2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by jdandns

It's almost a patriotism kind of thing.

Weird. I figured it had more to do with what you'd been smoking.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Dielon]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I'm pretty sure the boarding station for the crazy train is right here.

Now The End Begins

To be fair, he is right. Journalism is dead, and the approval rating of corporate media is in the toilet. Soon only boomers will be reading the New York Times of watching CNN or Fox.

[jdandns]

That was a Trump quote from earlier today at Daytona, as he surveyed the Nascar crowd he undoubtedly (being a lifelong city slicker) personally despises, yet still panders to for votes. He shows up. They drag him around the track. He says some poorly chosen words. The race gets rained out.

I think somebody up there is trying to give you a sign about this unreformed heathen. Y'all just don't want to listen.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by rman112

The Iowa app people were Clinton people, btw. The idea that the DNC (which, let's be real.. was essentially the Clinton party) mucked things up in favor of her, and against Bernie, in 2016 .. but aren't doing things now, in favor of Pete, and against Bernie .. is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is the conclusion that you are reaching.

There is nothing to suggest that the errors in Iowa were anything other than poor execution.

Want to draw a shocked face? A member of an embarrassingly poor campaign 2016 was also part of a poorly executed app. That's a reasonable conclusion...ineptitude.

Of course, sowing seeds of corruption regarding the app somehow negatively affecting Sanders...but not the DNC as a whole is completely skewing the facts. Planting the seeds for distrust in the system, helps Sanders...which helps Trump.

Carry on.

There's no there there.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by discostu

What is ridiculous is the conclusion that you are reaching.

There is nothing to suggest that the errors in Iowa were anything other than poor execution.

Want to draw a shocked face? A member of an embarrassingly poor campaign 2016 was also part of a poorly executed app. That's a reasonable conclusion...ineptitude.

Of course, sowing seeds of corruption regarding the app somehow negatively affecting Sanders...but not the DNC as a whole is completely skewing the facts. Planting the seeds for distrust in the system, helps Sanders...which helps Trump.

Carry on.

There's no there there.

You didn't answer the question, though.

You said they were working against Bernie in 2016. Yes? So.. are the doing it now? Also, is there undeniable facts to show this as 100% true (2016)? Are they doing it now? If not, why would they stop?

[rman112]

The seeds of trust were planted against the DNC long ago, my friend. Long ago.

[rman112]

Not only are the connections between Buttigieg's people and the app undeniable obvious, but you also had Pete announcing his win before voting was known at all. The Des Moines Register straight up shut down their poll. How much "ineptitude" on how many levels is necessary before something is not right? Oh yeah, even after all that.. a Pete for America Organizer gets hired for the Nevada run as a Voter Protection Director. Linkedin previous work info removed after it came to light. Social media private. Nothing to see at any levels.

[ntgm37]

Originally Posted by rman112

You didn't answer the question, though.

Are you surprised?

[rman112]

I disagree on the Bernie/DNC thing as a whole, as well. This absolutely makes the DNC look bad. And Sanders is their best candidate. But that's only in theory, since they don't want him. That makes the DNC look bad.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by rman112

You didn't answer the question, though.

You said they were working against Bernie in 2016. Yes? So.. are the doing it now? Also, is there undeniable facts to show this as 100% true (2016)? Are they doing it now? If not, why would they stop?

Questions have question marks, right?

* Edit * Didn't see the isolated question.

Yes. The DNC actively worked against Sanders in 2016. And I believe they should have made it clear that if he truly wanted to join the party, he could...not simply when it benefited him during a presidential campaign.

Are they working against him now? Possibly.

Is the app failure any indication of this? No. Not at all. Every candidate and the DNC all looked incompetent. That's the story. And it's an ugly look.

Let's see what the recanvas comes up with.

Assuming anything based solely on connections in an incredibly incestuous culture is a waste of time without actual facts showing directed intent.

And again...all candidates and the DNC looked bad. Very bad. So if you think the DNC sabotaged the entire party solely to sabotage Sanders...that's...uhmm...a reach.
..

[rman112]

Let's try and look at the DNC candidates objectively.

They don't want Bernie. I'm not sure this can really be debated against at this point. So who do they back? I don't think they're stupid enough to put their efforts fully behind Biden. Warren? Definitely not. Klobuchar? Is Wang even still in it? Pete's their guy right now.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by discostu

Questions have question marks, right?

Post 1992, as well. How many times are you going skate this, while also trying to appear to stand on neither side?

