Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

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

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 3]

zsomething


RealLindaL wrote:
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.

For the record, I'm not saying a harder sell is impossible... it's just a harder path. But all our candidates have some hard paths, due to the big tent that our party is. We can see that here -- we all want to get rid of Trump, but we get in some pretty contentious fights about how to go about it. I'll gamble on a harder-sell if that's what shakes out as the best path. The public will have to decide this, not any of us in particular.

I'm not certain which way to go about it is the right one... I only know that closing doors completely against any particular candidate won't work.

And, that said, I know Bernie will lose this for us... if he's the candidate, or if his divisive presence continues on the campaign trail for very long. There's something about Bernie-cultism that makes people who like him absolutely hate everybody else. A lot of them even hate Warren now, which is odd to me... but, it's the nature of cultism.

I wish that heart attack had gotten him out of the race (don't necessarily wish him dead... but, don't really care if he is, either), because until he's out and stops wasting everyone's time, we're going to have a hard time determining who our real candidate will be. I just know it won't be him. But I also know if he stays in he'll just create more and more "if I can't vote for Bernie I won't vote for anybody" idiots. There are a surprising number of people who (A) can't place the blame for last time where it belongs, and (B) seem eager to make the whole mistake all over again.

If Bernie ends up the nominee, it'll be a major mistake. I'll still vote for him... but I'll also throw a cup of water on a burning house if that's all I have. It'll be with about the same hopefulness.

Telstar

Telstar
zsomething wrote: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.




Thanks for replying z. I keep seeing adds for Gabbard popping up on youtube and such so as long as I see the Russian supported Hare Krishna cultist lurking about, I'll keep hating her. When I know she's not running, I'll let it go.

Yeah the Young Turks are all for Bernie but I just turn that shit off. If Mayor Sneaky Pete is already flip flopping about BIG money then let him come out and just say it, fuck Bernie and his bots. Not that I'm against Petey but now that Harris is out (VP?) I'm leaning towards Warren, but that doesn't mean I won't support Biden or even Pete come election day. There's a long time to go before election day and a lot of time to choose and change our minds.



Sal

Sal
zsomething wrote:
But, one thing to remember, team-sports-conservatives are gonna call anybody the Democrats nominate a "socialist."

That's the crux of the matter.  Floridatexan is entirely correct - Republicans are gonna run on fear, because it's literally all they've got.  "Socialism" is just a bogeyman.  This country has been a funky stew of ideas and models from it's very inception - we identify a problem or need, and then we invent or steal an idea to address it (at least, we used to).  The fact of the matter is that this country is in dire need of more socialism at this point.

zsomething wrote:but, it's a lot easier to convince the middle


Where is this "middle"??, because this country has swung so violently to the right over the past decades, I'm not even sure what that means anymore.  If the middle means people who support a wealth tax, because an overwhelming number of people support that when it's explained to them correctly, then OK, I'm down with that.  If the middle means the people who Obama described as clinging to their Bibles and their guns or Hillary described as "deplorables", then fuck 'em.  They're a lost cause.  If you're so paralyzed by fear of change that you can't be moved to act against the cancer devouring our body politic in the form of today's GOP, then SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, and GET - THE FUCK - OUT OF THE WAY.  You had your chance, and look at where it got us.

Telstar

Telstar
RealLindaL wrote:
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).


Did somebody say that you said you DIDN'T want to hear what z said? Sorry I guess I missed that but if you find it I'd appreciate you cutting and pasting it so I could see it. Thanks and thank YOU very much. Compliments of the Season.


Telstar

Telstar
RealLindaL wrote:
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.



Pardon me but somehow what z wrote doesn't sound quite like what you keep writing. Not to me anyway. Does anyone else feel that z is confirming EXACTLY what Linda is saying? Just saying. Question

zsomething


Sal wrote:

That's the crux of the matter.  Floridatexan is entirely correct - Republicans are gonna run on fear, because it's literally all they've got.  "Socialism" is just a bogeyman.  This country has been a funky stew of ideas and models from it's very inception - we identify a problem or need, and then we invent or steal an idea to address it (at least, we used to).  The fact of the matter is that this country is in dire need of more socialism at this point.

Possibly so... but it's a lot easier to fight off a label if the person it's being stuck to at least creates some doubt that the label fits.

