This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Did Trump Suffer a Heart Attack From Snorting Too Much Adderall on Saturday??

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
RealLindaL wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Put down the olive branch, Linda.  If you haven't noticed, we're in a battle for the soul of our country.

Well excuse me, Ms. FT, please come down off your high horse and refrain from telling me what to do or what to "notice," for Pete's sake.  

Being in this crucial national battle doesn't give us the right to accuse specific individuals in this small forum arena of things they've never said or done, which happens whenever we sweepingly condemn all Republicans of certain acts (I'm as guilty as the next person of doing just that, and it should stop, on both sides).  

When we stoop to the nasty personal combativeness of the Trumpian level we've already lost, if not the battle, then something sacred and irreplaceable -- our integrity.

It's "Mrs.". Aren't you the one who posted in all caps that we must have a centrist Dem for president..."mark my words"? Or was that someone else?
I completely disagree, BTW. We need fundamental change, or we won't have anything approaching a democratic republic...we'll have masters and virtual slaves...and don't go thinking "it can't happen here", because it already is. I'm not one to "go along to get along". What you may see as personal combativeness is more likely to be self-assertiveness and the expression of an instinct for self-preservation.

RealLindaL


Floridatexan wrote:Aren't you the one who posted in all caps that we must have a centrist Dem for president..."mark my words"?

Shows how much attention you pay to what anyone else posts, MRS. FT.  What I said was that if we NOMINATE a far left candidate, we will lose the election, period.  I wasn't talking about how the new president will govern; only that he/she not be Trump, get it?  

We'll have to deal with how to bring on your desired new U.S. socio-economic order only after first ridding the White House of the cancerous scourge now dwelling there.  He is a one-man death knell for our nation, aided by all his cabinet cohorts whom we must also purge.

So, "in case you hadn't noticed," I'm convinced the main goal for most of us right now - above all else -  should be to get rid of Trump the Terrible, and that outcome will ALMOST CERTAINLY require a centrist candidate who can win over the all-important Independent and older Dem voting factions, along with all those Republicans (they do exist) who will vote against Trump if the alternative is not so frighteningly removed from their own political ideals.

Ignore all that at your own peril, Democrats.  And yes, MARK MY WORDS on it.  I just hope against hope I won't be saying "I told you so" come next November.  

Look, I understand "self-assertiveness and the expression of an instinct for self-preservation," but, as I was also trying to say, in the process of that expression we should strive not to become what we condemn in others.

__MS. Linda, married and proud of it, but my status is nobody else's business.

Sal

Sal
RealLindaL wrote:that outcome will ALMOST CERTAINLY require a centrist candidate who can win over the all-important Independent and older Dem voting factions, along with all those Republicans (they do exist) who will vote against Trump if the alternative is not so frighteningly removed from their own political ideals.

This is conventional thinking, but these are unconventional times.

Polls are pretty clear that the motivating factor for voters of all stripes who are inclined to join a Democratic coalition is singularly a desire to beat Trump.

This may provide the perfect opportunity for the ushering in of a truly progressive agenda that will provide the big structural changes this nation sorely needs.

RealLindaL


Sal wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:that outcome will ALMOST CERTAINLY require a centrist candidate who can win over the all-important Independent and older Dem voting factions, along with all those Republicans (they do exist) who will vote against Trump if the alternative is not so frighteningly removed from their own political ideals.

This is conventional thinking, but these are unconventional times.

No, what this is is logical thinking.

Polls are pretty clear that the motivating factor for voters of all stripes who are inclined to join a Democratic coalition is singularly a desire to beat Trump.

Absolutely.  We are in agreement.

This may provide the perfect opportunity for the ushering in of a truly progressive agenda that will provide the big structural changes this nation sorely needs.

We couldn't be in further disagreement.  This is the absolute wrong time to usher in a progressive agenda, which will, beyond the shadow of a doubt, frighten away the critically important voting factions I mentioned above.  I'm utterly flabbergasted that progressives can't see this.  This is the time to at least temporarily put away  one's personal hopes for a new socio-economic order, for the greater good of GETTING RID OF TRUMP. I'm firmly convinced you can't have it both ways, people.  It's great that you're excited about your progressive candidates, but there's far too great a danger that they simply won't be able to beat Trump.  Is that a chance you're willing to take?  Is it?   ___RLL  

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
RealLindaL wrote:
Sal wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:that outcome will ALMOST CERTAINLY require a centrist candidate who can win over the all-important Independent and older Dem voting factions, along with all those Republicans (they do exist) who will vote against Trump if the alternative is not so frighteningly removed from their own political ideals.

This is conventional thinking, but these are unconventional times.

No, what this is is logical thinking.

