Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 4/4/2018 at 1:38 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Irrelevant Native American talking point not going away

No shit. Trump lies about having bone spurs to avoid Vietnam, fucks women who are not his wife, brags about being able to grab women by the pussy because he's a star, tries to seduce the wives of his friends (while he is married), launders Russian money like a Chinese mafioso, violates the emoluments clause on a weekly basis etc...  I doubt Elizabeth Warren lying on a application decades ago will have much impact on this electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer Harris, but there is no denying that Warren has that edge that will really shine against the orange doofus.  She will absolutely ether him in public and rally people to her side.  

 

Of course, the neckbeard losers on the maga side will wake up in a fit of rage every day knowing a woman might become president as they hug their cum stained anime body pillows.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that irritates me is this notion the democrats need some young buckaroo to energize the party and be the nomination.  I’m like, “Does everyone have amnesia?!?”  We did that with Obama and look what happened.  The Democratic Party went to complete shit and got their asses kicked for the next eight years.

What we need is good ideas with wisdom.  Some experience helps too.  Elizabeth Warren isn’t necessarily a career politician but she know how the system works.  She’s only held elected office since 2012 so she’s not some relic of any establishment.  She didn’t get her degrees from Ivy League schools or grow up on third base either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She just has to play better than Donald Trump. That's getting easier by the day.

I agree with the “outrun Trump” theory. He’s self destructing and I don’t think can handle another campaign. 

I just don’t know that Warren plays at all. I think it’s Biden’s to lose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the differences between the actual platforms of centrists and progressives are much smaller than people pretend. Even progressive platform items are polling 60/40 like most issues that break on party lines.

If Bernie runs Warren will be out of the running after New Hampshire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BrazilHorn said:

I agree with the “outrun Trump” theory. He’s self destructing and I don’t think can handle another campaign. 

I just don’t know that Warren plays at all. I think it’s Biden’s to lose. 

Biden will be 78 on inauguration day 2021. I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I won't vote for him in a primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Something that irritates me is this notion the democrats need some young buckaroo to energize the party and be the nomination.  I’m like, “Does everyone have amnesia?!?”  We did that with Obama and look what happened.  The Democratic Party went to complete shit and got their asses kicked for the next eight years.

What we need is good ideas with wisdom.  Some experience helps too.  Elizabeth Warren isn’t necessarily a career politician but she know how the system works.  She’s only held elected office since 2012 so she’s not some relic of any establishment.  She didn’t get her degrees from Ivy League schools or grow up on third base either.

she's to the left of Obama which does not bode well.  If you want Lefty with Wisdom, go with Bernie who is my main man. Long live Bernie! Damn, why could he not be 20 years younger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She can play Trump’s game better than Trump.

I’m sure she wants Trump to keep calling her Pocohantas just so she can unload on him 10 times worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She can play Trump’s game better than Trump.

I’m sure she wants Trump to keep calling her Pocohantas just so she can unload on him 10 times worse.

Trump unloads quite well. What is needed is a mirror tough guy who will drop the F bomb on his ass repeatedely, even kind of physically push him around.

Actually, Putin would would be ideal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

Trump unloads quite well. What is needed is a mirror tough guy who will drop the F bomb on his ass repeatedely, even kind of physically push him around.

Actually, Putin would would be ideal. 

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren elitist? That's about as credible a claim as an aggy national championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy but I think Obama and Trump both tapped into something similar in the American populace, which was a longing for something different and a break from status quo Washington politics. Obama basically came out of nowhere and was incredibly charismatic and promised change. Trump offered a different kind of charisma and an outsider, shake things up approach. This is not an endorsement of either candidate, just my observation.

That’s why I think Warren would struggle. She’s too established. I think whoever is elected next has to tap in to that “something new” vibe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2018 at 1:01 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She got her undergraduate degree from the University of Houston and her law degree from Rutgers.  She was never part of the east coast elite establishment.

Thing is, though, she is now.   She very well understands corporate depredations in the field of consumer finance.  Because she lives in Cambridge, Mass and canoodles with Hahvahd types, now, her reactions to those depredations are a little too lefty for her own good, and actually are probably against her better instincts.

 

If she had remained at UT or in a little less leftist-Utopia environment, she'd be a bit more palatable candidate.  I actually still think she's redeemable and might not actually be such a lefty if extracted from Cambridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, RPM said:

Warren elitist? That's about as credible a claim as an aggy national championship.