The public, overall, finds socialists the least electable. I linked to that earlier (and also backed it up by pointing out that even though I'd love an atheist president, that's also not gonna fly well with the public. It's to my chagrin, yes, but it is what it is. https://news.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

It sucks, but ya gotta accept in life that what you like is not always what the public likes. And, in an election, what they like overrules anything else. You aren't gonna just talk 150 million or so voters into buying into something because we assure them it's good.

Not that I think pure socialism is good, because it isn't. If we were talking pure socialism, I'd give that a big nope... but we aren't talking pure socialism, not even close. Pure anything is not good, politically. Ya gotta take some capitalism here, some socialism there, blend it, keep what works, ditch what doesn't. That way we can move an economy, and have things like a fire department. Or maybe even better healthcare. Could we use more socialism? Yeah, probably. Would Bernie's level of it work? Fuck naw. The sonofabitch has championed people like Castro who created nightmares... and the GOP has film of him doing it, which will destroy him in the eyes of the public in no time once they unleash it. They're just waiting for us to make that mistake.

Look at how many times Republicans "take up for" Bernie, claim he got "cheated." Look at how many Russian bots push for him. That's because they know he's poison to the Democratic party.

That said, Warren's plans are more reasonable, and would create just enough doubt in the public to maybe give her a chance. People know by now that Republicans are extremist idiots who are going to label their opposition the absolute worst of whatever suits them.

Hell, they watched them try to turn Obama into a boogeyman... and, honestly, most of the public loved the guy and still do. Which is why the Republicans hate him so much -- he was something they haven't been in decades, a successful president! Trying to claim that that guy was this "socialist nightmare" just made the Republicans look like idiots, because Obama obviously wasn't that. If the public is allowed to doubt that what the Republicans are saying about a Democrat are true, then that Democrat stands a chance.

Bernie's the only one who doesn't have that in his favor. He attracts people who already believe in socialism... and shoves away everyone else. Warren doesn't have nearly as much of that problem.




Sal wrote:
Where is this "middle"??, because this country has swung so violently to the right over the past decades, I'm not even sure what that means anymore.  If the middle means people who support a wealth tax, because an overwhelming number of people support that when it's explained to them correctly, then OK, I'm down with that.  If the middle means the people who Obama described as clinging to their Bibles and their guns or Hillary described as "deplorables", then fuck 'em.  They're a lost cause.  If you're so paralyzed by fear of change that you can't be moved to act against the cancer devouring our body politic in the form of today's GOP, then SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, and GET - THE FUCK - OUT OF THE WAY.  You had your chance, and look at where it got us.


Actually, damn near every Democrat I know is that middle.

The far-right and the far-left seem to have one goal in common: painting the Democratic party as a far-left party. We aren't. America doesn't have a "far left" party, at least not in any number that actually registers in national elections.

Before Trump, we had a right-wing party and a centrist party. Post-Trump, we have a far-right (or even alt-right, and also theocratic) party, and a centrist party. Trump has made Republicans so unviable for anyone except right-wing extremists that Democrats could run the table on everyone else. I mean, Jesus, fucking Max Boot is probably gonna vote Democratic this year. Bill Kristol will probably vote Dem!

The middle has never been the "deplorables" or the people clinging to guns and Bibles -- I'm not sure where you're even coming up with that, because that was never who Obama or Hillary were talking about. Those are the right-wingers. They've never been counted as anybody the Dems are trying to court. Because they are a lost cause. I don't think anyone's ever tried arguing otherwise on that (although Biden occasionally stupidly tries to be "nice" and give Republicans more credit than they deserve... but, Biden's a clumsy guy. I like him, but that's one of his flaws. Like I said, all our candidates have 'em).

It's not "fear of change," it's just sense. You're not going to win an election appealing only to Michael Moore. (While I'm on that, honestly, I don't think Michael Moore would ever back a candidate who had a chance at winning, anyway -- Michael Moore is the same kind of fucking political coward that Pkr is. Guys like that will never admit to backing anybody who could actually win an election, because then they might have to actually pony up and be responsible for things in the real world... which is not a thing that pieces of garbage like them do. "Libertarian" is just a slang term for "conservative chickenshit").