Polls are pretty clear that the motivating factor for voters of all stripes who are inclined to join a Democratic coalition is singularly a desire to beat Trump.

Absolutely.  We are in agreement.

This may provide the perfect opportunity for the ushering in of a truly progressive agenda that will provide the big structural changes this nation sorely needs.

We couldn't be in further disagreement.  This is the absolute wrong time to usher in a progressive agenda, which will, beyond the shadow of a doubt, frighten away the critically important voting factions I mentioned above.  I'm utterly flabbergasted that progressives can't see this.  This is the time to at least temporarily put away  one's personal hopes for a new socio-economic order, for the greater good of GETTING RID OF TRUMP. I'm firmly convinced you can't have it both ways, people.  It's great that you're excited about your progressive candidates, but there's far too great a danger that they simply won't be able to beat Trump.  Is that a chance you're willing to take?  Is it?   ___RLL  


Why a Centrist Candidate Won’t Win the Presidency

In today’s divisive political climate, there isn’t much appetite for middle ground

Herb Bowie

Mar 11

As the U.S. political scene transitions from the midterms to the beginning of the 2020 presidential contest, one of the most pressing questions is whether any meaningful middle ground remains in the political spectrum.

This will certainly be a question for Democrats to consider in their primaries, but it’s recently emerged as a key concern as a result of Starbucks founder Howard Schultz announcing his availability to run for president as a centrist independent.

We must ask: Exactly what does an avowed centrist believe in these days?
One of the traditional ways to be deemed a “centrist” is to call yourself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. But where does this leave you? You don’t gain any libertarian votes because you believe in moderate gun control and some reasonable degree of federal taxation. You lose the Religious Right because you believe in a woman’s right to abortion and LGBTQ rights. You lose the mostly older, mostly pale, mostly male voters who are obsessed with sending all the immigrants back to wherever they came from and slapping a wall right behind them.

Ergo, you give up all hope of support from Fox News and the right-wing media. But that’s okay, right? You’re a centrist, so you’re trying to position yourself to the left of those nutjobs.

By contrast, let’s turn our attention to the extremists on the other end of the spectrum. As a centrist, you lose those who believe growing income inequality is a social justice issue that necessitates changing our laws and tax policies to better provide for workers, children, and consumers — and to make things a bit less cushy for rich people.

Who remains? Those who somehow don’t think we need to Make America Great Again, but do believe all we need is a sort of Return to Normalcy after the great aberration of the Trump presidency? Those worried about saddling the next generation with astronomical national debt but not worried about leaving them with a hotter planet and no affordable homes?

Hardly anyone today thinks that these are normal times that call for a normal leader.

What is your rallying cry? Which hot-button issues motivate your base? Balancing the budget? Most of us think this is important, but very few of us would place the issue anywhere near the top of our list of concerns.

The chief political strategy of both sides in recent years has been demonization of its opponents. How do you take part in this strategy as a centrist? Do you try to convincingly demonize those on both the right and the left? Fight a political war on two fronts at the same time? Hand out hats in a calming color that say “Make America Normal Again” or “Back to Center”?

My sense is the chief centrist voting bloc consists of business owners, executives, middle managers, and professionals — people who feel they’re doing pretty well and want to avoid rocking the boat. Those in the 9.9 percent of people who make up Matthew Stewart’s “New American Aristocracy.” Even if you can somehow motivate all of these people to come out and vote for you, it’s not a large enough group to support a successful presidential run.
The basic problem for a centrist, I think, is that hardly anyone today thinks these are normal times that call for a normal leader.

Many Americans seem to believe that abortion, birth control, homosexuality, criminals, Muslims, and people of color are ruining our nation. They fear nothing more than a “normal” leader who would let those forces proceed unchecked. Another sizable group of Americans believes that climate change is real and that we must do something about it before it gets worse. They fear nothing more than a “normal” leader who would fiddle while the world burns.
Yet another group believes rising levels of income inequality are not only dangerous and unpleasant for a great many Americans, but also a threat to the very integrity of our social order. This group wants nothing to do with a centrist leader who would allow these disturbing economic trends to continue apace.

A final, and no doubt overlapping, contingent believes our society lacks all sense of social justice. In their eyes, open season has been declared on people of color, LGBTQ people, and non-Christians. This group certainly wants nothing to do with a centrist leader who thinks there is some “normal” American condition worth returning to.

In short, some of us want to return to the past, while others want to venture into an as-yet-unknown future. Hardly anyone wants to stay where we are, or even go back to where we were four years ago.

I think most of us have some idea of what a right-wing worldview looks like these days. We may not agree with it, but we can recognize it. Likewise, most of us have some idea of what a progressive worldview looks like. Again, we may not agree with it, but we understand how the world appears from this perspective.

