Jump to content
Jordan Washington chats with Bobby for Burnt Ends ×

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

washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9894

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what is your contention?  That her entire platform and scheme is an elaborate bait and switch that will actually help billionaires and corporations?

The DNC superdelegates are not going to give Warren the nomination. They would rather have Trump for four more years than a Warren or Sanders at the top of the ticket. 

Warren has received some horrible advice from the Clinton carpetbaggers in her campaign. Political malpractice - just like 2016, when she should have run.

I like Liz, but she is burning bridges. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13018

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what is your contention?  That her entire platform and scheme is an elaborate bait and switch that will actually help billionaires and corporations?

I don't have a contention. I've had it in my head that grandma and grandpa were going to have to lock horns for a little bit but would ultimately both be champions for elections free of billionaire meddling together.

You don't have to listen to me about the problem with being beholden to the billionaire class, you can listen to her.

I agree with Liz Warren 12/2019 - 1/2020

It's Liz Warren 2/2020-??? I'm worried about, because she's singing a COMPLETELY different tune

And it's not a matter of "Heh, gotcha!", it's a matter of who a President Warren will be accountable to when a billionaire funder calls and says, "When you were knocked down and almost out, I came in and single-handedly saved you."

That's the entire point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13018

Posted
Posted (edited)

The conventional wisdom is that so many people staying in is good for Bernie because if they dropped out their supporters would go to other non-Bernies so they're stupid for staying in and clearing the lane for Bernie.

I think it's the opposite.

As candidates drop out, Bernie will get a higher proportion of their leftovers than anyone else. Dropping out would help Sanders. Staying in takes more votes away from Sanders than it does the other non-Bernies.

 

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28595

Posted
Posted

I like Liz a lot but as a Beto supporter this last second grasp of PAC money REALLY chaps my ass.

Like, she’s spent the better part of a year on a high horse about this and her supporters were very disingenuous about other candidates (“Beto is an oil & gas puppet!!”, when those donations came from employees not corporations) and now we’re expected to be cool with her taking this money because it’s in service of HER.

I’m just really mad and disappointed.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33694

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I like Liz a lot but as a Beto supporter this last second grasp of PAC money REALLY chaps my ass.

Like, she’s spent the better part of a year on a high horse about this and her supporters were very disingenuous about other candidates (“Beto is an oil & gas puppet!!”, when those donations came from employees not corporations) and now we’re expected to be cool with her taking this money because it’s in service of HER.

I’m just really mad and disappointed.

I will definitely vote for her if she is the nominee, but I cannot get excited about her. this kinda seals it for me. the fact that Bernie said he would refuse Bloomberg's money if he gets the nom is the type of shit that keeps me going back to Bernie. He's somehow almost too consistent. He makes up his mind and that shit is for good, apparently. And I like that.

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

A depressing turn of events.

And if this is true... my god.

 

If the researcher is going to tweet about the advocacy group, he could at least look more closely at the filing and get the name right. It is Securing America's Future Energy (not Energy Future). It's mission is is "an action-oriented, nonpartisan organization that works to reduce America's dependence on oil, educating policy makers and advocating for comprehensive energy reform." and one of the military advisors is ret General PX Kelley. (SourceWatch). So I can't speak to Chris Koob's agenda for Warren, but it doesn't seem like the lobby group he formerly worked for was the Evil Empire.

 

The second tweet is old news. Forbes reported on it in November of last year, one of three billionaires who went on record as being on board with a wealth tax. Rales lives in California and along with Craig Newmark and Chris Sacca would pay the tax in varying amounts. Sacca: “Weighing in to say that [Warren’s] proposal to put a 2-3% annual tax on wealth over $50 million is extremely and radically… reasonable.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 44920

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

If the researcher is going to tweet about the advocacy group, he could at least look more closely at the filing and get the name right. It is Securing America's Future Energy (not Energy Future). It's mission is is "an action-oriented, nonpartisan organization that works to reduce America's dependence on oil, educating policy makers and advocating for comprehensive energy reform." and one of the military advisors is ret General PX Kelley. (SourceWatch). So I can't speak to Chris Koob's agenda for Warren, but it doesn't seem like the lobby group he formerly worked for was the Evil Empire.

