobs better than most. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And if he handled it your way, all his coverage today would be about how he’s just anti-Trump and impeachment instead of the glowing coverage he’s getting about how thoughtful and positive he is and how voters really should be giving him a look.

I feel like he would prefer the coverage he’s getting today as opposed to what would’ve happened had he gone on an impeachment rant.

 

 

Seems like the coverage has been focused on his takedown soundbyte of Pence.  It also seems like that is resonating well.  

Mayhaps he could walk and chew gum on the impeachment issue too while persuading audiences with his ideas? 

Pete needs as much exposure as he can get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28659

Posted
Posted

siap, I usually don't follow the news over the weekend.

The anti-tax Club for Growth is expected to begin airing a two-minute commercial in Iowa this week aimed at dampening liberal support for O’Rourke, who's expected to enter the race any day. The spot paints the former Texas congressman as a politician dripping with "white male privilege" who's undeserving of the comparisons he's drawing to Barack Obama."

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/beto-orourke-2020-attack-1214805

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45478

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seems like the coverage has been focused on his takedown soundbyte of Pence.  It also seems like that is resonating well.  

Mayhaps he could walk and chew gum on the impeachment issue too while persuading audiences with his ideas? 

Pete needs as much exposure as he can get. 

I think as long as Pete is coming off as one of the smarter and rational voices in the room, he should just keep doing what he's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22583

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

giphy.gif

 

 

 

Also I wonder if the GOP considers Buttigieg's tour in Afghanistan as "ignoring his duties". 

 

Boy oh boy, if "people in Indiana don't know the name of the mayor of South Bend" is the worst they've got on him... he just might have a shot at this.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
O'Rourke: "Outside of Texas, people say, 'Is he really a Democrat? I think he's a closet Republican."
No they don't. ugh


Some idiots have said it in this very thread.

And I think he’s using “some people” = that Republican PAC running ads in Iowa that paint him as “not democrat enough and the poster boy for white male privilege”.


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12389

Posted
Posted (edited)

If any of you fuckers have the opportunity to vote for Beto and don't, you should probably get a full frontal lobotomy.  

Agree with this wholeheartedly:

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/11/operation-chaos-club-growth-airs-attack-ad-targeting-beto-orourke-white-male-privilege/

Why target Beto? For one specific reason and one more general one. The general one is that there’s no obvious Republican argument against him if he’s the nominee. Bernie and Warren will be tagged as socialists if they’re nominated and a Trump/Harris or Trump/Booker election will sink into identitarian ugliness on both sides but what would the main line of attack on Beto be? He tried to leave the scene of a DUI 25 years ago? He has little government experience — compared to a president who had none when he was elected? CFG is trying to take him out now because they know it’d be more difficult to take him out next fall.

As for the specific reason, in a word: Texas.

“We watched what he did in Texas in the race against Cruz and realized his potential within the Democratic primary system is enormously larger than what people are giving him credit for right now. We realized, here is a real potential threat because if he is the nominee then Texas suddenly is in play,” McIntosh said…

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican who is up for reelection next year, is among those preparing for a fight. In recent weeks, Cornyn aides have been working with the RNC to set up an ambitious field program in the state.

“If Beto is the nominee, I think the temptation will be too great for the Democrats not to spend significant resources in Texas,” said Rob Jesmer, a senior Cornyn adviser. “And we need to match their efforts. If we do, we’ll win, and if we don’t, it will be perilous for everyone up and down the ballot.”

Edited by Message Board User
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1305

Posted
Posted
On 3/9/2019 at 7:19 PM, Js1 said:

Okay thanks. Next. You’re part of the problem if you sit out Bc your guy didn’t win and then spend 2021-24 bitching about how “you all” re-elected Trump. 

Get fucked with you sit at home bullshit so you can blame other people. Big brain victim voter syndrome

No, I would sit out because, as I've seen it, all of our best candidates get weeded out for some watered-down, middle of the road piece of shit who sells out to corporate lobbies and then does literally nothing of any benefit for America.

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...