Democrats Debate lineup

Floridatexan wrote:

bigdog wrote:LOL  Telstar, I never know what your rolling eyes emoticon means.

I don't know if you remember either Hubert Humphreys or Walter Mondale, who were the people Nixon ran against, if I remember right.

This was during the "real cold war" when it had only been 6 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have caused the extinction of mankind from the planet.Americans were very concerned about Vietnam spreading into a world war with China. Foreign Policy was a number one issue.

Humphreys or Mondale were strong on Civil Rights at the time, but neither of them had any decent foreign policy credentials. Humphreys had been Johnson's VP, and Johnson was not exactly a foreign policy genius. Johnson was a big drag on Humphreys, no doubt about it. I don't think people trusted him with Vietnam anymore than they trusted Johnson with it. Voting Nixon made perfect sense.  And after his first very successful term with all the above successes, he had no real competition in Mondale.

People not around back then have learned a strange view of history, IMO. Americans needed a strong leader and I felt the same way. Nixon was it.
It wasn't that complicated and I make no apologies.

I was around back then, and I think you're a blooming idiot.

Telstar wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bigdog wrote:LOL  Telstar, I never know what your rolling eyes emoticon means.

I don't know if you remember either Hubert Humphreys or Walter Mondale, who were the people Nixon ran against, if I remember right.

This was during the "real cold war" when it had only been 6 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have caused the extinction of mankind from the planet.Americans were very concerned about Vietnam spreading into a world war with China. Foreign Policy was a number one issue.

Humphreys or Mondale were strong on Civil Rights at the time, but neither of them had any decent foreign policy credentials. Humphreys had been Johnson's VP, and Johnson was not exactly a foreign policy genius. Johnson was a big drag on Humphreys, no doubt about it. I don't think people trusted him with Vietnam anymore than they trusted Johnson with it. Voting Nixon made perfect sense.  And after his first very successful term with all the above successes, he had no real competition in Mondale.

People not around back then have learned a strange view of history, IMO. Americans needed a strong leader and I felt the same way. Nixon was it.
It wasn't that complicated and I make no apologies.

I was around back then, and I think you're a blooming idiot.

LOL

bigdog wrote:

Telstar wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bigdog wrote:LOL  Telstar, I never know what your rolling eyes emoticon means.

I don't know if you remember either Hubert Humphreys or Walter Mondale, who were the people Nixon ran against, if I remember right.

This was during the "real cold war" when it had only been 6 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have caused the extinction of mankind from the planet.Americans were very concerned about Vietnam spreading into a world war with China. Foreign Policy was a number one issue.

Humphreys or Mondale were strong on Civil Rights at the time, but neither of them had any decent foreign policy credentials. Humphreys had been Johnson's VP, and Johnson was not exactly a foreign policy genius. Johnson was a big drag on Humphreys, no doubt about it. I don't think people trusted him with Vietnam anymore than they trusted Johnson with it. Voting Nixon made perfect sense.  And after his first very successful term with all the above successes, he had no real competition in Mondale.

People not around back then have learned a strange view of history, IMO. Americans needed a strong leader and I felt the same way. Nixon was it.
It wasn't that complicated and I make no apologies.

I was around back then, and I think you're a blooming idiot.

LOL

If you were around back then, AND of an age to know what was going on, you must have been drugged at the time. I wasn't. There's nothing wrong with my memory.

I did make one error. It was Humphrey that Nixon ran against in '68, but it was George McGovern he ran against in 1972. McGovern ran on a platform of leaving Vietnam immediately. He was the darling of the anti-war college students and hippies.  A purist, like you, I guess. He also wanted  national healthcare. Extremely liberal and extremely anti-war. . And to hear millennials and gen Xers talk about history today, you'd think most of America back then  hated Nixon and hated the war. Yeah, Americans were tired of the war. But they trusted Nixon to end it, not the vocally anti-war George McGovern. McGovern wanted to walk away. Americans wanted to keep their pride in the process.  So what happened when it was time to vote?
McGovern  lost to Richard Nixon by the widest popular vote margin in the history of politics. The record holds to this day. Nixon got 18 million more votes than McGovern,  and won 49 states. The loudly, vocally anti-war people were not the majority of voters in 1972. It was that simple. It wasn't even close. That's real history and real numbers, the numbers that people who weren't drugged out of their heads back then should be capable of remembering. You don't like them, but you can't change them  They will always exist in a history book somewhere.