 

The second tweet is old news. Forbes reported on it in November of last year, one of three billionaires who went on record as being on board with a wealth tax. Rales lives in California and along with Craig Newmark and Chris Sacca would pay the tax in varying amounts. Sacca: “Weighing in to say that [Warren’s] proposal to put a 2-3% annual tax on wealth over $50 million is extremely and radically… reasonable.”

No, no, no, no...can't be!  Can't be!  Down with the witch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

If the researcher is going to tweet about the advocacy group, he could at least look more closely at the filing and get the name right. It is Securing America's Future Energy (not Energy Future). It's mission is is "an action-oriented, nonpartisan organization that works to reduce America's dependence on oil, educating policy makers and advocating for comprehensive energy reform." and one of the military advisors is ret General PX Kelley. (SourceWatch). So I can't speak to Chris Koob's agenda for Warren, but it doesn't seem like the lobby group he formerly worked for was the Evil Empire.

 

The second tweet is old news. Forbes reported on it in November of last year, one of three billionaires who went on record as being on board with a wealth tax. Rales lives in California and along with Craig Newmark and Chris Sacca would pay the tax in varying amounts. Sacca: “Weighing in to say that [Warren’s] proposal to put a 2-3% annual tax on wealth over $50 million is extremely and radically… reasonable.”

Sorry to quote myself, but I'm having a terrible time with the computer today and edits are taking four tries or more to go through.

I checked those tweets of bts not because I'm going to gaslight everything Warren has done, but because there is info out there slanted one way or another and that news above was slanted in a way to project something different. If those donors are supporting her because they support a wealth tax like Forbes published back in November, then is that support bad? You decide. Vote your conscience. I did. I voted for Warren.

 

Gotta run, stay outta trouble!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13018

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I care zero about who takes PAC money as long as they pledge to lead meaningful efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics unilateral disarmament makes no tactical sense.

I understand this perspective, but I agree with past-Warren that taking the money makes you beholden and will necessarily blunt your intentions even if you start with good intentions. I think her dramatic turn on accepting this money is evidence of how good intentions don't mean much once major compromises begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11141

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I like Liz a lot but as a Beto supporter this last second grasp of PAC money REALLY chaps my ass.

Like, she’s spent the better part of a year on a high horse about this and her supporters were very disingenuous about other candidates (“Beto is an oil & gas puppet!!”, when those donations came from employees not corporations) and now we’re expected to be cool with her taking this money because it’s in service of HER.

I’m just really mad and disappointed.

So you’re new to politics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 28616

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I’m starting to come around on Pete. As someone who has tried to write complete nonsense like this many times I can attest that it’s not easy. He’s a fucking master at political nothing speak gibberish. salute. 
 

 

which part are you having trouble with?  were there some new words in there that confused you?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 28616

Posted
Posted

he's trying to thread the needle between the progressive revolution and the moderate "let's go back to 08-16 biden" approach.  he also thinks the majority of americans agree on important issues, and he's trying not to ruffle any feathers.  i'm not saying it's ground-breaking or effective, but it's not complicated. 

to call the rhetoric "absurd" is a little dramatic.  seems like typical political mumbo-jumbo to me.  that's what happens when your team is sending out 5 emails a day.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

If you don’t get why that email is funny I feel sorry for you. I’m not even mad, I’m actually laughing. 

It's not only funny, in a prescient way it is like watching the Pompeo interview on coronavirus where he is trying to dodge Ted Liu's question about whether he thought the virus is a hoax.

Your future Secretary of State (or whatever role Pete eventually has), the master of the faux contra non possumus (or something along those lines since that is a made up word salad).

 

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zonahorn

Zonahorn 7852

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 


Bloomberg ran supposedly because he thought Sanders might win the nomination and then lose to Trump. By splitting the moderate Democrat vote with Biden, he’s essentially guaranteeing Sanders the nomination. Whoops.