Yeah, elitist doesn’t really go together with “from Oklahoma” and “graduated from the University of Houston” (or HU as our friends in Collie Station would say). 

But she went farther than Trump academically, so that’s the label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Call me crazy but I think Obama and Trump both tapped into something similar in the American populace, which was a longing for something different and a break from status quo Washington politics. Obama basically came out of nowhere and was incredibly charismatic and promised change. Trump offered a different kind of charisma and an outsider, shake things up approach. This is not an endorsement of either candidate, just my observation.

That’s why I think Warren would struggle. She’s too established. I think whoever is elected next has to tap in to that “something new” vibe.

I do think Trump offered a lot of semi-sane, semi-sentient voters the "oustider" notion.  And I think some of them still cling to his idiocy as some sort of "outsiderness."  But he sure unleashed a bunch of crazed morons.  I'm not sure how many of the crazed morons there really are, but they make a lot of noise (and I'm not sure the media isn't giving them an outsized voice).

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Call me crazy but I think Obama and Trump both tapped into something similar in the American populace, which was a longing for something different and a break from status quo Washington politics. Obama basically came out of nowhere and was incredibly charismatic and promised change. Trump offered a different kind of charisma and an outsider, shake things up approach. This is not an endorsement of either candidate, just my observation.

That’s why I think Warren would struggle. She’s too established. I think whoever is elected next has to tap in to that “something new” vibe.

isn't that the norm though? Bush was a change from that dirty clinton. Obama was a change from the warlike fascist Bush. Trump was a change from that limp wristed foreign born American/Kenyan sellout. Flip Flop Flip Flop. We are never happy, ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Thing is, though, she is now.   She very well understands corporate depredations in the field of consumer finance.  Because she lives in Cambridge, Mass and canoodles with Hahvahd types, now, her reactions to those depredations are a little too lefty for her own good, and actually are probably against her better instincts.

 

If she had remained at UT or in a little less leftist-Utopia environment, she'd be a bit more palatable candidate.  I actually still think she's redeemable and might not actually be such a lefty if extracted from Cambridge.

This makes no sense. Spends a whole life growing up in rural Americ. Only in the last few years because of her sheer intellect and work ethic is hired by Harvard and now will be too elititest.  I don’t get this anti intellectualism that people embrace just because someone was able to excel in their field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Washpark said:

This makes no sense. Spends a whole life growing up in rural Americ. Only in the last few years because of her sheer intellect and work ethic is hired by Harvard and now will be too elititest.  I don’t get this anti intellectualism that people embrace just because someone was able to excel in their field. 

You don't think that spending 23 years of an academic career at a place like Harvard might change you a little?  Hell, it changes people in four years, or three.  Her primary job as a Harvard law professor was "research."  Earlier in her career, her research related to statistical and empirical analyses of lending practices and bankruptcy.  When you start contemplating solutions to the problems raised in those fields, and all your colleagues, or most of them, are heavy-government-intervention-types, that is most assuredly going to influence your thinking.

Also, she grew up in Norman/Oklahoma City and left for GWU when she was 18.  As much shit as we like to give Oklahoma, OKC is not "rural America." She lived in Houston, Jersey, and Philly among other non-rural places in her adult life.

Where do you get this anti-intellectual shit?  I'm on record many times as saying she is very smart and is probably the most knowledgeable person on earth about US consumer lending practices.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You don't think that spending 23 years of an academic career at a place like Harvard might change you a little?  Hell, it changes people in four years, or three.  Her primary job as a Harvard law professor was "research."  Earlier in her career, her research related to statistical and empirical analyses of lending practices and bankruptcy.  When you start contemplating solutions to the problems raised in those fields, and all your colleagues, or most of them, are heavy-government-intervention-types, that is most assuredly going to influence your thinking.

Also, she grew up in Norman/Oklahoma City and left for GWU when she was 18.  As much shit as we like to give Oklahoma, OKC is not "rural America." She lived in Houston, Jersey, and Philly among other non-rural places in her adult life.

