Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Putin's Impeachable Puppet vs The Rise of BootyWalker & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

You mean voters on the left decided who was on the ticket? I rest my case. 

 

The race on the left is wide open. 

You are aware of what thumb on the scale means right?  Not the same as 100% decided.  You don't think the DNC favored HRC over BHO?  And that they weren't trying to set her up in spite the voters apparently wanting BHO instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

You are aware of what thumb on the scale means right?  Not the same as 100% decided.  You don't think the DNC favored HRC over BHO?  And that they weren't trying to set her up in spite the voters apparently wanting BHO instead?

 

There are always thumbs on a scale in almost any race in any party. Be it party officials, individual donors, corporate donors, advocacy groups, Russia, etc almost always have a preferred candidate. In the end, voters always decide it. 

Edited by Hersh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

There are always thumbs on a scale in almost any race in any party. Be it party officials, individual donors, corporate donors, advocacy groups, Russia, etc almost always have a preferred candidate. In the end, voters always decide it. 

I doubt you and I will ever agree on how much the DNC has their thumbs on the scale.  To each their own.  How honest the primaries come across will determine a lot of independent voters.  Me included.  Pull some **** like 2016 and Trump will win again.  Up to ya'll. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, someone ALWAYS tried to "put a thumb on the scale", money or connections or dirty tricks or whatever. Personally I'd settle for knowing which thumbs and why at this point. It's those sneaky thumbs that tip the balance that you're never sure whose they are that irk me.

 

This is why I keep bangin' the same drum, IMO the single most urgent and important issue I want to see the Dems addressing is voting! Voting access for everyone, every single American should be allowed and empowered and encouraged to vote.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might go better in the vote fraud thread, but I was wondering about that. 

 

I assume the House is going to have an issue on who to seat from that district in NC. I'm wondering if maybe a House investigation into the thing might be a good idea, and might get the media to pay attention to a story that I think needs attention. 

 

Yeah, I'd really prefer for that matter to be investigated by somebody less partisan and less publicity-seeking than Congress. But (I have trouble believing that I'm actually saying this) other than the FBI, I'm not sure there's any investigator I trust more than a public investigation by Congress. 

 

And i can see the argument that Congress' constitutional authority to determine its own membership gives then the authority to investigate just how much fraud there was, and by who. 

 

(But yeah, I'm also remembering a Mark Russel line in which he observes that Jessee Helms wants Congress to take over the Elian Gonzalles matter to take the politics out of it.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FanboyOf91 said:

The horserace coverage is going to be a disaster for the Dems.

 

Only if there are sore losers that claim to believe one set of values then vote completely against those values with a vote for Trump if their candidate doesn’t win. We all know to whom I’m referring.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/24/2018 at 12:42 PM, LD0506 said:

 

 

 

Is this suggesting that the illiterate populace should rule the wealthy elite? 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Is this suggesting that the illiterate populace should rule the wealthy elite? 

 

Wow. You discerned the hidden message so succinctly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Wow. You discerned the hidden message so succinctly. 

 

 

hmm, well, i don’t think the illiterate masses should rule anything, that’s how trump got elected. Hicksville really showed up for that election. Trump loves him some poorly educated...

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the environment might be a winning issue for the Dems.  But I don;t see anybody becoming POTUS by making it his number one issue.  

 

Now, I think that if the Dems want a winning issue to be their flagship?  

 

They need somebody to claim the "fiscal conservative" flag.  Somebody who's talking points are reducing the deficit, insuring the long-term solvency of Social Security, and then go from there.  

 

Maybe I'm just projecting my personal opinions on the electorate at large, but I think there's a lot of electoral territory to claim, there.  

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Larry couldn't agree more.  dems would be surprised how effective taking something that uses to be a core Republican value and explaining how to do it responsibly will be.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do love that there is a candidate that will make climate change their most important issue. The good thing about Inslee and even Warren is that they will help the conversation on important issues which get ignored by the media as far as candidates stances on them. 