 

The irony is delicious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dbeasy

Dbeasy 14733

Posted
Posted
I’m starting to come around on Pete. As someone who has tried to write complete nonsense like this many times I can attest that it’s not easy. He’s a fucking master at political nothing speak gibberish. salute. 
 
 


If you would have properly been for the things you were previously against, and been against the things you should have previously been for, you would have supported Pete earlier, rather than later, which raises a question about whether you earlier you really were against him, or just unaware that you were really for him. I just can’t believe you didn’t see it. It’s so simple.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Pete actually came up with MAGA first, but Mentally Actualize Galvanizing America didn’t really catch on like Trump’s version.

I tried to promote Men Are Giant Assholes for Warren's campaign but my husband said that was not a good plan. He's pretty smart so I listened to him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

If you don’t get why that email is funny I feel sorry for you. I’m not even mad, I’m actually laughing. 

The stakes are much too high for you not to vote for me so I can do some things. Not many things, and not the things that are happening now, nor the things that represent the few things of yesteryear, but a new assortment of few things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 25767

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The stakes are much too high for you not to vote for me so I can do some things. Not many things, and not the things that are happening now, nor the things that represent the few things of yesteryear, but a new assortment of few things. 

MysteryMen_24.jpg

If you vote your fears, fear will be your vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9894

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Dog said:

There's no such thing as a "registered independent".

In my experience, "registered independent" is used to group "registered" voters who does not associate with one of the two major political parties.  But your point is well taken. And may be important for primary voting. 

In California, a registered voter unaffiliated with a party is called an NPP (no party preference) voter, not a "registered independent." Also in California, I suspect many "Registered Independent Party" voters intended to declare themselves independent of any party (no party preference), but mistakenly checked the Independent Party box. It can be confusing and discouraging because NPP voters are permitted to vote in the Democratic Primary and Registered Independent Party voters cannot. Everyone should check your party status and make sure you can vote in your state's primaries. The rules vary. Some states do not allow anyone but Democrats, for instance, to vote in a Democratic Party primary election. And there may be deadlines that are coming up (and sadly many deadlines may have already passed). But still check.

And vote. And vote again in November.

The Presidential race is shaping up more like 2008 for Democrats and 1992 for Republicans. That is good for the top of the ticket and across the ticket. After 2008, Democrats had the Presidency and a majority in the House and Senate.

States are moving into the tossup/lean "swing state" category for the general election this year. Texas, for instance, will be in play. And once the battle against Trump begins in earnest, the circular firing squad will turn towards Trump. Enthusiasm is on the Democratic Party side of the ledger this year, unlike 2016.  As long as Democrats do not allow the Trump to control the narrative of the "leads if it bleeds media,"  it will be a great election for the Democratic Party. 

 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 25501

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I understand this perspective, but I agree with past-Warren that taking the money makes you beholden and will necessarily blunt your intentions 

You advertise a product and people buy it. Your obligation is to deliver the product as described. Unless you're out there soliciting donations with specific private deliverables that are at odds with public statements (AKA a "quid pro quo") I don't believe they are beholden. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted

Trump was nonchalantly worried about Warren last night. He barely touched on Klobuchar that I saw but he worked in his digs with the Pocahontas comments and called her mean, along with a rather nasty comment toward Native Americans:

"I came out with that name far too early because those burning embers they got. You know little lands. You got so horrible to people and they said you know she's, not dumb, but she's. Just so damn mean we can't vote for she's a mean one. She is mean so Pocahontas. Do we leave her in around how about Klobuchar not going to happen so really we're down to two candidates, right sleepy Joe Biden and crazy Bernie?"

He has enough awareness to not call her 'dumb,' because female voters would remember that. His difficulty with Warren if she improves is that she is dangerous to him in a different way than Hillary and how he attacks her won't affect his supporters but it sure will everyone else. He's calling her mean because if she were to be the candidate then it lays his groundwork to be mean back. Not sure that would go the way he thinks it would.

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...