Where do you get this anti-intellectual shit?  I'm on record many times as saying she is very smart and is probably the most knowledgeable person on earth about US consumer lending practices.

he meant that voters will rebel against her elitist education, that's anti intellectualism, not that anyone thinks she's dumb. Sadly, the racist slur by the Right will carry weight since it makes her seem like a liar. She'll be seen as HRC Part 2 in Red counties. But hey, all any Dem needs is to pull out MI, WI and PA and they are POTUS - so anything is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

he meant that voters will rebel against her elitist education, that's anti intellectualism, not that anyone thinks she's dumb. Sadly, the racist slur by the Right will carry weight since it makes her seem like a liar. She'll be seen as HRC Part 2 in Red counties. But hey, all any Dem needs is to pull out MI, WI and PA and they are POTUS - so anything is possible.

Well he took specific issue with my post, which didn't deal with "perceived elitism."  Granted, she can be painted, somewhat inaccurately, as a regular-type country girl, but she has spent the vast majority of her adult life in academia and more than half of that at Harvard.

 

Also, for the record, I never had a problem with the CFPB.  FInancial corporations are doing as much to harm America as any other group of institutions or people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

No shit. Trump lies about having bone spurs to avoid Vietnam, fucks women who are not his wife, brags about being able to grab women by the pussy because he's a star, tries to seduce the wives of his friends (while he is married), launders Russian money like a Chinese mafioso, violates the emoluments clause on a weekly basis etc...  I doubt Elizabeth Warren lying on a application decades ago will have much impact on this electorate.

Agree with all of the above, with the exception of laundering money (proof if you have it) and the emoluments. Have you ever toured any presidential library? The Bush library in howdytown has a solid gold replica of King Fahd's Saudi palace complete with gem stones for windows. It was a gift worth untold amounts. In before "Bush gave it to the library". 

 

It was still a "gift" worth millions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

I agree. Right up to the point where she refuses to admit that she lied. Her hubris is what will destroy her. A person of good character admits error and moves on to the next issue. 

A person with wretched low character is the president and is the biggest liar to ever hold the office. Watergate, Iran-Contra, The Iraq War, Donald Trump...and Elizabeth Warren saying she has Native American heritage. Which party can we trust?

Let's suppose the worst --- that Warren's family never told her that she had Native American heritage, that she took a secret DNA test and knows that she has no Native American heritage, but she lied about it because it would help her politically. 

First of all, so fucking what? That would still pale in comparison to Trump's birtherism campaign and countless other deceptions perpetrated by the Liar in Chief, not to mention countless Republicans in the last half century. 

Second, how big of a factor was her claim in anything? You're going to have a tough time convincing me that that was the difference in winning her a Senate seat from the great State of Massachusetts. I never even heard about the claim until hysterical Republicans started screaming "Pocahontas!" and "Liawatha!" After a few years of that and they don't come up with any new attacks it looks like that's all they've got. And it looks like they've got nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

what maker her platform the most stellar of Democrats in the 2020 field?

What is her platform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who moved from anywhere to the east coast, who is associated with an Ivy and promotes leftish, populist ideals will be labeled an "east coast elitist." It's unfair, but it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BrazilHorn said:

Quick search shows between 3.7-10M. She’s not poor. You may have a different definition of rich than I do. 

I used Romney as similar example to her as rich,elitist and out of touch. 

Not sure your point. If you believe she will play nationally good for you. I don’t. 

$6 Million is a pretty big range. How confident are you in those numbers? And what do you think a person of her age and with her resume should be worth?

Why don't you finish answering and show us the net worth of the other politicians I mentioned? Is she rich compared to them?

Warren wasn't born rich. Neither were the Obamas or the Clintons. None of them are as wealthy as the Bushes or Trumps. George HW Bush has more of an East Coast elite heritage than any of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BrazilHorn said:

I think she suffers from same issue of Hillary. Elitist, rich, not super warm etc

i don’t doubt she’ll run but she won’t play well nationally unless she changes a lot. 

You forgot female, because that’s what really scares the rubes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to quite like Warren even though she's a Democrat.  Then she kinda showed that she cares more about playing the game than being true to her principles.  She talked about how Hilldawg flat out lied to her face and fucked her over, but guess who was squarely in her corner this last election?  Warren had nothing negative to say about that evil bitch, even when it could have helped Bernie out.

And the Native American shit is just silly as fuck.  She should admit she lied/exaggerated to score points and move the fuck on.  Her desperately clinging to it allowed Trump to hit her with the Pocahontas label and make it stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RPM said:

Warren elitist? That's about as credible a claim as an aggy national championship.

Having beer a professor at Harvard and worth millions I believe will make her play out that way. 