The only cat that's out of the bag is the one fact that you've hidden for quite awhile. That would be that you have gone so far to the left your brain has now gone off balance and  it can't understand reality anymore.
Because reality is that times change, people change, and no one is either all good or all bad, with the possible exception of Trump himself. Hindsight is always 2020, but it doesn't require an apology for actions taken in the past when those actions were taken because facts were not known at the time.
It's that simple. I'm not going to keep this argument going, because it's stupid to argue with someone who is not listening.

I also don't have to prove to you that I'm a Democrat, because I've proven it to every other Democrat that I've ever worked with on a campaign, and actually, it's their opinions that matter to me, not yours.

"Imagine" was just a song, I hate to clue you in, but life just really doesn't work that way.

Telstar wrote:
 Moving on to the "high strung" one...


Liz Warren says she raised $19.1M in second quarter

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign said she pulled in $19.1 million in the second quarter – more than three times what she raised in the first three months of the year.

The Democrat from Massachusetts got 683,000 donations from 384,000 donors for an average donation of $28, her campaign tweeted on Monday.

​Warren’s haul was more than the $18 million Sen. Bernie Sanders raised during April, May and June.

​He also transferred $6 million from another account, bringing his total to $24 million.

It was also $7 million more than what Sen. Kamala Harris raked in during the second quarter.

But it fell short of Joe Biden’s take of $21.5 million and Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s $24.8 million.

Among other Democratic hopefuls who reported their second quarter totals, Sen. Michael Bennet raised $3.5 million and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock took in $2 million.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/08/liz-warren-says-she-raised-19-1m-in-second-quarter/

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:
 Moving on to the "high strung" one...


Liz Warren says she raised $19.1M in second quarter

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign said she pulled in $19.1 million in the second quarter – more than three times what she raised in the first three months of the year.

The Democrat from Massachusetts got 683,000 donations from 384,000 donors for an average donation of $28, her campaign tweeted on Monday.

​Warren’s haul was more than the $18 million Sen. Bernie Sanders raised during April, May and June.

​He also transferred $6 million from another account, bringing his total to $24 million.

It was also $7 million more than what Sen. Kamala Harris raked in during the second quarter.

But it fell short of Joe Biden’s take of $21.5 million and Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s $24.8 million.

Among other Democratic hopefuls who reported their second quarter totals, Sen. Michael Bennet raised $3.5 million and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock took in $2 million.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/08/liz-warren-says-she-raised-19-1m-in-second-quarter/

This is supposed to impress me about the woman?  It doesn't.  Donald Trump can raise a lot of money, too.  Doesn't make him a worthy of being president.

Telstar wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:
 Moving on to the "high strung" one...


Liz Warren says she raised $19.1M in second quarter

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign said she pulled in $19.1 million in the second quarter – more than three times what she raised in the first three months of the year.

The Democrat from Massachusetts got 683,000 donations from 384,000 donors for an average donation of $28, her campaign tweeted on Monday.

​Warren’s haul was more than the $18 million Sen. Bernie Sanders raised during April, May and June.

​He also transferred $6 million from another account, bringing his total to $24 million.

It was also $7 million more than what Sen. Kamala Harris raked in during the second quarter.

But it fell short of Joe Biden’s take of $21.5 million and Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s $24.8 million.

Among other Democratic hopefuls who reported their second quarter totals, Sen. Michael Bennet raised $3.5 million and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock took in $2 million.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/08/liz-warren-says-she-raised-19-1m-in-second-quarter/

This is supposed to impress me about the woman?  It doesn't.  Donald Trump can raise a lot of money, too.  Doesn't make him a worthy of being president.

It's not all about "you."

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:
 Moving on to the "high strung" one...


Liz Warren says she raised $19.1M in second quarter

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign said she pulled in $19.1 million in the second quarter – more than three times what she raised in the first three months of the year.

The Democrat from Massachusetts got 683,000 donations from 384,000 donors for an average donation of $28, her campaign tweeted on Monday.

​Warren’s haul was more than the $18 million Sen. Bernie Sanders raised during April, May and June.

​He also transferred $6 million from another account, bringing his total to $24 million.

It was also $7 million more than what Sen. Kamala Harris raked in during the second quarter.

But it fell short of Joe Biden’s take of $21.5 million and Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s $24.8 million.

