Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

88Comrade2000

By 88Comrade2000
in The Tailgate

TK
Message added by TK,

 

Recommended Posts

tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Ok, they are ambitious, hard chance of passing Congress, but constantly reiterating that people like Bernie are trying to get voters by giving them free stuff, she might as well be reading the same talking points as Fox on that one, shes doing their work for them instead of having an honest conversation on why those proposals are in the table in the first place. 

Seems bogus. I've listened to her explain why those proposals exist, and why she thinks there's a better way to deal with those problems.

 

She's not progressive enough so she's using Fox talking points? ...

 

 

1 minute ago, Destino said:

I just wanted to pop in and say that Booker and Castro making the failure of Kamala Harris’ campaign somehow evidence of racism, is disappointing.

Yet not in any way surprising.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Destino said:

They also criticize the party for potentially lacking diversity

I listened to some NPR hosts go on about this yesterday (I think?) and it was very much eyerollworthy stuff.

 

Because the remaining candidates are white, they weren't interested any longer.  And obviously they feel as though there's some injustice against them that caused this, and are outraged.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, tshile said:

I listened to some NPR hosts go on about this yesterday (I think?) and it was very much eyerollworthy stuff.

 

Because the remaining candidates are white, they weren't interested any longer.  And obviously they feel as though there's some injustice against them that caused this, and are outraged.

 


You know what, I’m buying into this.  I’m only interested in voting for hispanics, because I am Hispanic.  Male preferably, as I am male.  In fact, why stop there?  I want a straight catholic hispanic male candidate that has at least one child.  I’m just not interested in anyone else because they can’t understand or represent me.  So Julián Castro, who i think is kind of an ass, gets my support by default.  Nice to have this settled.
 

And I’m doing this because I stand for justice!  

 

(the future is stupid)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
No Excuses

No Excuses

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Destino said:

(the future is stupid)

 

Is it? Or is our national conversation warped by social media dunking points and retweets?

 

To me it seems like you can't win the Dem nomination without the support of minorities, and minorities seem to be backing either Biden or Warren/Sanders/Buttigieg, depending on the age groups.

 

There's a small segment of the Dem base that thinks everything bad is racism but I don't think they are hugely influential and I don't think their thinking dominates our politics. It's more visible just like the loud, drunk asshole is more visible than the people quietly minding their own business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Destino said:


You know what, I’m buying into this.  I’m only interested in voting for hispanics, because I am Hispanic.  Male preferably, as I am male.  In fact, why stop there?  I want a straight catholic hispanic male candidate that has at least one child.  I’m just not interested in anyone else because they can’t understand or represent me.  So Julián Castro, who i think is kind of an ass, gets my support by default.  Nice to have this settled.
 

And I’m doing this because I stand for justice!  

 

(the future is stupid)

 

Straight white atheist male with a drinking problem for me.  :pint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tshile said:

Seems bogus. I've listened to her explain why those proposals exist, and why she thinks there's a better way to deal with those problems.

 

She's not progressive enough so she's using Fox talking points? ...

 

This is the problem with the debates, I've seen her talk a couple times, that's why I say she seems cool. But when shes on the debate stage, she is exactly what I described.  When on the biggest stage, that's how she addresses progressive programs, so that's what she wants to make sure people see, then tone down in the face to face interviews.  That's bogus.

 

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Yet not in any way surprising.

 

 

They should jus drop out before they say that on stage and it backfires horribly.  Obama was a good candidate who happened to be black, these are bad candidates that happen to be minorities.  Harris ruined herself, Castro sucks, and no one wants Booker to be President. Them being white wouldnt change that either, I hate this.

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I listened to some NPR hosts go on about this yesterday (I think?) and it was very much eyerollworthy stuff.

 

Because the remaining candidates are white, they weren't interested any longer.  And obviously they feel as though there's some injustice against them that caused this, and are outraged.

 

 

After having the first black president they the Dems are back to being racist?  This is the exact same cannibalism he warned about with this election cycle.  Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

I was listening to an interview with Willie Brown (former mayor of SF) on the radio the other day and he said Kamala Harris made a huge tactical mistake moving her campaign HQ from CA to Baltimore, in essence removing all her campaign staff away from their families.  He said it makes a lot more sense to build your campaign and support from your own district in your state.  Build it up, garner the numbers first before even thinking about moving your entire operation across the country. 