[rman112]

stu .. how did you come to the conclusion that they worked against Sanders in 2016? Was this undeniable fact, or did you have to piece together some things yourself, and/or add your own opinion into it to come to that conclusion?

[discostu]

Originally Posted by rman112

stu .. how did you come to the conclusion that they worked against Sanders in 2016? Was this undeniable fact, or did you have to piece together some things yourself, and/or add your own opinion into it to come to that conclusion?

I came to the conclusion that they were working against Sanders getting the nod because of three primary reasons...

1. First and foremost, I believe that they should have worked against him. He was not and is not a member of the democrat party. He is/was an opportunist who knew he aligned closer with the dems than the GOP. He wanted to have access to the money and the equal footing with other "establishment" candidates.

2. The emails of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others highlighted what was thought of Sanders and his campaign.

3. The DNC, in choosing a milquetoast VP like Kaine, shunned 75% of the electorate who clearly wanted a more populist candidate. 50% for Trump and then the 25% from the neck in neck race with Hillary...so the DNC mindset was what? Anti-populist and therefore anti-Sanders.

So again...I believe they sabotaged Sanders in 2016 and possibly are doing similar things in 2020.

The Iowa voting app debacle however is not indicative of this bias...as it hurt everyone. Every candidate running on the platform. Cutting of their nose to spite their face seems farfetched.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by discostu

I came to the conclusion that they were working against Sanders getting the nod because of three primary reasons...

1. First and foremost, I believe that they should have worked against him. He was not and is not a member of the democrat party. He is/was an opportunist who knew he aligned closer with the dems than the GOP. He wanted to have access to the money and the equal footing with other "establishment" candidates.

2. The emails of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others highlighted what was thought of Sanders and his campaign.

3. The DNC, in choosing a milquetoast VP like Kaine, shunned 75% of the electorate who clearly wanted a more populist candidate. 50% for Trump and then the 25% from the neck in neck race with Hillary...so the DNC mindset was what? Anti-populist and therefore anti-Sanders.

So again...I believe they sabotaged Sanders in 2016 and possibly are doing similar things in 2020.

The Iowa voting app debacle however is not indicative of this bias...as it hurt everyone. Every candidate running on the platform. Cutting of their nose to spite their face seems farfetched.

I agree with you on Bernie/2016.

What I was getting at is this; Is that not a conspiracy theory?

[discostu]

Originally Posted by rman112

I agree with you on Bernie/2016.

What I was getting at is this; Is that not a conspiracy theory?

2016 has emails as hard, verifiable basis...so it's hardly a stretch to piece things together.

And look, Bernie surprises me constantly. He's been very successful selling himself as some sort of DC outsider when he's simply another career politician who happens to also be a professional curmudgeon. He's just historically gotten almost nothing done because of his professional naysaying.

He's selling something he calls "democratic socialism" when he's simply selling a social safety net.

It works for him, but I think it's the wrong pitch from an incorrect vessel. He's very much a DNC version of Trump...the DNC just isn't as welcoming as the RNC was to Trump.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by discostu

2016 has emails as hard, verifiable basis...so it's hardly a stretch to piece things together.

And look, Bernie surprises me constantly. He's been very successful selling himself as some sort of DC outsider when he's simply another career politician who happens to also be a professional curmudgeon. He's just historically gotten almost nothing done because of his professional naysaying.

He's selling something he calls "democratic socialism" when he's simply selling a social safety net.

It works for him, but I think it's the wrong pitch from an incorrect vessel. He's very much a DNC version of Trump...the DNC just isn't as welcoming as the RNC was to Trump.

Basis, or undeniable fact that what was said occured? If you have to piece things together yourself, that's a "conspiracy theory".

Bernie's full of it. But.. if they were to embrace him, he's their best shot to beat Trump. Slim? Sure. But who else has a better shot, even with full DNC backing?

[chezball]

[discostu]

Originally Posted by rman112

Basis, or undeniable fact that what was said occured? If you have to piece things together yourself, that's a "conspiracy theory".

Bernie's full of it. But.. if they were to embrace him, he's their best shot to beat Trump. Slim? Sure. But who else has a better shot, even with full DNC backing?

Bloomberg is the best shot to beat Trump...and he doesn't have to do it as the candidate.

...and the DNC doesn't want him to buy the nomination, but they'll gladly take all of the funding and ad campaigns from him to combat Trump.

Bloomberg has serious problems however when it comes to black America, so it's going to take some creativity and action to counter that.

Bloomberg would be most effective against Trump in shattering the facade Trump has built over the years...but it would be a fight that seems crazy...billionaire versus billionaire.