Think of the point in vein of a national election. 

I’m not anti Warren. I just don’t think she’ll play well nationally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember folks - born in NYC, Wharton educated, given a $1 mm loan from his dad, having gold toilets - not elite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

$6 Million is a pretty big range. How confident are you in those numbers? And what do you think a person of her age and with her resume should be worth?

Why don't you finish answering and show us the net worth of the other politicians I mentioned? Is she rich compared to them?

Warren wasn't born rich. Neither were the Obamas or the Clintons. None of them are as wealthy as the Bushes or Trumps. George HW Bush has more of an East Coast elite heritage than any of them.

 

Romney is an example I used as a compare to her. He suffered from same play nationally and that’s before you add in Mormonism. 

The Difference in the Bush’s is though they  had money they felt more real from a personality perspective. 

Hillary had the warmth of an iceberg. 

Trump is an embarrassment that had Bernie not gotten fucked over by the D establishment would not have won  Bernie would be Pres  I will be shocked if he runs again  (no matter what he is saying now)

Personality and the ability to resonate nationally matters. I’m surprised none of you see this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You forgot female, because that’s what really scares the rubes.

Bingo.  They spent decades making Hillary to be Satan incarnate in the form of an establishment grandmother with a foundation and some emails.  Then it was Nancy Pelosi.  Now Elizabeth Warren and AOC.   Meanwhile, every single thing they criticize these women is actually a characteristic of their orange, male, god with marmalade balls flavored by saccharine who takes every one of these criticisms and acts in that manner times 1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SpiralOut said:

And the Native American shit is just silly as fuck.  She should admit she lied/exaggerated to score points and move the fuck on.  Her desperately clinging to it allowed Trump to hit her with the Pocahontas label and make it stick.

Unfortunately for her, or rather for whatever political ambitions she had, most people don't understand poor/white-trash Okies, and the environment she was raised in.

If there is one thing that poor white people in Oklahoma like to claim, it's that they have Cherokee (or other tribal) blood.  It won't get them a share of casino money, but it can do things like provide cheaper/better medical care, open up more scholarship opportunities, and let's face it, it gives them an excuse to blame for the socioeconomic situation.

Having looked at what the people around her, relatives and friends, have said, and things like her contributions to those corny little cookbooks that were all the rage back in the 80s (in her case, Cherokee cookbooks), I fully believe she was raised thinking she had a Cherokee ancestors.   And it's fucking Oklahoma, which means there is a semi-decent chance she had some Cherokee blood.   Many of the tribes intermarried like crazy with whites for various reasons (financial, education, etc.) while many whites saw it as a chance for more land.

I cannot fault her for that - there's two things poor white people in Oklahoma love to engage in - believing they have an Indian ancestor, and following OU football.

I've seen Trump and others throw around the whole DNA test thing, and while I don't think Trump knows the first thing about ancestry and DNA, those tests are meaningless for a lot of folks as far as showing Indian blood.  You pretty much have to have a full-blood Indian great-grandparent to see anything more than 5%-10% reflected in your DNA (and even then ethnicity/ancestry is not passed down evenly).  Hell, some DNA tests show me with no Native American blood, and others show "trace" amounts.  Doesn't matter though - I've got the documented family history, and so I have my little card that shows my Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood, with my membership in the Cherokee Nation, etc.

If you ever have the misfortune of hanging out with a group of Okies, subtly bring up that you've heard you have an Indian in the woodpile a few generations back, and you'll immediately have multiple people nodding their heads and telling their own stories of Cherokee princesses (which never existed).  Hell, next time you head up to Dallas for the OU game, seek out some OU fans and bring it up.  They'll talk your leg off about their Indian ancestors.

Edited by atomheartbevo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say Warren had indisputable proof she was part Native American, what difference would it make with the Trump supporters? 

They'd question the credibility of whatever proof she presented and double down on Pocahontas. 

It's just like Obama and the birth certificate. 

It doesn't matter what the facts are, they just need an excuse to hate her in their little brains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let's say Warren had indisputable proof she was part Native American, what difference would it make with the Trump supporters? 

They'd question the credibility of whatever proof she presented and double down on Pocahontas. 

It's just like Obama and the birth certificate. 

It doesn't matter what the facts are, they just need an excuse to hate her in their little brains. 

Agreed, and so far, it seems to be the only thing Trump can truly throw at her that resonates with his base.