Among other Democratic hopefuls who reported their second quarter totals, Sen. Michael Bennet raised $3.5 million and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock took in $2 million.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/08/liz-warren-says-she-raised-19-1m-in-second-quarter/

This is supposed to impress me about the woman?  It doesn't.  Donald Trump can raise a lot of money, too.  Doesn't make him a worthy of being president.

It's not all about "you."

OK, your post started out with my earlier description of Warren as seemingly "high strung," so I just naturally responded accordingly.  But if it'll make you happy, how about I change that last to, "This is supposed to impress me or anyone else about the woman? It sure doesn't impress this voter.  Donald Trump can raise a lot of money, too.  Doesn't make him a worthy of being president."

RealLindaL wrote:
This is supposed to impress me about the woman?  It doesn't.

bigdog wrote:

Telstar wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bigdog wrote:LOL  Telstar, I never know what your rolling eyes emoticon means.

I don't know if you remember either Hubert Humphreys or Walter Mondale, who were the people Nixon ran against, if I remember right.

This was during the "real cold war" when it had only been 6 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have caused the extinction of mankind from the planet.Americans were very concerned about Vietnam spreading into a world war with China. Foreign Policy was a number one issue.

Humphreys or Mondale were strong on Civil Rights at the time, but neither of them had any decent foreign policy credentials. Humphreys had been Johnson's VP, and Johnson was not exactly a foreign policy genius. Johnson was a big drag on Humphreys, no doubt about it. I don't think people trusted him with Vietnam anymore than they trusted Johnson with it. Voting Nixon made perfect sense.  And after his first very successful term with all the above successes, he had no real competition in Mondale.

People not around back then have learned a strange view of history, IMO. Americans needed a strong leader and I felt the same way. Nixon was it.
It wasn't that complicated and I make no apologies.

I was around back then, and I think you're a blooming idiot.

LOL

If you were around back then, AND of an age to know what was going on, you must have been drugged at the time. I wasn't. There's nothing wrong with my memory.



I did make one error. It was Humphrey that Nixon ran against in '68, but it was George McGovern he ran against in 1972. McGovern ran on a platform of leaving Vietnam immediately. He was the darling of the anti-war college students and hippies.  A purist, like you, I guess. He also wanted  national healthcare. Extremely liberal and extremely anti-war. . And to hear millennials and gen Xers talk about history today, you'd think most of America back then  hated Nixon and hated the war. Yeah, Americans were tired of the war. But they trusted Nixon to end it, not the vocally anti-war George McGovern. McGovern wanted to walk away. Americans wanted to keep their pride in the process.  So what happened when it was time to vote?




McGovern  lost to Richard Nixon by the widest popular vote margin in the history of politics. The record holds to this day. Nixon got 18 million more votes than McGovern,  and won 49 states. The loudly, vocally anti-war people were not the majority of voters in 1972. It was that simple. It wasn't even close. That's real history and real numbers, the numbers that people who weren't drugged out of their heads back then should be capable of remembering. You don't like them, but you can't change them  They will always exist in a history book somewhere.



The only cat that's out of the bag is the one fact that you've hidden for quite awhile. That would be that you have gone so far to the left your brain has now gone off balance and  it can't understand reality anymore.
Because reality is that times change, people change, and no one is either all good or all bad, with the possible exception of Trump himself. Hindsight is always 2020, but it doesn't require an apology for actions taken in the past when those actions were taken because facts were not known at the time.
It's that simple. I'm not going to keep this argument going, because it's stupid to argue with someone who is not listening.



I also don't have to prove to you that I'm a Democrat, because I've proven it to every other Democrat that I've ever worked with on a campaign, and actually, it's their opinions that matter to me, not yours.

"Imagine" was just a song, I hate to clue you in, but life just really doesn't work that way.



You're no Democrat; you're an effing political groupie.

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
This is supposed to impress me about the woman?  It doesn't.

It should.

She's relying on grassroots online donations and eschewing in-person, high-dollar fundraisers.

Her total came from more than 384,000 donors, whose donations averaged less than $28.

As opposed to this;

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-campaign-lobbyist-money_n_5cc111dce4b0764d31dc8586

She's accomplishing this with a focus on smart ideas and detailed policy proposals.

Too bad you can't get past your biases enough to see that.

Floridatexan wrote:

bigdog wrote:

Telstar wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bigdog wrote:LOL  Telstar, I never know what your rolling eyes emoticon means.

I don't know if you remember either Hubert Humphreys or Walter Mondale, who were the people Nixon ran against, if I remember right.