At the end of the day, all I want out of 2020 is an evolved multi-party system.

I don't care who wins...as long as 2024 rolls around and we're looking at 4 parties. That's my pipe dream...trending back towards the moderate middle and parties reaching across the aisles without the vitriol and insanity. Let the fringes fringe on their own.

We're far closer together than our elected officials and 24-hour information mediums have painted us.

[rman112]

I just don't see it with Bloomberg. He's Trump without a base or personality. What is his message? It's just "I'm not Trump, Trump is bad". That doesn't stand out at all. And like you said, he's got the issues with the black vote.

He could make for an interesting debate, though. They're both long time NY guys. I'm sure they have plenty of dirt on each other.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by rman112

Basis, or undeniable fact that what was said occured? If you have to piece things together yourself, that's a "conspiracy theory".

Bernie's full of it. But.. if they were to embrace him, he's their best shot to beat Trump. Slim? Sure. But who else has a better shot, even with full DNC backing?

Having to piece things together yourself isn’t a conspiracy theory. That doesn’t even make sense. Is that what these last two pages were about? Saying that the DNC, and organization that actually exists out in the open, actually has the power to control who gets the nomination regardless of popular votes, and where actual evidence exists that they did not want sanders to be the nominee, is like the Illuminati or the men in Black?

[rman112]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Having to piece things together yourself isn’t a conspiracy theory. That doesn’t even make sense. Is that what these last two pages were about? Saying that the DNC, and organization that actually exists out in the open, actually has the power to control who gets the nomination regardless of popular votes, and where actual evidence exists that they did not want sanders to be the nominee, is like the Illuminati or the men in Black?

It all really depends on what your definition of conspiracy theory is. On one hand, you have something that isn't 100% proven, but can be pieced together on your own. On the other hand, you have lizard people or the flat earth (and coverup, of course).

[Pete Schweddy]

Originally Posted by discostu

I don't care who wins...as long as 2024 rolls around and we're looking at 4 parties. That's my pipe dream...trending back towards the moderate middle and parties reaching across the aisles without the vitriol and insanity. Let the fringes fringe on their own.

We're far closer together than our elected officials and 24-hour information mediums have painted us.

Doubt it'll happen by 2024, but I'm just hoping I'll get to see a viable third party in my lifetime (I'm 43).

As a Californian, my presidential vote doesnt really matter since we all know where that's going. So I always vote for a third party candidate, just trying to get the third party turnout numbers higher. I believe though, it needs to start at the state and even local level.

[zonacats8]

Originally Posted by rman112

The Iowa app people were Clinton people, btw. The idea that the DNC (which, let's be real.. was essentially the Clinton party) mucked things up in favor of her, and against Bernie, in 2016 .. but aren't doing things now, in favor of Pete, and against Bernie .. is ridiculous.

I can’t imagine the DNC actually wanting Pete to win, I don’t think he has a chance in hell to beat Trump.

He said it in all the wrong ways, but Rush was completely right, too many people in this country are not ready to vote for an openly gay president.

I personally couldn’t care less, but there are just too many people who might hate Trump and everything about him that could NEVER bring themselves to vote for a gay guy as president and would in turn vote for Trump.

I think the country as a whole is ready and would be okay with a gay president, but too many of the votes the Dems need to swing to their side (or at minimum need to get to just not vote for Trump again) would have a serious issue with him being gay.

Just look at that one woman who was voting for Pete in Iowa and then her vitriol reaction to hearing he was gay and having no issue saying she could never vote for him now that she knows it (which by the way also shows just how uninformed many voters are nowadays, how anyone not only didn’t know he was gay but actually asked the question about why it was never talked about before is just beyond me, seeing how often it’s talked about by both Pete and others).

It’s sad, pathetic, wrong, use any word you want, but it’s an unfortunate reality I think as too many in this country are still too small minded to accept that being gay isn’t a sin.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by jdandns

So you'd prefer one that is full of lies, like the Trump one?
OK, got it.


As for tritty today, wow, he's gotta be putting us on at this point.
Well-played, sir...

You're right. I was putting you all on yesterday. On Saturday, a black SUV with New York plates and a "I Love Chappaqua" bumper sticker pulled up to my house and I was taken to the hospital. There, they took out my brain and handed me back a Democratic voter registration card.

Let me see if the indoctrination worked after the surgery.

Trump is bad. A threat to National Security. Orange man.

Pelosi, Schiff, Nader, Obama, Biden, Hillary are saints and I love them.