But how does the world currently appear through the eyes of a centrist? Is there some way to split the difference between the far right and the far left? I think most of us can’t quite figure out what the world looks like through a centrist lens.

What does this leave us with as an image of a centrist leader? The only thing I can conjure up is a Jet Ski that has lost its rider, quietly spinning in circles to avoid doing any damage.

And that’s not an inspiring picture for a presidential candidate.

https://medium.com/s/story/is-there-any-middle-left-d1dcd9df484f

*************

RealLindaL


Who the hell is Herb Bowie?

Further, where is the EVIDENCE for his pivotal statement, "Hardly anyone today thinks that these are normal times that call for a normal leader"?

First of all, who, precisely, is saying these are normal times??  No one I  know, and no one you know.  But just because they're not presently normal, doesn't mean most people don't desperately want a normal, reasonable, leader.

In fact, I can just as easily as Bowie posit the following:

"Most people today are STARVING for the normalcy a centrist leader can provide."

And here's the fact: My "evidence" is just as compelling as his - i.e., it's because I think so.  Go ahead and refute it with what YOU think, but don't give us B.S. cut and pasted from someone else's personal opinion we've never even heard of, and post it as if it were gospel.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

It's the policies, Linda. We need fundamental change. If Obama had a flaw, it was failing to prosecute the war criminals Bush & Cheney. Now we have a *resident who flaunts the law at every turn. Why do you even think he'll be the eventual nominee? I think he'll go down long before the elections really kick off. I think the GOP will try to pull another Hail Mary, just like they did with Bush in 2000. But it won't work this time. Too many people have seen too much. *resident *rump is going down.

Meanwhile, there's work to be done reversing his and the GOP's dismal policies. Except for the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, we've had nothing but "trickle down" economics, or as my fellow Texan Jim Hightower calls it, "tinkle down", since 1980. Think about that, and then tell me how we need someone who won't rock the boat.

PkrBum

PkrBum
https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/06/08/seizing-journalists-records-an-outrage-that-obama-normalized-for-trump/%3foutputType=amp

https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/judge-rejects-obamas-executive-privilege-claim-over-fast-and-furious-records-217970

RealLindaL


Floridatexan wrote:
It's the policies, Linda.  We need fundamental change.  If Obama had a flaw, it was failing to prosecute the war criminals Bush & Cheney.  Now we have a *resident who flaunts the law at every turn.  Why do you even think he'll be the eventual nominee?  I think he'll go down long before the elections really kick off.  I think the GOP will try to pull another Hail Mary, just like they did with Bush in 2000.  But it won't work this time.  Too many people have seen too much.  *resident *rump is going down.  

Meanwhile, there's work to be done reversing his and the GOP's dismal policies.  Except for the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, we've had nothing but "trickle down" economics, or as my fellow Texan Jim Hightower calls it, "tinkle down", since 1980.  Think about that, and then tell me how we need someone who won't rock the boat.

Why do I even think Trump will be the GOP's nominee?  Are you kidding me? As utterly unfathomable as it seems to you and me, his popularity and approval ratings with Republicans remain unfailingly high, last I looked.  And he'll use the House impeachment (which has to be done, no matter what) and the subsequent Senate vote-down of removal, as his triumphant kicking-off point, laughing all the way.  

Look, FT, I'd love beyond love to see him go down, too, but I'm afraid it simply ain't gonna happen.   No way the party will allow such a popular incumbent vote-getter to lose the nomination.  No way, unless something really major happens in the interim (and I don't mean a House vote to impeach, which will roll off his back like water off a duck's).

And yes, if we're fortunate enough to win back the White House, there's a HUGE amount of work to be done to reverse this administration's damaging policies and the broken agencies, from intelligence to the EPA, that the Donald and his cronies have left in their wake.  I believe a top notch liberal centrist can and will work hard to do just that, and it could easily take a full first term, if not longer.  After that "repair period" of perhaps not being able to concentrate on your desired new goals, if the president's policies don't match your needs and the rest of the Dems agree, then maybe they can talk about moving forward with a different candidate.  

But right now, FT, as I hope most of us agree, the one, dire, CRITICAL goal must be to GET DONALD TRUMP THE HELL OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.    It's just this simple: Whoever is most likely to make sure that happens is who we MUST have as the Democratic candidate, even if it means your progressive dreams have to take a back seat for a while longer.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
RealLindaL wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
It's the policies, Linda.  We need fundamental change.  If Obama had a flaw, it was failing to prosecute the war criminals Bush & Cheney.  Now we have a *resident who flaunts the law at every turn.  Why do you even think he'll be the eventual nominee?  I think he'll go down long before the elections really kick off.  I think the GOP will try to pull another Hail Mary, just like they did with Bush in 2000.  But it won't work this time.  Too many people have seen too much.  *resident *rump is going down.  