This was during the "real cold war" when it had only been 6 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have caused the extinction of mankind from the planet.Americans were very concerned about Vietnam spreading into a world war with China. Foreign Policy was a number one issue.

Humphreys or Mondale were strong on Civil Rights at the time, but neither of them had any decent foreign policy credentials. Humphreys had been Johnson's VP, and Johnson was not exactly a foreign policy genius. Johnson was a big drag on Humphreys, no doubt about it. I don't think people trusted him with Vietnam anymore than they trusted Johnson with it. Voting Nixon made perfect sense.  And after his first very successful term with all the above successes, he had no real competition in Mondale.

People not around back then have learned a strange view of history, IMO. Americans needed a strong leader and I felt the same way. Nixon was it.
It wasn't that complicated and I make no apologies.

I was around back then, and I think you're a blooming idiot.

LOL

If you were around back then, AND of an age to know what was going on, you must have been drugged at the time. I wasn't. There's nothing wrong with my memory.



I did make one error. It was Humphrey that Nixon ran against in '68, but it was George McGovern he ran against in 1972. McGovern ran on a platform of leaving Vietnam immediately. He was the darling of the anti-war college students and hippies.  A purist, like you, I guess. He also wanted  national healthcare. Extremely liberal and extremely anti-war. . And to hear millennials and gen Xers talk about history today, you'd think most of America back then  hated Nixon and hated the war. Yeah, Americans were tired of the war. But they trusted Nixon to end it, not the vocally anti-war George McGovern. McGovern wanted to walk away. Americans wanted to keep their pride in the process.  So what happened when it was time to vote?




McGovern  lost to Richard Nixon by the widest popular vote margin in the history of politics. The record holds to this day. Nixon got 18 million more votes than McGovern,  and won 49 states. The loudly, vocally anti-war people were not the majority of voters in 1972. It was that simple. It wasn't even close. That's real history and real numbers, the numbers that people who weren't drugged out of their heads back then should be capable of remembering. You don't like them, but you can't change them  They will always exist in a history book somewhere.



The only cat that's out of the bag is the one fact that you've hidden for quite awhile. That would be that you have gone so far to the left your brain has now gone off balance and  it can't understand reality anymore.
Because reality is that times change, people change, and no one is either all good or all bad, with the possible exception of Trump himself. Hindsight is always 2020, but it doesn't require an apology for actions taken in the past when those actions were taken because facts were not known at the time.
It's that simple. I'm not going to keep this argument going, because it's stupid to argue with someone who is not listening.



I also don't have to prove to you that I'm a Democrat, because I've proven it to every other Democrat that I've ever worked with on a campaign, and actually, it's their opinions that matter to me, not yours.

"Imagine" was just a song, I hate to clue you in, but life just really doesn't work that way.



You're no Democrat; you're an effing political groupie.

RealLindaL wrote:
You can call it bias or whatever you wish; I call it personal judgment, to which I have a perfect right.  

I also happen to trust my judgment (far more than I do yours) -- and it has nothing whatever to do with the gender of any candidate.

bigdog wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bigdog wrote:

Telstar wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

bigdog wrote:LOL  Telstar, I never know what your rolling eyes emoticon means.

I don't know if you remember either Hubert Humphreys or Walter Mondale, who were the people Nixon ran against, if I remember right.

This was during the "real cold war" when it had only been 6 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis which could have caused the extinction of mankind from the planet.Americans were very concerned about Vietnam spreading into a world war with China. Foreign Policy was a number one issue.

Humphreys or Mondale were strong on Civil Rights at the time, but neither of them had any decent foreign policy credentials. Humphreys had been Johnson's VP, and Johnson was not exactly a foreign policy genius. Johnson was a big drag on Humphreys, no doubt about it. I don't think people trusted him with Vietnam anymore than they trusted Johnson with it. Voting Nixon made perfect sense.  And after his first very successful term with all the above successes, he had no real competition in Mondale.

People not around back then have learned a strange view of history, IMO. Americans needed a strong leader and I felt the same way. Nixon was it.
It wasn't that complicated and I make no apologies.

I was around back then, and I think you're a blooming idiot.

LOL

If you were around back then, AND of an age to know what was going on, you must have been drugged at the time. I wasn't. There's nothing wrong with my memory.