If Inslee does it right, he can connect climate change to health care, the economy and education. Make it personal 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The environmental issue is a prism through which every other must now be seen. Hell, that should've been the case 40 years ago.

 

Green jobs = economic security, American scientific and technological progress (which means more $), leadership, doing the right thing, etc.

 

If Inslee or someone can make that case to voters, it could gain traction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most overrated and underrated 2020 Democrats

 

ere's how you get a crowded presidential primary: A beatable opponent plus no clear frontrunner. With President Trump consistently unpopular, under investigation from every side, and beset by a never-ending stream of scandals — plus no Hillary Clinton to clear the field — the 2020 Democratic presidential primary is going to be a huge mess.

The dysfunctional American political system means the primary campaign has already begun. So we might as well embrace this hell world and start speculating about future events we have limited-at-best knowledge of!

 

As 2019 begins, here's my highly premature and incomplete handicap of the 2020 primary field, based off the PredictIt prices for who will win at the time of writing. As Vox explains, "The site runs a market on the 2020 race where you can buy 'stock' in any candidate, and each share you own of the candidate will pay out a value of $1 if they win the nomination." Based on those prices, writers at Vox put together a list of overrated and overrated candidates. Here are mine, in order of PredictIt prices:

 

The contenders

1. Beto O'Rourke. Cost: 19 cents. Verdict: Sell.

 

2. Joe Biden. Cost: 18 cents. Verdict: Sell.

 

3. Kamala Harris. Cost: 18 cents. Verdict: Sell.

 

4. Bernie Sanders. Cost: 15 cents. Verdict: Hold.

 

5. Amy Klobuchar. Cost: 11 cents. Verdict: Sell.

 

6. Cory Booker. Cost: 9 cents. Verdict: Hold.

 

7. Elizabeth Warren. Cost: 8 cents. Verdict: Buy.

 

8. Kirsten Gillibrand. Cost: 6 cents. Verdict: Buy.

 

The dark horses

1. Oprah. Cost: 3 cents. Verdict: Buy.

 

2. Andrew Cuomo. Cost: 1 cent. Verdict: Sell.

 

3. Mark Zuckerberg. Cost: 1 cent. Verdict: Sell.

 

4. Hillary Clinton. Cost: 1 cent. Verdict: Sell.

 

5. Michael Bloomberg. Cost: N/A. Verdict: Sell.

 

6. Richard Ojeda. Cost: N/A. Verdict: Buy.

 

Click on the link for more
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/1/2019 at 10:44 PM, Springfield said:

So it’s a hard pass on Elizabeth Warren for me bro

I campaigned for Warren when she ran for Senate. 

I've been to her speeches and I've met her.

I love Elizabeth Warren and I still dont want her to run, she's way too beatable. 

We need someone who will crush trump.

It sucks because 95 percent of it isn't her fault but it is what it is.

Edited by redskinss
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, redskinss said:

I campaigned for Warren when she ran for Senate. 

I've been to her speeches and I've met her.

I love Elizabeth Warren and I still dont want her to run, she's way too beatable. 

We need someone who will crush trump.

It sucks because 95 percent of it isn't her fault but it is what it is.

 

My knowledge of Warren is incomplete but I’ve watched her absolutely destroy a Wells Fargo executive in a senate hearing and she put forward some really ambitious but realistic policy proposals in the past few months. 

 

My question is regarding her perception- why do people dislike her and why is she viewed as easily beatable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

My question is regarding her perception- why do people dislike her and why is she viewed as easily beatable?

 

1. She's a woman

2. She's a powerful woman who is knowledgeable and speaks her mind.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

 

 

My question is regarding her perception- why do people dislike her and why is she viewed as easily beatable?

 

Her positions are too liberal for a nationwide election and she lacks a dynamic personality is the general theme.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

1. She's a woman

2. She's a powerful woman who is knowledgeable and speaks her mind.

2 hours.

 

That is the answer to my question "how long until LSF comes in and blames it on gender instead of her overly liberal policy positions?"

 

Gotta admit it took longer than expected. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.