Meanwhile, there's work to be done reversing his and the GOP's dismal policies.  Except for the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, we've had nothing but "trickle down" economics, or as my fellow Texan Jim Hightower calls it, "tinkle down", since 1980.  Think about that, and then tell me how we need someone who won't rock the boat.

Why do I even think Trump will be the GOP's nominee?  Are you kidding me? As utterly unfathomable as it seems to you and me, his popularity and approval ratings with Republicans remain unfailingly high, last I looked.  And he'll use the House impeachment (which has to be done, no matter what) and the subsequent Senate vote-down of removal, as his triumphant kicking-off point, laughing all the way.  

Look, FT, I'd love beyond love to see him go down, too, but I'm afraid it simply ain't gonna happen.   No way the party will allow such a popular incumbent vote-getter to lose the nomination.  No way, unless something really major happens in the interim (and I don't mean a House vote to impeach, which will roll off his back like water off a duck's).

And yes, if we're fortunate enough to win back the White House, there's a HUGE amount of work to be done to reverse this administration's damaging policies and the broken agencies, from intelligence to the EPA, that the Donald and his cronies have left in their wake.  I believe a top notch liberal centrist can and will work hard to do just that, and it could easily take a full first term, if not longer.  After that "repair period" of perhaps not being able to concentrate on your desired new goals, if the president's policies don't match your needs and the rest of the Dems agree, then maybe they can talk about moving forward with a different candidate.  

But right now, FT, as I hope most of us agree, the one, dire, CRITICAL goal must be to GET DONALD TRUMP THE HELL OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.    It's just this simple: Whoever is most likely to make sure that happens is who we MUST have as the Democratic candidate, even if it means your progressive dreams have to take a back seat for a while longer.

NO REPUBLICAN LITE, Linda. That's not going to reverse the status quo.

RealLindaL


Floridatexan wrote:

NO REPUBLICAN LITE, Linda.  That's not going to reverse the status quo.

And neither will cutesie, meaningless handles like "Republican Lite."

The "quo" we have to concentrate 100% of our energies on reversing right now, first and foremost, is the "quid pro" variety residing in the Oval Office. That is JOB ONE for the nation right now. GET HIS ASS OUT. Only then do we stand one tenth of a chance of "reversing the status quo."

zsomething


So far it's looking like people are determined to fuck this up again. I'm already seeing Bernie's asshole-squad saying they won't vote for anybody if Bernie doesn't get it. And Bernie's a goddamn stillbirth. I thought that heart attack would save us, but, nope... we're still plagued by the same non-starter who got us Trump the first time.

And, yes, Trump will still be the Republican nominee. The senate's not gonna do a damn thing to him. Republicans are corrupt as hell, and they're scared because when they lose control this time they're unlikely to ever get it back, because their party has terminal cancer -- don't look for them to suddenly start doing the right thing. They're embarrassed by Trump, but they see that their base wants a bigoted idiot, so, they'll go with that, because they're not looking at the long-term. Hell, they don't really have a long-term anymore.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
zsomething wrote:So far it's looking like people are determined to fuck this up again.  I'm already seeing Bernie's asshole-squad saying they won't vote for anybody if Bernie doesn't get it.   And Bernie's a goddamn stillbirth.   I thought that heart attack would save us, but, nope... we're still plagued by the same non-starter who got us Trump the first time.

And, yes, Trump will still be the Republican nominee.  The senate's not gonna do a damn thing to him.  Republicans are corrupt as hell, and they're scared because when they lose control this time they're unlikely to ever get it back, because their party has terminal cancer --  don't look for them to suddenly start doing the right thing.   They're embarrassed by Trump, but they see that their base wants a bigoted idiot, so, they'll go with that, because they're not looking at the long-term.  Hell, they don't really have a long-term anymore.

If the R's are so scared, as they should be, why should Democrats act scared? This idea that we must have a "centrist" sure looks like "scared" to me.

zsomething


Floridatexan wrote:
zsomething wrote:So far it's looking like people are determined to fuck this up again.  I'm already seeing Bernie's asshole-squad saying they won't vote for anybody if Bernie doesn't get it.   And Bernie's a goddamn stillbirth.   I thought that heart attack would save us, but, nope... we're still plagued by the same non-starter who got us Trump the first time.