I did make one error. It was Humphrey that Nixon ran against in '68, but it was George McGovern he ran against in 1972. McGovern ran on a platform of leaving Vietnam immediately. He was the darling of the anti-war college students and hippies.  A purist, like you, I guess. He also wanted  national healthcare. Extremely liberal and extremely anti-war. . And to hear millennials and gen Xers talk about history today, you'd think most of America back then  hated Nixon and hated the war. Yeah, Americans were tired of the war. But they trusted Nixon to end it, not the vocally anti-war George McGovern. McGovern wanted to walk away. Americans wanted to keep their pride in the process.  So what happened when it was time to vote?




McGovern  lost to Richard Nixon by the widest popular vote margin in the history of politics. The record holds to this day. Nixon got 18 million more votes than McGovern,  and won 49 states. The loudly, vocally anti-war people were not the majority of voters in 1972. It was that simple. It wasn't even close. That's real history and real numbers, the numbers that people who weren't drugged out of their heads back then should be capable of remembering. You don't like them, but you can't change them  They will always exist in a history book somewhere.



The only cat that's out of the bag is the one fact that you've hidden for quite awhile. That would be that you have gone so far to the left your brain has now gone off balance and  it can't understand reality anymore.
Because reality is that times change, people change, and no one is either all good or all bad, with the possible exception of Trump himself. Hindsight is always 2020, but it doesn't require an apology for actions taken in the past when those actions were taken because facts were not known at the time.
It's that simple. I'm not going to keep this argument going, because it's stupid to argue with someone who is not listening.



I also don't have to prove to you that I'm a Democrat, because I've proven it to every other Democrat that I've ever worked with on a campaign, and actually, it's their opinions that matter to me, not yours.

"Imagine" was just a song, I hate to clue you in, but life just really doesn't work that way.



You're no Democrat; you're an effing political groupie.

Really? A finger is the best you can do?
I'll give you that I'm a political groupie. When I'm serious about a candidate, going to the polls and voting for them just is not enough for me.

I don't take that as an insult, I take it as a compliment. Thank you very much.

bigdog wrote:
Bill Clinton said you fall in love during the primaries, and then you fall in line during the election.
That's what I've always done.

I'm busy hating Trump right now, I don't have any inclination to go back and hate some other president.

Sal wrote:

bigdog wrote:
Bill Clinton said you fall in love during the primaries, and then you fall in line during the election.
That's what I've always done.

I'm busy hating Trump right now, I don't have any inclination to go back and hate some other president.

I hear ya, but it's still too early to fall in love.

There's no reason for anyone to lock onto any particular candidate until after the first of the year at the earliest.

We need for this field to winnow down to a more reasonable number, and then see how they perform.

Recent polling showing Biden performing best in a head-to-head matchup against Trump is pretty useless at this point - Hillary was crushing Trump in July 2015 polling 59-34.

I'll definitely fall into line behind whoever get the nomination, even if it's Bernie (Oh God, please don't let it be Bernie).

Telstar wrote:

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
You can call it bias or whatever you wish; I call it personal judgment, to which I have a perfect right.  

I also happen to trust my judgment (far more than I do yours) -- and it has nothing whatever to do with the gender of any candidate.

Well, when your only criticism is a rather subjective objection to her style, I don't know what else to call it other than bias.

I like her style.

But, then I've always been attracted to smart, opinionated women who are willing to fight for the principals they believe in.

I understand that some people find those qualities off-putting.

That's unfortunate.

RealLindaL wrote:

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
You can call it bias or whatever you wish; I call it personal judgment, to which I have a perfect right.  

I also happen to trust my judgment (far more than I do yours) -- and it has nothing whatever to do with the gender of any candidate.

Well, when your only criticism is a rather subjective objection to her style, I don't know what else to call it other than bias.

I like her style.

But, then I've always been attracted to smart, opinionated women who are willing to fight for the principals they believe in.

I understand that some people find those qualities off-putting.

That's unfortunate.

OMG Sal you become more and more arrogantly patronizing as time goes on.

Look, I'm not going to waste further time on this except to say:

1.  Based on your own description of women you've "always been attracted to," you would've loved me in my pioneering career years.  I fought not only for PRINCIPLES, but for myself, for equal pay and authority, and thus for the women who came after me in a male-dominated industry.

2.  I'm not 100% with Warren on policy, but yes, the thing that bothers me the most is her demeanor (your "style"), since precisely what this nation needs is a UNITER in chief, and she simply does not come across to me as anyone who has the slightest chance of bringing this nation's people back together.   Maybe no one does, but certainly not Warren.

bigdog wrote:Kamala Harris was sleeping with a married man and improving her career by doing it.