Red Mosquito

verb_to_trust wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:"I just want to put this behind me. I mean, sure, yeah he did say a woman can't win, but I totally want to put this behind me. He's a great guy! no really! ...though some say he might be a little sexist. I can't say for sure though. I don't want to talk about that. We're friends!"

I don't believe Bernie is sexist, but I believe he thinks (correctly) that a majority of Americans are.

It's gonna be funny when the first woman president is a Republican

BurtReynolds wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:"I just want to put this behind me. I mean, sure, yeah he did say a woman can't win, but I totally want to put this behind me. He's a great guy! no really! ...though some say he might be a little sexist. I can't say for sure though. I don't want to talk about that. We're friends!"

I don't believe Bernie is sexist, but I believe he thinks (correctly) that a majority of Americans are.

It's gonna be funny when the first woman president is a Republican

Will King Donald transferring power to Ivanka count?

verb_to_trust wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:"I just want to put this behind me. I mean, sure, yeah he did say a woman can't win, but I totally want to put this behind me. He's a great guy! no really! ...though some say he might be a little sexist. I can't say for sure though. I don't want to talk about that. We're friends!"

I don't believe Bernie is sexist, but I believe he thinks (correctly) that a majority of Americans are.

It's gonna be funny when the first woman president is a Republican

Will King Donald transferring power to Ivanka count?

Nimrata is your bet huh?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:I really don’t think Bernie can win the election in November. The Dems should go with someone else.

I think he’s maybe the only one who CAN win.

That said, I’m not a “beating Trump is all that matters” voter - I’d vote for Bernie because I believe in his politics. If it’s between Trump and some establishment scumbag like Biden, I don’t give a shit who wins.

He'll be 79 before the election. That is old for one of the toughest jobs in politics.

Anders wrote:
He'll be 79 before the election. That is old for one of the toughest jobs in politics.

If that's your criteria, then Pete's all you got left.

With these candidates, voting for the one most likely to die in office isn't the worst idea. But Trump will probably live to be a hundred out of spite.

B wrote:

Anders wrote:
He'll be 79 before the election. That is old for one of the toughest jobs in politics.

If that's your criteria, then Pete's all you got left.

He even speaks Norwegian, that's incredible. However, I think Warren is young enough.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Orpheus wrote:God b_i's Bloomberg fetish is so bizarre.

You realize people actually like Sanders because income inequality is insane and people are suffering in droves, right? I know 20+ people who have had to post GoFundMes to pay for emergency healthcare. He's popular because the basic idea of working 40 hours a week and affording a house and a family (a given in my grandpa's age) is a farce for 50% of people now.

My fetish is for no more Trump, beating him is the thing that matters.

All shtick aside -- and you can PM me if you don't want to ruin your online boarding reputation or whatever -- but do you really *honestly* believe that he is the *best bet* to beat trump? He's the one?

I don't honestly know that, no, but I'm not trolling my support of him. I believe the version of Warren from 5-10 years ago would be ideal for the country, but that person is gone now.

I like this bit from The Atlantic on Warren's evolution and how she is now beholden to the progs:

"...Her raft of detailed and deeply progressive policy proposals has given her credibility on the left, but there’s evidence that her agenda is scaring off more moderate voters. And it may limit her ability to reach suburban voters—many of whom may be current or lapsed Republicans—who have become disaffected with Trump and whom Democrats are targeting in 2020. It’s that pool of voters in particular that was so crucial to the Democrats’ victory in the House in 2018 and for whom Warren’s political-conversion story could be most appealing. Many voters who see her only through the prism of her recent biography—the Harvard professor turned progressive senator—may see themselves in a once-conservative woman who moved to the center and then further left over many years."

This is how we fix things in the US. This is the opening to stop the squabbling and fix healthcare. Fix the environment. But who prevents this opportunity from uniting us? Who will not compromise? Who threatens to primary those who don't bow?