And, yes, Trump will still be the Republican nominee.  The senate's not gonna do a damn thing to him.  Republicans are corrupt as hell, and they're scared because when they lose control this time they're unlikely to ever get it back, because their party has terminal cancer --  don't look for them to suddenly start doing the right thing.   They're embarrassed by Trump, but they see that their base wants a bigoted idiot, so, they'll go with that, because they're not looking at the long-term.  Hell, they don't really have a long-term anymore.

If the R's are so scared, as they should be, why should Democrats act scared?  This idea that we must have a "centrist" sure looks like "scared" to me.

Nothing "scared" about it. A lot of people just don't want a socialist. A lot of the time it's because they don't understand what that really is, but, still, they're not gonna learn.

I mean, look, I'm an atheist, I'd love an atheist president, but I know the country I live in. And atheists are more electable than socialists. And atheists aren't electable at all.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

Most people don't want to have to choose between two extremes. They want something saner.

Republicans have abdicated sanity at this point. They've just flat given up on it, because the only base they have left, under Trump, are bigots who like the way he hates anything non-white, and evangelicals who are happy that he's willing to be their puppet because they're all he has left. Besides that all he's got are team-sports morons who just know they hate Democrats and so they'll back anything Republican because they want to "piss off the libtards" and they don't understand policy, anyway -- they just vote out of spite.

So, Republicans are pretty non-viable. But people also don't want some old hippie loon trying to cram Woodstock dreams down everybody's throats. Bernie is a nutjob with no plans. The people who like him really like him, but there aren't that many... and, honestly, after dealing with them for years now, I gotta say they aren't very smart, most of 'em. They're about as dumb as the conservatives, just on the other side. Ideologues are almost always trouble.

I don't think it's "scared" to read the room and supply what the most people would want. That's sensible strategy. The opposite of far-right isn't far-left. It's the whole spectrum from mild-right to far-left. And the biggest chunk of that is the center. You wanna win? It's the same as selling stuff. You got a product you wanna market, you go where the phone book's the thickest.

The problem with the Democratic party is, it actually is a big tent. Conservatives like to pretend we're this cardboard Michael Moore cutout that they can beat up (I'll never vote for a conservative but I wish Michael Moore would fucking die, I hate the sonofabitch), but really we're widely spaced as far as policy goes. The loudest part of our party tend to be the fringes, because the fringes are the most passionate.

But the fringes can't be counted upon for shit.

We have Trump because of Bernie. I know, Hillary was a problematic candidate for a lot of people, I get it, but if you look at the swing states that put Trump over, if you gave Jill Stein's votes to Hillary, she'd have won them. And that's just the people who voted for Stein out of spite -- it's not even counting the Bernie people who sat home and enjoyed their purity.

And, so far, Bernie and his cult (and they are a cult, as much as Trump's cretins are) are gearing up for a repeat. And Russia is already helping make that happen, just like they did last time. Russia spread all kinds of shit about "Bernie got cheated" and "the DNC had it out for Bernie," yadda-yadda, when the fact is that the dumb sonofawhore just didn't get as many votes in the primary, because most people didn't want him.

So far, we're getting a repeat of that.

Is Biden perfect? Nah. Is Buttigeig? Nah. Is Warren? Nah. I don't really have a committed front-runner yet because I'm fine with any of 'em and am waiting to see how it shakes out.

I do know, though, for an absolute muhfuggin' fact, that Bernie will not win. He won't even come close. He'll get tromped. The Republicans keep babying him because they want us to nominate him, and then they're going to unleash all kinds of intel on him that'll doom him like nobody's ever been doomed. Bernie has skeletons in his closet that are falt-out crazy -- lots of "kill the Capitalists" commie shit, on tape. Bernie is a stillbirth.

I'm fine with Biden and Buttigeig and Warren fighting it out and I'll back whoever comes out on top... but, damn, I wish Bernie was out of that pool so we could lose the dead weight. He's wasting everyone's time, and he's poisoning the whole thing. He got us Trump once, and he's on track to do it again. That's not "scared," that's just truth. And I'll vote for Bernie if he's the nominee, because I'm voting for whoever isn't Trump, but if it's Bernie, it'll be futile.

Telstar

Telstar
zsomething wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
zsomething wrote:So far it's looking like people are determined to fuck this up again.  I'm already seeing Bernie's asshole-squad saying they won't vote for anybody if Bernie doesn't get it.   And Bernie's a goddamn stillbirth.   I thought that heart attack would save us, but, nope... we're still plagued by the same non-starter who got us Trump the first time.

And, yes, Trump will still be the Republican nominee.  The senate's not gonna do a damn thing to him.  Republicans are corrupt as hell, and they're scared because when they lose control this time they're unlikely to ever get it back, because their party has terminal cancer --  don't look for them to suddenly start doing the right thing.   They're embarrassed by Trump, but they see that their base wants a bigoted idiot, so, they'll go with that, because they're not looking at the long-term.  Hell, they don't really have a long-term anymore.