1 minute ago, nonniey said:

Only for the historically illiterate of the partisan left variety. 

 

Obviously the meme is an oversimplification of the policy, but trickle down has been a major part of every GOP President's agenda since Reagan, and it has given more money to wealthy people at the expense of everyone else, with the added bonus of doing nothing else it promised to do. So overall, accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Momma There Goes That Man

Momma There Goes That Man

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Only for the historically illiterate of the partisan left variety. 

 

If you have a problem with Republican presidents being remembered for their tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, particularly at the expense of those less fortunate, then maybe you shouldn't have been voting them into office all this time. 

 

As the Cornelius Brothers and Sister Rose once said, its too late to turn back now. 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

If you have a problem with Republican presidents being remembered for their tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, particularly at the expense of those less fortunate, then maybe you shouldn't have been voting them into office all this time. 

 

As the Cornelius Brothers and Sister Rose once said, its too late to turn back now. 

.

 

Next thing we will be told is how Reagan & Bush were isolationists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

Is it? Or is our national conversation warped by social media dunking points and retweets?

Fair point, the media does seem to pretend that tweets are poll data. 

 

Quote

There's a small segment of the Dem base that thinks everything bad is racism but I don't think they are hugely influential and I don't think their thinking dominates our politics. It's more visible just like the loud, drunk asshole is more visible than the people quietly minding their own business.

The noisy periphery can normalize their ranting these days though precisely because they are able to be so loud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

@Renegade7 that’s fair, I actually haven’t watched the debates. The debates come across to me as a joke (for entertainment only) when they’re in this format (this many candidates over multiple nights)

 

i refuse to contribute to their ratings game. 
 

I should have factored that into what you were saying. I’ve not seen the debate side of any of the candidates except clips that get posted (and even then only a fraction of them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forehead

Forehead

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This is the problem with the debates, I've seen her talk a couple times, that's why I say she seems cool. But when shes on the debate stage, she is exactly what I described.  When on the biggest stage, that's how she addresses progressive programs, so that's what she wants to make sure people see, then tone down in the face to face interviews.  That's bogus.

 

I mean, you're allowed to be a Democrat and not agree with the Warren/Sanders wing.  It gets you some flack, but there's nothing wrong with the fact that she doesn't agree with them.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Klobuchar the first one to really go after Warren (maybe besides Gabbard) about how she was going to pay for all these ideas, and that was the start of Warren's poll numbers shrinking?

 

I agree she's better in interviews, and I'd agree she needs to tone down the "zingers."  I guess she's trying to appear cool, and part of it I'd chalk up to there being so many candidates that she's trying to make her few moments to speak memorable to some degree.  We're a week out from the December qualification deadline and only six candidates will be on stage, so far anyway.  Maybe that will help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Forehead said:

 

I mean, you're allowed to be a Democrat and not agree with the Warren/Sanders wing.  It gets you some flack, but there's nothing wrong with the fact that she doesn't agree with them.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Klobuchar the first one to really go after Warren (maybe besides Gabbard) about how she was going to pay for all these ideas, and that was the start of Warren's poll numbers shrinking?

 

I'd say it was Pete who did the most damage concerning how to pay for it, then Klobuchar smelling bleed started doubling down on the fantasy land talk.  Theres nothing wrong with disagreeing, but that's not what they are doing.  Warren screwed herself by listening to the noise, same mistake Harris made.

 

6 minutes ago, Forehead said:

I agree she's better in interviews, and I'd agree she needs to tone down the "zingers."  I guess she's trying to appear cool, and part of it I'd chalk up to there being so many candidates that she's trying to make her few moments to speak memorable to some degree.  We're a week out from the December qualification deadline and only six candidates will be on stage, so far anyway.  Maybe that will help.

 

I dont care what the reason is, they all have to stop saying one thing on the debate stage then something different in individual interviews.  Someone mentioned the French format where Macron and LaPen got to sit down together for hours and it was more like a conversation then demand for 15 second sound bites. 

 

I think the debate format only works once we are talking presidential and theres only two candidates after seeing this nonsense. This doesnt work when you are trying to get to know multiple different candidates at the same time.  It could, but not when run by TV networks that need ratings.  The debates should only be on PBS from now on, but they'll never do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...