Back to Bloomy. I think Bloomberg has proven he can get things done. He is liberal (bordering on progressive) on the environment and many other issues that will be important this decade. He is more successful than Trump in business, easily negating that narrative, and can run without being beholden to Exxon/Amazon/etc. The arguments against him are generally three flavors: he's a billionaire, enacted laws like stop and frisk (which was considered cutting edge law enforcement at the time, but our culture favors Monday morning quarterbacking things now because statistically equal outcomes are most important so..), and he's not a card-carrying progressive. None of those make any difference to me, so I don't see why he's a bad choice. Again, specifically, which of his policy proposals are people so against? Here's the link: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/getting-it-done

Orpheus wrote:So why isn't the guy leading the polls, raising a ton of money, and who actually has an urgent and cogent message the one to do that vs. a billionaire who isn't polling at all?

The polls are not quite what the media hypes them to be. Orgs like CNN are treating this like a playoff game, and understandably so given the revenue it makes them, but it's very close in Iowa. (And as Bloomberg pointed out, starting in Iowa actually hurts the Democratic party.) Here's the poll results that were hyped as Bernie's lead:



It's a dead heat. This only shows that Sanders supporters are more locked in than other candidate's supporters.

WRT his 'message'... it doesn't matter. Anyone can go up on stage and promise unicorn powered flying cars. Unless you can deliver it, it's bullshit, and often worse as it damages more reasonable proposals that might be able to help millions (think Obamacare vs. the Medicare for All pipe dream). Look at Bernie's history. Really look at his history. He's never held the type of job working American's do. From school to floating around, living off of working women, to leftist crusader politician. And what has he actually accomplished in his almost 30 years in DC? Let's look: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/member ... ers/400357

He's gotten seven bills passed. In '91 he got March 4 designated as Vermont Bicentennial day. Solid work there. Also in '91 he got a mountain range in New England protected. The environment is important. In '95 he got Congressional endorsement for a water pact between New Hampshire and Vermont. People need water. In 2006 he got a Post Office designated in Vermont. In 2013 he got another Post Office designated. Also in 2013 he finally did something for the nation as a whole by passing a compensation increase for disable vets. Then in 2016 had a charter amended to include explicit mention of women serving in wars. And that's it. In 28 years. Is it reasonable to think that a person who has been able to accomplish essentially nothing in his whole time in office would be able to take the single largest non-country level economic system in the world (healthcare in the US, also the largest employer in the US) and transform that into something entirely different? Of course not. It's complete bullshit.

So I would send this back to you, to honestly ask yourself what matters here. Having an inspiring message or being able to enact practical, positive (though gradual) change?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I think he’s maybe the only one who CAN win.
That said, I’m not a “beating Trump is all that matters” voter - I’d vote for Bernie because I believe in his politics. If it’s between Trump and some establishment scumbag like Biden, I don’t give a shit who wins.

Exhibit A.

Given the dem choices, I can't help but feel Trump is gonna get re-elected.

Fuck “gradual change.” I’m so sick of that line; it’s just a euphemism for “ineffectual.” We need universal healthcare YESTERDAY. People are dying out here.

Also, genuinely don’t believe an evil pissbag like Biden would do anything to enact any positive change.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Fuck “gradual change.” I’m so sick of that line; it’s just a euphemism for “ineffectual.” We need universal healthcare YESTERDAY. People are dying out here.

Also, genuinely don’t believe an evil pissbag like Biden would do anything to enact any positive change.

I like the idea of gradual change. It just seems that when you're fighting a game of tug of war, tugging softly isn't such a good idea.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Fuck “gradual change.” I’m so sick of that line; it’s just a euphemism for “ineffectual.” We need universal healthcare YESTERDAY. People are dying out here.

Also, genuinely don’t believe an evil pissbag like Biden would do anything to enact any positive change.

I love you, LV

Reality is, and I am not a republican, nor a democrat anymore as it seems I don't meet there agenda. There has never been a president with a good domestic economy that has not been re-elected. The only one was the first Bush. We will be getting 4 more Donnie years.