If the R's are so scared, as they should be, why should Democrats act scared?  This idea that we must have a "centrist" sure looks like "scared" to me.

Nothing "scared" about it.  A lot of people just don't want a socialist.  A lot of the time it's because they don't understand what that really is, but, still, they're not gonna learn.

I mean, look, I'm an atheist, I'd love an atheist president, but I know the country I live in.  And atheists are more electable than socialists.   And atheists aren't electable at all.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

Most people don't want to have to choose between two extremes.  They want something saner.

Republicans have abdicated sanity at this point.   They've just flat given up on it, because the only base they have left, under Trump, are bigots who like the way he hates anything non-white, and evangelicals who are happy that he's willing to be their puppet because they're all he has left.  Besides that all he's got are team-sports morons who just know they hate Democrats and so they'll back anything Republican because they want to "piss off the libtards" and they don't understand policy, anyway -- they just vote out of spite.

So, Republicans are pretty non-viable.  But people also don't want some old hippie loon trying to cram Woodstock dreams down everybody's throats.   Bernie is a nutjob with no plans.   The people who like him really like him, but there aren't that many... and, honestly, after dealing with them for years now, I gotta say they aren't very smart, most of 'em.  They're about as dumb as the conservatives, just on the other side.  Ideologues are almost always trouble.

I don't think it's "scared" to read the room and supply what the most people would want.  That's sensible strategy.  The opposite of far-right isn't far-left.  It's the whole spectrum from mild-right to far-left.  And the biggest chunk of that is the center.  You wanna win?   It's the same as selling stuff.  You got a product you wanna market, you go where the phone book's the thickest.

The problem with the Democratic party is, it actually is a big tent.   Conservatives like to pretend we're this cardboard Michael Moore cutout that they can beat up (I'll never vote for a conservative but I wish Michael Moore would fucking die, I hate the sonofabitch), but really we're widely spaced as far as policy goes.   The loudest part of our party tend to be the fringes, because the fringes are the most passionate.  

But the fringes can't be counted upon for shit.

We have Trump because of Bernie.  I know, Hillary was a problematic candidate for a lot of people, I get it, but if you look at the swing states that put Trump over, if you gave Jill Stein's votes to Hillary, she'd have won them.  And that's just the people who voted for Stein out of spite -- it's not even counting the Bernie people who sat home and enjoyed their purity.

And, so far, Bernie and his cult (and they are a cult, as much as Trump's cretins are) are gearing up for a repeat.   And Russia is already helping make that happen, just like they did last time.  Russia spread all kinds of shit about "Bernie got cheated" and "the DNC had it out for Bernie," yadda-yadda, when the fact is that the dumb sonofawhore just didn't get as many votes in the primary, because most people didn't want him.

So far, we're getting a repeat of that.

Is Biden perfect?  Nah.  Is Buttigeig?  Nah.  Is Warren?  Nah.  I don't really have a committed front-runner yet because I'm fine with any of 'em and am waiting to see how it shakes out.

I do know, though, for an absolute muhfuggin' fact, that Bernie will not win.  He won't even come close.  He'll get tromped.  The Republicans keep babying him because they want us to nominate him, and then they're going to unleash all kinds of intel on him that'll doom him like nobody's ever been doomed.  Bernie has skeletons in his closet that are falt-out crazy -- lots of "kill the Capitalists" commie shit, on tape.  Bernie is a stillbirth.

I'm fine with Biden and Buttigeig and Warren fighting it out and I'll back whoever comes out on top... but, damn, I wish Bernie was out of that pool so we could lose the dead weight.  He's wasting everyone's time, and he's poisoning the whole thing.  He got us Trump once, and he's on track to do it again.   That's not "scared," that's just truth.  And I'll vote for Bernie if he's the nominee, because I'm voting for whoever isn't Trump, but if it's Bernie, it'll be futile.




If Bernie dumps, Tulsi Gabbard will be right there to take his spot. I know shithole states like Mississippi are useless when it comes to voting Dem but maybe this time Florida will do the right thing unlike 2000 and 2016. Sure they will. Twisted Evil

RealLindaL


zsomething wrote:I don't think it's "scared" to read the room and supply what the most people would want.  That's sensible strategy.


cheers   cheers   cheers   cheers   cheers   cheers

THANK YOU.