Which is bad news for Trump - if he had something that was actually damning, he'd be flinging it at her on twitter like there was no tomorrow.

She'd probably be hoping he brings it up in a debate, so she could unload on all of his lies, adultery, bankruptcies, the seedy folks he hangs around with, etc.

But it won't matter - I don't think either of them will be on the ticket in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Js1 said:

Remember folks - born in NYC, Wharton educated, given a $1 mm loan from his dad, having gold toilets - not elite. 

but his intellectual frequency is on the level of the average hick. He's white trash really with some wealth, but he's angry white trash at the core. Hence the attraction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2018 at 2:27 PM, Pig Bellmont said:

The right seems desperate for a new boogeyman 

All the while the left desperately seeks to find the "real reason" they lost in 2016........  

 

pro tip:  Hillary and the lefts fringe elements  controlling the center, at least as far as the public sees it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

All the while the left desperately seeks to find the "real reason" they lost in 2016........  

 

pro tip:  Hillary and the lefts fringe elements  controlling the center, at least as far as the public sees it.

It's the right that keeps bringing up Hillary and 2016. The left has moved on. And judging from the polls of voters in the midwest, so have they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta be honest, running a candidate whose gonna scold me as a campaign tactic doesn't seem like the best plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I gotta be honest, running a candidate whose gonna scold me as a campaign tactic doesn't seem like the best plan.

You should be deeply ashamed of yourself for thinking that. Shame!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democratic Party: "How about THIS candidate?"

Voter who will never vote for a Democratic President: "No way!"

Democratic Party: "Oh golly gee, well... what about THIS OTHER one?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best description of Presidential Elections came from Carville, of course:

Every 4 years, Democrats need to fall in love.

Every 4 years, Republicans just fall into line.

Elizabeth Warren just does not strike me as a candidate that democrats (and independents) are going to fall in love with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b_t and I disagree on a lot, but he's absolutely right that there's no reason for the Democrats to run to the center right now. His strategy of telling independents and centrists to fuck off is foolish, but the part he's right about is that a very large portion of the people leaving the Republican party along with people who are merely voting against Trump and the current GOP will 1) vote against Republicans without knowing shit about the Democrat candidates and 2) vote for the GOP in the future if and when the current iteration gets destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The best description of Presidential Elections came from Carville, of course:

Every 4 years, Democrats need to fall in love.

Every 4 years, Republicans just fall into line.

Elizabeth Warren just does not strike me as a candidate that democrats (and independents) are going to fall in love with.

Or we can just realize that American politics is cyclical and the other party will be in power after eight or so years no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

csbrethren: I almost ran over Carville on a bike path in Alexandria VA once.

As funny as that sumbitch looks on TV, he looks even funnier when he thinks he's about to get run over, [/csb]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's the right that keeps bringing up Hillary and 2016. The left has moved on. And judging from the polls of voters in the midwest, so have they.

truth, we are never satisfied and keep the incumbent with rare exceptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

b_t and I disagree on a lot, but he's absolutely right that there's no reason for the Democrats to run to the center right now. His strategy of telling independents and centrists to fuck off is foolish, but the part he's right about is that a very large portion of the people leaving the Republican party along with people who are merely voting against Trump and the current GOP will 1) vote against Republicans without knowing shit about the Democrat candidates and 2) vote for the GOP in the future if and when the current iteration gets destroyed.

Thank you.

Republicans win because they turn out their base with candidates they want and win independents at the right time (usually in backlash of the current party in power).

So of course, the Democrats *should* focus on pissing off their base by nominating more centrist/corporatist Democrats who are basically old-school Republicans - sure fire winning strategy.  As long as Ghost of LL and Brisket are happy that the Democrat isn't "omg so liberal." Because for every 1 suburban moderate you MIGHT gain for 1 or 2 cycles, you will probably lose 2 b_t voters who are tired of holding their nose for the moderate/centrist corporate Democrat who go to DC and act like a Republican.

And then you lose again! 

Democrats are going to win the independents regardless in 2018 and probably 2020.  They have to nominate someone who will actually turn out their base, not "Robot Hillary Clinton built in a lab by the centrists of the world."

We mightily mock the Republicans who run on fiscal conservatives and then go to DC and spend like sailors.  People like bad_teammate don't want to vote for someone who will give lip service to progressive policies and then go to DC and compromise with Republicans who have no interest in those policies.

Edited by Js1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...