If you're really afraid of change, then... back Bernie. Because Bernie's not gonna win. And then you won't actually change anything, and won't have to be responsible. The Bernie-or-Busters are all still sitting around Caucus99 and saying, "The world would be so much better if people had listened to me, blah blah blah." Which is the safest thing in the goddamned world for a person to do, when they know damn well nobody's gonna listen to 'em. It's like, "You can't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson!" Which is pretty much like, "Nothing's my fault, because instead of voting I got in the bathtub and peed in my own face." Laughing I mean, voting for Gary Johnson is about that effective when it comes to making real change. That's some safety-first-clyde business, there. Bernie, same-same. Ain't gonna win, but his followers can always console themselves with "not my fault." When, actually, yeah, yeah it really fucking is. No Bernie in 2016? No Donald Trump in the White House. You can bank on that. It's provable by the number of Jill Stein voters in swing states. Bernie fucking got us Trump. So we should be doing everything we can right now to kill that fucking guy's candidacy, because he's damn sure on track to do it again. I'm already hearing the exact same shit out of his supporters that I heard last time.

If you're not afraid of change, then vote for somebody who can win. Because that's the one who'll actually get to pass legislation and do things. If you like Warren, go with Warren. If it's Biden or Buttegeig or Klobachar or whoever, go with them... in the primary. After that, vote for whoever the nominee is. And drag everyone else you can to vote for them, too. Doesn't matter if you like 'em, doesn't matter if you don't... if you're smart, you'll like 'em better than Trump.

Telstar

Telstar
Sal wrote:
zsomething wrote:
But, one thing to remember, team-sports-conservatives are gonna call anybody the Democrats nominate a "socialist."

That's the crux of the matter.  Floridatexan is entirely correct - Republicans are gonna run on fear, because it's literally all they've got.  "Socialism" is just a bogeyman.  This country has been a funky stew of ideas and models from it's very inception - we identify a problem or need, and then we invent or steal an idea to address it (at least, we used to).  The fact of the matter is that this country is in dire need of more socialism at this point.

zsomething wrote:but, it's a lot easier to convince the middle


Where is this "middle"??, because this country has swung so violently to the right over the past decades, I'm not even sure what that means anymore.  If the middle means people who support a wealth tax, because an overwhelming number of people support that when it's explained to them correctly, then OK, I'm down with that.  If the middle means the people who Obama described as clinging to their Bibles and their guns or Hillary described as "deplorables", then fuck 'em.  They're a lost cause.  If you're so paralyzed by fear of change that you can't be moved to act against the cancer devouring our body politic in the form of today's GOP, then SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, and GET - THE FUCK - OUT OF THE WAY.  You had your chance, and look at where it got us.




Well said Sal and I agree EXACTLY with what you said about Floridatexan. Cool

RealLindaL


Telstar wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
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.



Pardon me but somehow what z wrote doesn't sound quite like what you keep writing. Not to me anyway. Does anyone else feel that z is confirming EXACTLY what Linda is saying? Just saying. Question

What I MEANT was that z confirms my opinion that someone who leans far left will be "a lot harder sell" -- i.e. a lot harder to gain votes for -- than someone more centrist.  Get it???

And I fear that, in 2020 as much or more than in any other election in our nation's history, every single vote will be crucial.

Telstar

Telstar
RealLindaL wrote:
Telstar wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
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.



Pardon me but somehow what z wrote doesn't sound quite like what you keep writing. Not to me anyway. Does anyone else feel that z is confirming EXACTLY what Linda is saying? Just saying. Question

What I MEANT was that z confirms my opinion that someone who leans far left will be "a lot harder sell"  -- i.e. a lot harder to gain votes for -- than someone more centrist.  Get it???

And I fear that, in 2020 as much or more than in any other election in our nation's history, every single vote will be crucial.



You left out MARK MY WORDS! Anyway thanks for clearing up again what you MEANT as opposed to what you WROTE. Got it! I think but if not I'm sure you'll post another explanation.

zsomething


RealLindaL wrote:
What I MEANT was that z confirms my opinion that someone who leans far left will be "a lot harder sell"  -- i.e. a lot harder to gain votes for -- than someone more centrist.  Get it???

And I fear that, in 2020 as much or more than in any other election in our nation's history, every single vote will be crucial.


Every single vote is definitely going to be crucial.  Republicans have had free reign to gerrymander the hell out of the map.  One thing about conservatives -- they ain't shy about cheatin'.   Especially with all that "electoral college" jazz. (edited to add - I can't believe I forgot the Russian meddling that's already under way!)

And the evil that Trump has awakened in this society needs to be put down by a huge margin, so the people who've been emboldened by it get the message that, nope, America is not yours.  Otherwise, this society's screwed.