RealLindaL


zsomething wrote:I'm fine with Biden and Buttigeig and Warren fighting it out and I'll back whoever comes out on top... but, damn, I wish Bernie was out of that pool so we could lose the dead weight.  He's wasting everyone's time, and he's poisoning the whole thing.  He got us Trump once, and he's on track to do it again.   That's not "scared," that's just truth.  And I'll vote for Bernie if he's the nominee, because I'm voting for whoever isn't Trump, but if it's Bernie, it'll be futile.

And it'll be futile with Warren as well, not because of baggage or skeletons in the closet, but because she's cut from the same ideological cloth as your hated Sanders.

Telstar

Telstar
RealLindaL wrote:
zsomething wrote:I'm fine with Biden and Buttigeig and Warren fighting it out and I'll back whoever comes out on top... but, damn, I wish Bernie was out of that pool so we could lose the dead weight.  He's wasting everyone's time, and he's poisoning the whole thing.  He got us Trump once, and he's on track to do it again.   That's not "scared," that's just truth.  And I'll vote for Bernie if he's the nominee, because I'm voting for whoever isn't Trump, but if it's Bernie, it'll be futile.

And it'll be futile with Warren as well, not because of baggage or skeletons in  the closet, but because she's cut from the same ideological cloth as your hated Sanders.  



Is that how you feel z? That it will be futile if it's Warren? Do you think Warren and Sanders are cut from the same ideological cloth?

RealLindaL


Telstar wrote:Is that how you feel z? That it will be futile if it's Warren? Do you think Warren and Sanders are cut from the same ideological cloth?

If z responds in the negative, I'd sure like to know what he considers the ideological difference(s) between the two. I sure can't see anything significantly divergent between them as to policy, but maybe I'm missing something.

Telstar

Telstar
RealLindaL wrote:
Telstar wrote:Is that how you feel z? That it will be futile if it's Warren? Do you think Warren and Sanders are cut from the same ideological cloth?

If z responds in the negative, I'd sure like to know what he considers the ideological difference(s) between the two.  I sure can't see anything significantly divergent between them as to policy, but maybe I'm missing something.




Perhaps. I just want to hear what z has to say about it in his own words, positive or negative.

Telstar

Telstar
Meanwhile let's see what Mayor Sneaky Pete is up to. The more I see of him the less I like.


Telstar

Telstar
And then there is this.


zsomething


Just for neatness sake I'll try to reply to everything in this one post. Smile

- First, never look to The Young Turks for anything. Cenk is a piece of shit and they are nothing but a propaganda outlet for Bernie... and, given Cenk's past, I'm not sure that's not just to ensure Democrats don't win. Anything you see from Young Turks, whether you like it or dislike it, you better research, because they're notorious for dishonesty.

That said, Mayor Pete does have problems that'll need to be faced. He's the one I'd like most to see as President because he's the smartest person running, but, just because I'd like him the most doesn't mean he's ideal. He has a big problem attracting the African-American vote, and that's a big factor and I'm not sure he can get around it. The Bernie coalition is already being herded into hating him, mostly because he's proving to be a threat to Bernie's ascendancy.

As much as I bag on the right (and oh man, they do deserve all the slamming I give them, and more -- they're fucking idiots), the left's got a lot of easily-herded morons, too. Dems have a bad tendency to be susceptible to just hating whoever isn't their preferred candidate, and a lot of 'em take orders almost as well as their counterparts on the right. Right now Mayor Pete is being groomed as the big-bad-boogeyman and I'm hearing the far-left morons claim "I'll never vote for him, blah-blah-blah." That's just fucking stupid. Anybody you meet who says "I'll never vote for _______________" when that person's running against Trump? Punch that person in the face. I fucking hate Bernie's ass, I think he'd be a terrible president and would ruin the Democrats' reputation for decades if he got a chance to get in there and fail as spectacularly as he would... but I'd still vote for him over Trump, no hesitation, no question, because nobody is as bad as what's in there now.

So do not play the "I won't vote for _________" game and don't tolerate anyone who does. That's idiocy and that's what got us Trump the last time.



- Tulsi Gabbard's got no traction at all. I'm not sure why anybody's still even thinking about her. Unless she pulls a Jill Stein and tries to run independently, just out of her own vanity, she isn't a factor in anything. The only people really looking at her are the Joe Rogan crowd who want to re-elect Trump and would like to make her some kind of spoiler. I highly doubt that's gonna happen. She's not big enough to reach boogeyman status, so I wouldn't waste time considering her, at least at this point.