If I was ready to potentially forgive Warren for her stupidity in having that DNA test done, I certainly couldn’t proceed after this quote. A president should have self-control enough to understand how their words have 2nd and 3rd derivative impacts. This quote from Sanders may have been true but regardless her wiliness to share it this way demonstrates again her critical lack of tact and thought about downstream ramifications. She is fine enough for a bumbling senator or low-profile cabinet member, but no President is she. Sometimes you have to eat shit for the greater good. She doesn’t appear to understand that. If Sanders gets nominated now all we are gonna hear about from the GOP echo chamber is how he doesn’t believe in Women. Fucking idiot.

lowlight79 wrote:Reality is, and I am not a republican, nor a democrat anymore as it seems I don't meet there agenda. There has never been a president with a good domestic economy that has not been re-elected. The only one was the first Bush. We will be getting 4 more Donnie years.

He broke the record for worst midterm election butchering for any president with a good economy. He did it by a long country mile, and in a midterm with presidential turnout where nearly every voter said he was a deciding factor in their decision. Precedence seems like a poor guide.

McParadigm wrote:

lowlight79 wrote:Reality is, and I am not a republican, nor a democrat anymore as it seems I don't meet there agenda. There has never been a president with a good domestic economy that has not been re-elected. The only one was the first Bush. We will be getting 4 more Donnie years.

He broke the record for worst midterm election butchering for any president with a good economy. He did it by a long country mile, and in a midterm with presidential turnout where nearly every voter said he was a deciding factor in their decision. Precedence seems like a poor guide.

I see your point, but history doesn't lie, and now there going to do an impeachment trial which will take there candidates of the campaign trail for weeks. Midterms are midterms. Never underestimate the real power of voters when it's an election year. None of these candidates can relate anywhere outside of NY and Cali IMO.

96583UP wrote:If I was ready to potentially forgive Warren for her stupidity in having that DNA test done, I certainly couldn’t proceed after this quote. A president should have self-control enough to understand how their words have 2nd and 3rd derivative impacts. This quote from Sanders may have been true but regardless her wiliness to share it this way demonstrates again her critical lack of tact and thought about downstream ramifications. She is fine enough for a bumbling senator or low-profile cabinet member, but no President is she. Sometimes you have to eat shit for the greater good. She doesn’t appear to understand that. If Sanders gets nominated now all we are gonna hear about from the GOP echo chamber is how he doesn’t believe in Women. Fucking idiot.

This is Warren genius. She is leveling an attack without attacking. She is passive aggressively attacking by pointing out his statement about women being able to win this election and his supporters attacking her. She doesn’t have to expound at all, just put it out there and let it ride. That’s politics. If Bernie can’t handle that, he has no business in this race against a general election opponent who will go after him much more aggressively.

liebzz wrote:

96583UP wrote:If I was ready to potentially forgive Warren for her stupidity in having that DNA test done, I certainly couldn’t proceed after this quote. A president should have self-control enough to understand how their words have 2nd and 3rd derivative impacts. This quote from Sanders may have been true but regardless her wiliness to share it this way demonstrates again her critical lack of tact and thought about downstream ramifications. She is fine enough for a bumbling senator or low-profile cabinet member, but no President is she. Sometimes you have to eat shit for the greater good. She doesn’t appear to understand that. If Sanders gets nominated now all we are gonna hear about from the GOP echo chamber is how he doesn’t believe in Women. Fucking idiot.

This is Warren genius. She is leveling an attack without attacking. She is passive aggressively attacking by pointing out his statement about women being able to win this election and his supporters attacking her. She doesn’t have to expound at all, just put it out there and let it ride. That’s politics. If Bernie can’t handle that, he has no business in this race against a general election opponent who will go after him much more aggressively.

I am one of the few here that would be fine with a Bernie or Bloomberg victory. It sounds bizarre but that’s where I am at. But Warren, I suspect, would greatly prefer Bernie getting the nomination, if it will be anyone other than her. I am fine with ‘Let It Ride”. But she shouldn't be. She just armed the opposition.

lol Pete Buttigieg thanks you for seeing it as more likely that a progressive candidate would openly implicate herself as a leaker in order to sink another progressive candidate than it is that his oppo team saw a chance to leak a story they knew would blow back on Warren while simultaneously drawing up questions about Bernie.