RealLindaL


zsomething wrote:And the evil that Trump has awakened in this society needs to be put down by a huge margin, so the people who've been emboldened by it get the message that, nope, America is not yours.  Otherwise, this society's screwed.

Yep.  So not only do we have to win, but by a large margin to send that strong message, yes?  Only seems to further support my contention that the time is definitely not right for an even mildly controversial, 'Democratic socialist' type of candidate.

To repeat, IMHO, Democrats of most stripes (except maybe those Bernie hardliners z speaks of) will likely come out and vote for an Elizabeth Warren, either because they like her, or else simply because she isn't Trump.

But what will the massive number of Independent/NPA's (myself included) do, depending on which way they already lean?  And what will the fence-sitting registered Republicans who don't really like Trump do?

Will they vote a third party (if there is one)? Or will they stay home?  Or what?

And can we chance it?

If they're up for grabs, I'm simply asking, who's most likely to grab them?

Every. Vote. Will. Count.

Look, I suppose I'm becoming tiresome here, and have pretty well said my piece, so will bow out for a while - more power to everyone else, and may the fates help us all.

Telstar

Telstar
RealLindaL wrote:
zsomething wrote:And the evil that Trump has awakened in this society needs to be put down by a huge margin, so the people who've been emboldened by it get the message that, nope, America is not yours.  Otherwise, this society's screwed.

Yep.  So not only do we have to win, but by a large margin to send that strong message, yes?  Only seems to further support my contention that the time is definitely not right for an even mildly controversial, 'Democratic socialist' type of candidate.

To repeat, IMHO, Democrats of most stripes (except maybe those Bernie hardliners z speaks of) will likely come out and vote for an Elizabeth Warren, either because they like her, or else simply because she isn't Trump.

But what will the massive number of Independent/NPA's (myself included) do, depending on which way they already lean?  And what will the fence-sitting registered Republicans who don't really like Trump do?

Will they vote a third party (if there is one)? Or will they stay home?  Or what?

And can we chance it?

If they're up for grabs, I'm simply asking, who's most likely to grab them?

Every.  Vote.   Will.   Count.

Look, I suppose I'm becoming tiresome here, and have pretty well said my piece, so will bow out for a while - more power to everyone else, and may the fates help us all.



Like I said before it's still early yet and there's a long road ahead. I'll be here because there's not many places left to go. I don't think anyone really leaves this place for good until they LEAVE THIS PLACE FOR GOOD. See you later alligator.

zsomething


RealLindaL wrote:
zsomething wrote:And the evil that Trump has awakened in this society needs to be put down by a huge margin, so the people who've been emboldened by it get the message that, nope, America is not yours.  Otherwise, this society's screwed.

Yep.  So not only do we have to win, but by a large margin to send that strong message, yes?  Only seems to further support my contention that the time is definitely not right for an even mildly controversial, 'Democratic socialist' type of candidate.

To repeat, IMHO, Democrats of most stripes (except maybe those Bernie hardliners z speaks of) will likely come out and vote for an Elizabeth Warren, either because they like her, or else simply because she isn't Trump.

But what will the massive number of Independent/NPA's (myself included) do, depending on which way they already lean?  And what will the fence-sitting registered Republicans who don't really like Trump do?

Will they vote a third party (if there is one)? Or will they stay home?  Or what?

And can we chance it?

If they're up for grabs, I'm simply asking, who's most likely to grab them?

Every.  Vote.   Will.   Count.

Look, I suppose I'm becoming tiresome here, and have pretty well said my piece, so will bow out for a while - more power to everyone else, and may the fates help us all.

Don't stay gone long. You aren't tiresome... we're just discussing things, and that's not bad. Smile

zsomething


I know Linda's taking a break, and I'm not as anti-Warren as she is, but something just happened that supports the case she's making pretty strongly. If the wipeout results that Britain just got for running far-left candidate Jeremy Corbin against pretty-unpopular idiot Boris Johnson don't give you pause, they should. Corbin is almost exactly a Bernie figure -- a far-left populist who excited the young people and promised a bunch of free stuff. They insisted on this guy... and Johnson's side ended up winning 364 seats, which is almost 50 more than they won in the last election, their biggest win in 30 years. And now those assholes are going to run roughshod and wreck Britain.

You've just gotten a sneak preview of "Bernie 2020." And, much as I hate to say it, because I do like her, possibly Warren 2020. It's not fun to face facts, but... ya better. Britain was the experiment, and we see how it turned out.

Telstar

Telstar
zsomething wrote:I know Linda's taking a break, and I'm not as anti-Warren as she is, but something just happened that supports the case she's making pretty strongly.  If the wipeout results that Britain just got for running far-left candidate Jeremy Corbin against pretty-unpopular idiot Boris Johnson don't give you pause, they should.  Corbin is almost exactly a Bernie figure -- a far-left populist who excited the young people and promised a bunch of free stuff.  They insisted on this guy... and Johnson's side ended up winning 364 seats, which is almost 50 more than they won in the last election, their biggest win in 30 years.   And now those assholes are going to run roughshod and wreck Britain.

You've just gotten a sneak preview of "Bernie 2020."  And, much as I hate to say it, because I do like her, possibly Warren 2020.  It's not fun to face facts, but... ya better.   Britain was the experiment, and we see how it turned out.




This isn't Not so Great Britain and hasn't been for a couple of hundred years. That's why we dumped King George and made George Washington our President. Anyway Corbyn has big problems with antisemitism himself so to hell with him too. Fuck Britain but then, our founders did that already and they did it well.

To hell with Bernie too, he sucks outright because of what he and his bots did to Hillary, but not Warren. She does have a plan. I like her too, even though she started as a republican but it's still too early for me to choose now that Kamala is out of the running for the top spot. If it comes down to Slow Joe or Sneaky Pete, I'll vote for them too over Kriminal Trumpsky. I do wish that Biden would stop talking about how great the GOP is and talk about Trumpsky family nepotism whenever they bring up Hunter, The geezer was praising the GOP just the other day. Maybe he's hoping his old buddies in the GOP will show mercy before they toss Hunter in a cage for life. Help me Saint Strom Thurmond, Let Me Live Again!


Did Trump Suffer a Heart Attack From Snorting Too Much Adderall on Saturday?? - Page 3 Mayor_10


I guess if America can handle a nude, foreign, first lady in bed with another naked woman it can handle President Pete and his first Lady Elton John. (Be Best and Saturday Night's Alright For A Fight!) I can just imagine what Kriminal Trumpsky will do with these two. Wonder what middle America and the deep dark south will make of them. In fact I might just vote for Sneaky Pete and his bff just because it may cause cracker barrel boys across the land to blow their own brains out.(If they can rip themselves away from ass raping little boys.)


I have no problem with young people, getting free stuff along with the poor and middle class. It's the 1% scum who can hold their hands on their asses before they  receive another tax cut or some other sort of Corporate welfare. Let's trickle down on the 1% Corporate scum and see if they like like it as much as the golden showers Trumpsky enjoys. I hated Bernie in 2016 but I'm starting to like him lately because of the constant smear campaign's he, Warren and AOC have hurled at them. I mean it's not as if the 1% Corporate scum wouldn't be behind a smear campaign against candidates that reject their BIG money so they can support candidates in their pockets who do. Then again, maybe that's just what it is. Twisted Evil

zsomething


Telstar wrote:



This isn't Not so Great Britain and hasn't been for a couple of hundred years. That's why we dumped King George and made George Washington our President. Anyway Corbyn has big problems with antisemitism himself so to hell with him too. Fuck Britain but then, our founders did that already and they did it well.

We're not Britain,yeah, but the parallels are truly uncanny. It'd be foolish to dismiss them offhand.


To hell with Bernie too, he sucks outright because of what he and his bots did to Hillary, but not Warren. She does have a plan. I like her too, even though she started as a republican but it's still too early for me to choose now that Kamala is out of the running for the top spot. If it comes down to Slow Joe or Sneaky Pete, I'll vote for them too over Kriminal Trumpsky. I do wish that Biden would stop talking about how great the GOP is and talk about Trumpsky family nepotism whenever they bring up Hunter, The geezer was praising the GOP just the other day. Maybe he's hoping his old buddies in the GOP will show mercy before they toss Hunter in a cage for life. Help me Saint Strom Thurmond, Let Me Live Again!

Bernie is another narcissist. He's not as malignant as Trump, but he's primarily motivated by getting attention for himself, not the good of the country. His campaigns have both been ego trips. It's part of an old hippie pattern.

Biden is dumb for trying to make nice-nice with the GOP. I know he's trying to "win Republican voters," but with the tribalism over there, it's a wasted effort. The ones who still have enough independent thought to defect have already defected. The others are entrenched and will do what they're told... and they won't vote for a Democrat no matter how much nice-nice they make.

Biden does have a lot of negatives, but what candidate doesn't? Whoever racks up best against Trump is what I'll be for. I'm not a partisan Democrat nearly as much as I'm just anti-conservative. I started life as Republican, but since then I've kept my eyes open and I've seen decades of what they do to the places they govern... and it's never good. And they only get worse. So, Democrats are the default setting. When I take political tests I actually tend to skew Libertarian, but Libertarians are the biggest political cowards on the planet -- they're really non-participants who just want to bitch and never be responsible for anything. And most of the peole who claim that label tend to skew not only conservative but flat-out Nazi when you really push 'em. So I've never had much respect for Libertarians. The more I interact with them, the less I tend to have. They're mostly good for watching bleed.




I guess if America can handle a nude, foreign, first lady in bed with another naked woman it can handle President Pete and his first Lady Elton John. (Be Best and Saturday Night's Alright For A Fight!) I can just imagine what Kriminal Trumpsky will do with these two. Wonder what middle America and the deep dark south will make of them. In fact I might just vote for Sneaky Pete and his bff just because it may cause cracker barrel boys across the land to blow their own brains out.(If they can rip themselves away from ass raping little boys.)

Honestly, I tend to forget Pete's even gay. It's a total non-issue for me. I guess it will bug some people, but those people wouldn't be voting Democrat, anyhow. Not every conservative is a bigot, but pretty much every bigot is a conservative. Could be a factor, but... I dunno. I do know that Mayor Pete's partner is a smart and funny guy.


I have no problem with young people, getting free stuff along with the poor and middle class. It's the 1% scum who can hold their hands on their asses before they  receive another tax cut or some other sort of Corporate welfare. Let's trickle down on the 1% Corporate scum and see if they like like it as much as the golden showers Trumpsky enjoys. I hated Bernie in 2016 but I'm starting to like him lately because of the constant smear campaign's he, Warren and AOC have hurled at them. I mean it's not as if the 1% Corporate scum wouldn't be behind a smear campaign against candidates that reject their BIG money so they can support candidates in their pockets who do. Then again, maybe that's just what it is. Twisted Evil

There is no "smear campaign" against Bernie. That's complete bullshit. The media has treated that crazy old coot with kid gloves and given him all kinds of passes. Nobody has really even come close to trying to "vet" Bernie. If they had, then a lot of stuff I've already seen on him would be public knowledge. Bernie has been protected, if anything... partially because Russia and the Republicans both want to keep him unscathed, because they want us to fuck up and nominate him. Then he'll get vetted... and he'll be a stillbirth of a candidate. Dude, I don't even have access to a tenth of the dirt Republicans have on him, and I've already seen things -- film footage, etc., stuff he can't shrug off as "hearsay" -- that would doom his candidacy flat-out. So, no, the idea of Bernie being "smeared" is a whoooooolllle lot of big-time bullshit.

I don't think AOC gets particularly smeared, either. She gets a lot more credit than she deserves from the left, because she hasn't really done much of anything worthy of note beyond sling some pretty good jabs on Twitter. The right-wing has made a big boogeyman out of her (which speaks to some deep-seated hate of women and Latinos on their side, because she really doesn't have nearly as much power, proportional to their hate/fear of her), but that's standard-operating-procedure for the right wing, not a "smear."

And I haven't really seen much smearing of Warren, either, other than the "Pocahontas" thing... which was a mistake on her part, but not that big a deal. She gets vetted a little, but all Democratic candidates get vetted a little, and that's not a bad thing.

Republican candidates used to get vetted, but now that they've turned it into a political-religious cult, they don't seem to do it anymore. They'd vote for a child molester if he told them he hated Mexicans.

Telstar

Telstar
zsomething wrote:
Telstar wrote:



This isn't Not so Great Britain and hasn't been for a couple of hundred years. That's why we dumped King George and made George Washington our President. Anyway Corbyn has big problems with antisemitism himself so to hell with him too. Fuck Britain but then, our founders did that already and they did it well.

We're not Britain,yeah, but the parallels are truly uncanny.  It'd be foolish to dismiss them offhand.


To hell with Bernie too, he sucks outright because of what he and his bots did to Hillary, but not Warren. She does have a plan. I like her too, even though she started as a republican but it's still too early for me to choose now that Kamala is out of the running for the top spot. If it comes down to Slow Joe or Sneaky Pete, I'll vote for them too over Kriminal Trumpsky. I do wish that Biden would stop talking about how great the GOP is and talk about Trumpsky family nepotism whenever they bring up Hunter, The geezer was praising the GOP just the other day. Maybe he's hoping his old buddies in the GOP will show mercy before they toss Hunter in a cage for life. Help me Saint Strom Thurmond, Let Me Live Again!

Bernie is another narcissist.  He's not as malignant as Trump, but he's primarily motivated by getting attention for himself, not the good of the country.  His campaigns have both been ego trips.  It's part of an old hippie pattern.  

Biden is dumb for trying to make nice-nice with the GOP.  I know he's trying to "win Republican voters," but with the tribalism over there, it's a wasted effort.  The ones who still have enough independent thought to defect have already defected.  The others are entrenched and will do what they're told... and they won't vote for a Democrat no matter how much nice-nice they make.  

Biden does have a lot of negatives, but what candidate doesn't?  Whoever racks up best against Trump is what I'll be for.    I'm not a partisan Democrat nearly as much as I'm just anti-conservative.  I started life as Republican, but since then I've kept my eyes open and I've seen decades of what they do to the places they govern... and it's never good.   And they only get worse.  So, Democrats are the default setting.  When I take political tests I actually tend to skew Libertarian, but Libertarians are the biggest political cowards on the planet -- they're really non-participants who just want to bitch and never be responsible for anything.  And most of the peole who claim that label tend to skew not only conservative but flat-out Nazi when you really push 'em.   So I've never had much respect for Libertarians.  The more I interact with them, the less I tend to have.  They're mostly good for watching bleed.




I guess if America can handle a nude, foreign, first lady in bed with another naked woman it can handle President Pete and his first Lady Elton John. (Be Best and Saturday Night's Alright For A Fight!) I can just imagine what Kriminal Trumpsky will do with these two. Wonder what middle America and the deep dark south will make of them. In fact I might just vote for Sneaky Pete and his bff just because it may cause cracker barrel boys across the land to blow their own brains out.(If they can rip themselves away from ass raping little boys.)

Honestly, I tend to forget Pete's even gay.  It's a total non-issue for me.  I guess it will bug some people, but those people wouldn't be voting Democrat, anyhow.  Not every conservative is a bigot, but pretty much every bigot is a conservative.   Could be a factor, but... I dunno.  I do know that Mayor Pete's partner is a smart and funny guy.


I have no problem with young people, getting free stuff along with the poor and middle class. It's the 1% scum who can hold their hands on their asses before they  receive another tax cut or some other sort of Corporate welfare. Let's trickle down on the 1% Corporate scum and see if they like like it as much as the golden showers Trumpsky enjoys. I hated Bernie in 2016 but I'm starting to like him lately because of the constant smear campaign's he, Warren and AOC have hurled at them. I mean it's not as if the 1% Corporate scum wouldn't be behind a smear campaign against candidates that reject their BIG money so they can support candidates in their pockets who do. Then again, maybe that's just what it is. Twisted Evil

There is no "smear campaign" against Bernie.  That's complete bullshit.  The media has treated that crazy old coot with kid gloves and given him all kinds of passes.   Nobody has really even come close to trying to "vet" Bernie.  If they had, then a lot of stuff I've already seen on him would be public knowledge.  Bernie has been protected, if anything... partially because Russia and the Republicans both want to keep him unscathed, because they want us to fuck up and nominate him.  Then he'll get vetted... and he'll be a stillbirth of a candidate.  Dude, I don't even have access to a tenth of the dirt Republicans have on him, and I've already seen things -- film footage, etc., stuff he can't shrug off as "hearsay" -- that would doom his candidacy flat-out.   So, no, the idea of Bernie being "smeared" is a whoooooolllle lot of big-time bullshit.

I don't think AOC gets particularly smeared, either.  She gets a lot more credit than she deserves from the left, because she hasn't really done much of anything worthy of note beyond sling some pretty good jabs on Twitter.  The right-wing has made a big boogeyman out of her (which speaks to some deep-seated hate of women and Latinos on their side, because she really doesn't have nearly as much power, proportional to their hate/fear of her), but that's standard-operating-procedure for the right wing, not a "smear."

And I haven't really seen much smearing of Warren, either, other than the "Pocahontas" thing... which was a mistake on her part, but not that big a deal.   She gets vetted a little, but all Democratic candidates get vetted a little, and that's not a bad thing.

Republican candidates used to get vetted, but now that they've turned it into a political-religious cult, they don't seem to do it anymore.  They'd vote for a child molester if he told them he hated Mexicans.




You can bet Mrs Pete will be branded as a 'funny guy' all kinds of funny when the republican smear machine and their 1% Corporate Masters set her in their sites. I already said fuck Bernie, the only way I'll vote for him is if he gets the nomination. I totally disagree that the Dems you mentioned were not smeared but I do love the way they all twist the republicans and their Corporate masters into knots. Odd you mentioned a 'child molester'. That's what the "white knight' on the other topic turned out to be.

zsomething


Telstar wrote:


You can bet Mrs Pete will be branded as a 'funny guy' all kinds of funny when the republican smear machine and their 1% Corporate Masters set her in their sites. I already said fuck Bernie, the only way I'll vote for him is if he gets the nomination. I totally disagree that the Dems you mentioned were not smeared but I do love the way they all twist the republicans and their Corporate masters into knots. Odd you mentioned a 'child molester'. That's what the "white knight' on the other topic turned out to be.


Ah, I don't know if even the Republicans would take that tactic nowdays... it'd backfire on them too hard. Their base is still, for the most part, bigoted and motivated by the GOP saying that being bigoted is okay... but they also know demographics are changing, and they want to attract parts of groups that they sneered at before. They're going to have to, if they want to survive for long.

Now, I have no idea why anyone other than a rich white Christian heterosexual male would ever want to be a Republican, since damn near everything the party is about is making sure the poor, non-whites, non-religious, gays, and women have as few rights as possible... but, they still do have the Log Cabin Republicans. Why they want to belong to a party who doesn't want them to have equal rights is a mystery, but, they're there and I don't think the GOP would want to risk chasing them off by going after Mayor Pete that way.

But, who knows? Every time I try to give conservatives benefit of the doubt, they find some way to prove that, harsh as I admittedly am on 'em, I'm too lenient.

As for child molesters, I think the death penalty should be expanded to include 'em. Rapists and people who abuse animals, too. And I still count as liberal... Smile

Telstar

Telstar
zsomething wrote:
Telstar wrote:


You can bet Mrs Pete will be branded as a 'funny guy' all kinds of funny when the republican smear machine and their 1% Corporate Masters set her in their sites. I already said fuck Bernie, the only way I'll vote for him is if he gets the nomination. I totally disagree that the Dems you mentioned were not smeared but I do love the way they all twist the republicans and their Corporate masters into knots. Odd you mentioned a 'child molester'. That's what the "white knight' on the other topic turned out to be.


Ah, I don't know if even the Republicans would take that tactic nowdays... it'd backfire on them too hard.  Their base is still, for the most part, bigoted and motivated by the GOP saying that being bigoted is okay... but they also know demographics are changing, and they want to attract parts of groups that they sneered at before.  They're going to have to, if they want to survive for long.

Now, I have no idea why anyone other than a rich white Christian heterosexual male would ever want to be a Republican, since damn near everything the party is about is making sure the poor, non-whites, non-religious, gays, and women have as few rights as possible... but, they still do have the Log Cabin Republicans.   Why they want to belong to a party who doesn't want them to have equal rights is a mystery, but, they're there and I don't think the GOP would want to risk chasing them off by going after Mayor Pete that way.

But, who knows?   Every time I try to give conservatives benefit of the doubt, they find some way to prove that, harsh as I admittedly am on 'em, I'm too lenient.

As for child molesters, I think the death penalty should be expanded to include 'em.  Rapists and people who abuse animals, too.  And I still count as liberal... Smile



Don't worry, I'm sure the republicans and their smear machine will find lots of ways to slime Pete and his Mrs. before the election. I agree with you about child molesters, rapists and animal abusers. I suspect most republicans do too but they won't say it out loud if those deplorable offenders are connected with Trump. Like his oldest sons (animal murderers) Epstein (child molesters) and Judge Kavanaugh (rapist)

Telstar

Telstar
Oh well, leave it to Rush the magic, racist, tea bagging, cuck sucker to prove me right. Of course you never see Rush's wife. Guess she doesn't go on the same vacations he does, in those countries that look the other way while young boys are being ass raped, for a price. If Rush is so offended by gay people, why did he pay Elton John $1 million to sing at his wedding? Guess I never mentioned I was born the seventh son of a seventh son so I see a lot of this crap coming down the road in advance. Twisted Evil


Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

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