- Warren does have her own problems (as does every candidate running), but I don't count her as unviable as Bernie, for the simple reason that she does have plans. Even though it's basically the same platform as Bernie, things are a little different when you have a wonk who's able to articulate how these things might be accomplished. Bernie had none of that. Bernie is a See'N'Say who repeats the same things over and over, and when pressed on how it'll be done he gives you some vague "blah-blah-noun-verb-REVOLUTION!" horseshit that was already past its sell-by date in 1967. His "plans" are "millions of young people will march on Washington and demand it!" And that's already been tried and it didn't do a goddamn thing except occasionally make the left look silly and un-serious (the drum-circles at Occupy Wall Street -- once you've got some doofus pounding on a PVC bucket thinking he's "changing" anything, you're done), or they were well-meant but ineffective (have we changed gun laws yet? Nope). That's not a "plan," that's just a group activity to make people feel like they're "doing something." To change things, you're going to have to build consensus and make real laws. Bernie has ZERO -- zuh-ee-ROW -- track record of managing to do that. Warren, at least, understands how things work and has the potential to get somewhere with it. Bernie just finger-wags and has an old-man-tantrum if you question him.

Bernie is in this because he's a vain old hippie and this is the first time in his life anybody's actually given him attention, and he can't get enough of it. He, honestly, isn't that far removed from Trump in the narcissism department. He's not as malignant as Trump, he means well, but he's full of the same horseshit. 85% of what he says is just the leftie version of "Mexico will pay for it." And, like I've said before, a lot of his plans aren't a whole lot different than Alan Ginsburg claiming he'd chant and levitate the Pentagon.

Warren has many of the same ideas... but she has a lot more skills and understanding of how things work and the limitations she's facing. So, no, I don't count her out completely. I think she'd be a lot harder sell than somebody more toward the middle... but, I'm not against her, either. She does have ideas, and ideas are good. And she's better at selling them. Bernie doesn't have much appeal to thinking people... he's all emotion. Free this, free that, and don't we all hate billionaires and want revenge on 'em? That's not a way to run anything. Eventually, you need plans. Warren understands that and that's why she's not futile. Although she does face a lot of that same anti-socialist headwind.

But, one thing to remember, team-sports-conservatives are gonna call anybody the Democrats nominate a "socialist." They called Obama that, and anybody who knows anything about "socialism" has to laugh their ass off at that. (I've also heard some Republicans try to claim, in more recent years, that Obama was actually "conservative" because they try to explain all the success he had... really, conservatives can't make up their minds about much, not even about what they believe. All they know is they want everything good to be to their credit, and everything bad to be the other side's blame. They're children.)

So, we'll get called "socialist" regardless... but, it's a lot easier to convince the middle that that's hogwash if the candidate running doesn't do things like praise Castro... which Bernie has done. And Warren hasn't.

Anyway, I've got no front-runner at this time, I'm waiting to see how things play out and not letting myself get caught up in the "I hate so-and-so" game (other than hating Bernie, but that ain't a game, and I've got justifications for that). I'll happily back whoever we put out there. And I'm not anti-Warren... but, ignoring that she is going to have some electability problems is unwise and unrealistic. But, the same goes for Biden or Buttigeig. They've all got some things they're going to have to get around.

And Trump -- other than to his cultists, who are brainwashed to the bone -- has more things-to-get-around than anybody. I really don't see how any intelligent, decent human being can even consider that scumbag again. You have to be in deep denial about the realities of the world to even entertain the thought.

RealLindaL


Telstar wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
Telstar wrote:Is that how you feel z? That it will be futile if it's Warren? Do you think Warren and Sanders are cut from the same ideological cloth?

If z responds in the negative, I'd sure like to know what he considers the ideological difference(s) between the two.  I sure can't see anything significantly divergent between them as to policy, but maybe I'm missing something.


Perhaps. I just want to hear what z has to say about it in his own words, positive or negative.

And I never said I DIDN'T want to hear what he said; on the contrary, I'm ALWAYS interested in z's comments. I was just giving him a heads up as to what my next question would be IF he said no, in case he wanted to answer your question and my possible next question at the same time (which is precisely what he did, thank you very much).

RealLindaL


zsomething wrote:Warren has many of the same ideas... but she has a lot more skills and understanding of how things work and the limitations she's facing.  So, no, I don't count her out completely.  I think she'd be a lot harder sell than somebody more toward the middle...

Thank you for confirming, z, in the BBM words above, EXACTLY what I've been saying.

Here's the thing, folks:  WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD A 'LOT HARDER SELL' AS A CANDIDATE.

What don't people understand about just how difficult this election is going to be for the Democrats to win???????   We cannot afford to risk ANY votes, much less on a "lot harder sell" candidate.

I'm not talking about whether or not anyone supports (or doesn't) a particular candidate based on his/her own merits, platform, plans, whatever.  Presuming, barring a miracle, that Trump will be the Republican candidate, I'm talking ONLY about who has the best chance to beat Trump.  Period the end.  We can afford nothing less.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum