Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:09 pm Post subject:
vanexelent wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Am I crazy to think guys like Bernie and Yang actually have a favorable standing among some Republican voters?
Yang yes, Bernie more as a "we'd like him to win the primary please" candidate.
I mean when Bernie did that Fox News town hall, he was welcomed with applause for his views on health care and that's essentially the most socialist proposal the Dems have, outside of Yang literally giving people free money.
Dear young people & non-voters: Voting is the duty and privilege of every American. The people who run for office don't have a "duty" to entertain you or inspire you or cater to you. This is not American Idol. They have a responsibility to communicate their experience, beliefs, ideas, policies and plans. And as a citizen your job is to the choose the candidate whose overall thinking more closely matches your own. If they inspire you, that's a bonus because we don't really have many of those.
For non-Republicans: If you love Bernie (or Warren) and they aren't on the ticket, here's a massive spoiler alert: the Democratic candidate no matter how "moderate" or "centrist" or "corporate" will always be more aligned with your thinking than Trump (or any Republican).
And those are the two choices -- someone who will pass some polices that you want versus someone won't pass any policy that you like. And that's not even including kids in cages and corruption at every level of this administration, more right-wing judges and speeding up climate change, dirty water and polluted air with every rollback of progress made in the last 50 years.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52666 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:37 pm Post subject:
ChefLinda wrote:
This is not hard.
And yet some people insist on making it so. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
No matter which Democrat wins, they will try to make sure more Americans have better and more affordable healthcare. They will either expand on the ACA or work to make Universal health care available.
But here's what you will get by staying home or voting third-party and then Trump wins:
Quote:
Adam Schiff @RepAdamSchiff
Trump just tweeted:
“I stand stronger than anyone in protecting your Healthcare with Pre- Existing Conditions.”
How absurd.
His Administration is in court—right now—trying to repeal the entire ACA, including protections for pre-existing conditions.
No one is fooled.
Trump and Republicans will lie and tell you they will protect your healthcare while they are literally stabbing you in the back and making sure you have worse or no healthcare.
So even a "moderate" Democrat is better for your health than Trump.
The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren met at Warren's apartment in Washington, DC, one evening in December 2018. The longtime friends knew that they could soon be running against each other for president.
The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement. They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters.
Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.
Quote:
After publication of this story, Warren herself backed up this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement Monday, "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed."
That evening in 2018, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.
Sanders denied the characterization of the meeting in a statement to CNN.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."
Quote:
The Massachusetts senator said in a statement that during the two-hour meeting to discuss the 2020 election, “among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
“I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry,” Warren continued. “I’m in this race to talk about what’s broken in this country and how to fix it -- and that’s what I’m going to continue to do. I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason. We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people.”
There are four main candidates with enough money and support to go all the way to the convention. I'm afraid it'll get really ugly. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
There are four main candidates with enough money and support to go all the way to the convention. I'm afraid it'll get really ugly.
I've thought for a long time that Sanders had a sexism problem. So I'm not surprised. Is it ugly that it's coming out so explicitly or ugly that my thoughts were accurate? No need to answer. As a feminist writer on twitter said, "Internalized misogyny, is still misogyny."
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:40 pm Post subject:
Apparently Pelosi’s gambit is working. Several GOP senators are apparently unwilling to go along with McConnell’s plan a of dismissing the impeachment on arrival, and his plan b of denying witnesses. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:47 pm Post subject:
On one level, I don’t disagree with Bernie’s negativity about a woman’s chances in a presidential election. A woman I dated years ago once told me that we’d elect a black man before a white woman. Her reasoning is that white men could stomach that better. There’s some truth to that still. Hillary lost in part due to that sexism. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Right after the election I said a big part of the loss was due to sexism (and racism - Obama backlash) and 90% of the people in this thread told me sexism had nothing to do with it. And that included the progressive men.
Acknowledging sexism and having a discussion about factoring that into a strategy to run for president is different then proclaiming a woman can't win. It's one thing to say it would be more difficult for a woman to win, it's another thing to tell Warren in effect, I don't believe you can win. That's awful. You can't really spin that.
Hillary won the popular vote, lost the electoral college. Hillary had to fight Russian interference, Comey, 40 years of Clinton derangement syndrome.
Many people want to take all that to mean "a woman can't win." But I think that's the wrong conclusion.
But of course the Democratic voter turnout will have to overcompensate in order to lessen the impact of sexism. And Trumpism. We need a Democratic wave no matter who the candidate is. 2016 mid-terms busted through a lot of sexism. In that election suburban women effectively outvoted rural men. The electoral college complicates that but doesn't completely nullify it.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:32 pm Post subject:
I disagree that a woman can’t win. I agree that it’s an unfair uphill battle. But it will be interesting to see him in the debates on the issue. Nuance isn’t his strong suit. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52666 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:33 pm Post subject:
Of course a woman can win. AS even Bernie said, one won the Popular Vote in '16. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Right after the election I said a big part of the loss was due to sexism (and racism - Obama backlash) and 90% of the people in this thread told me sexism had nothing to do with it. And that included the progressive men.
Acknowledging sexism and having a discussion about factoring that into a strategy to run for president is different then proclaiming a woman can't win. It's one thing to say it would be more difficult for a woman to win, it's another thing to tell Warren in effect, I don't believe you can win. That's awful. You can't really spin that.
Hillary won the popular vote, lost the electoral college. Hillary had to fight Russian interference, Comey, 40 years of Clinton derangement syndrome.
Many people want to take all that to mean "a woman can't win." But I think that's the wrong conclusion.
But of course the Democratic voter turnout will have to overcompensate in order to lessen the impact of sexism. And Trumpism. We need a Democratic wave no matter who the candidate is. 2016 mid-terms busted through a lot of sexism. In that election suburban women effectively outvoted rural men. The electoral college complicates that but doesn't completely nullify it.
Sexism is a huge issue, and we can't expect it to go away while Trump is in office. The criticism the women's march got was insane. There is no doubt in my mind that a majority of the Trump supporters I know in my personal life harbor sexist believes. No doubt. I wish that were their only "ist," since it seems like they have hate for some group. The alarming thing is that I see sexism even from the female Trump supporters.
Hillary is far less emotional than Trump. We have seen her be poised for 40 years, and yet she still gets her character questioned. Trump acts like a child almost as soon as he started getting scrutiny. Any claims that she is emotional don't seem to have any logical basis, or foothold on reality.
Having said that. The Russians are rubbing their greedy little palms over this alleged comment. They want to sow as much malcontent with the democratic party. They want Dem's to stay home, and the way that gets accomplished is when voters feel disenfranchised by whomever wins the primary.
If women stay home because of Bernie's perceived sexism, if Bernie were to win the election, and don't show up with that commanding 15 point lead we saw in 2016 then we will see Trump get re-elected.
Bernie backers may feel the allegation will be what cost Bernie his chance, if he doesn't win the primary, and may not show up to the polls. Which is huge because the presidency is not the only thing at stake here.
Which is the worst case scenario over any democrat, lets be real.
Either way just show up, we need an adult in the white house. We need a state department, this has gone on way too long.
The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren met at Warren's apartment in Washington, DC, one evening in December 2018. The longtime friends knew that they could soon be running against each other for president.
The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement. They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters.
Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.
Quote:
After publication of this story, Warren herself backed up this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement Monday, "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed."
That evening in 2018, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.
Sanders denied the characterization of the meeting in a statement to CNN.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."
Quote:
The Massachusetts senator said in a statement that during the two-hour meeting to discuss the 2020 election, “among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
“I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry,” Warren continued. “I’m in this race to talk about what’s broken in this country and how to fix it -- and that’s what I’m going to continue to do. I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason. We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people.”
Here is what Bernie said in 1988: "The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man, in my view, a woman could be elected POTUS, the real issue is are you on the side of workers & poor people, or are you on the side of big money and corporations?"
This is such an obvious hit piece. An unattributed, anonymously claimed years old insult that surfaces right before a debate and as Bernie is surging in the polls. Feels like someone is actively trying to divide progressives.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:25 pm Post subject:
Wait. So NOW you believe there might be forces out there sewing division? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren met at Warren's apartment in Washington, DC, one evening in December 2018. The longtime friends knew that they could soon be running against each other for president.
The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement. They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters.
Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.
Quote:
After publication of this story, Warren herself backed up this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement Monday, "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed."
That evening in 2018, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.
Sanders denied the characterization of the meeting in a statement to CNN.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."
Quote:
The Massachusetts senator said in a statement that during the two-hour meeting to discuss the 2020 election, “among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
“I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry,” Warren continued. “I’m in this race to talk about what’s broken in this country and how to fix it -- and that’s what I’m going to continue to do. I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason. We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people.”
Here is what Bernie said in 1988: "The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man, in my view, a woman could be elected POTUS, the real issue is are you on the side of workers & poor people, or are you on the side of big money and corporations?"
This is such an obvious hit piece. An unattributed, anonymously claimed years old insult that surfaces right before a debate and as Bernie is surging in the polls. Feels like someone is actively trying to divide progressives.
Warren's campaign is the source for this. I do think think the media would love to start a war between the two progressive camps, but that's not what this is. It's payback for her supposed "trashing" by Bernie's volunteers, even though they were just stating empirical facts in the polling data (Bernie's supporters also have less money and education -- that's not trashing, that's a fact), and a bit of an act of desperation. Her campaign needed a boost, and the identity politics card is probably her only play with the progressive vote mostly consolidating around Bernie.
I don't actually mind them going after each other on substantive issues (policy, leadership, vision). There are real differences there, and there's a danger in being so unified that voters get the mistaken impression that they're the same, but this is just silliness. Some perceived slight during a dinner conversation from a 78-year old man who spoke too bluntly. I can't imagine him losing a single vote because of this. Anyone who's moved by this junk was never going to vote for him anyway.
Last edited by greenfrog on Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 5234 Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:27 am Post subject:
California's new gig law means that Uber will show a price range instead of fixed amount before your ride, your total charge will be decided after you're dropped off
Joined: 07 May 2014 Posts: 13823 Location: Boulder ;)
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:03 am Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
Wait. So NOW you believe there might be forces out there sewing division?
''THIS
Our media is pro Billionaire.
Allegiance to the ownership/CIA/the societal change they wish to condition us to.
Even the pictures they choose are worth more than a thousand words.. I've seen more Bernie leaned over when speaking pics lately. *So I question his health?
*Fwiw, Democrats will have a Bernie/AOC ticket. Get ready. Or would his health not allow an inexperienced Latina female as his VP?
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52666 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:34 am Post subject:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Wait. So NOW you believe there might be forces out there sewing division?
I never said there weren’t.
Sure you have. You're just conveniently selective in where you acknowledge it occurs.
To be fair though, I think it is questionable that CL denounces people for posting anti-Biden pieces and then posts something like that Bernie piece. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 12 Feb 2002 Posts: 3829 Location: South Orange County
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:54 am Post subject:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Wait. So NOW you believe there might be forces out there sewing division?
I never said there weren’t.
Sure you have. You're just conveniently selective in where you acknowledge it occurs.
To be fair though, I think it is questionable that CL denounces people for posting anti-Biden pieces and then posts something like that Bernie piece.
No, I haven’t. I’ve posted negative things about Biden (his creepy behavior around females, the issue with Hunter Biden...long before it became a mainstream rallying cry by Trump I might add), not because I don’t believe that it doesn’t occur, but precisely because I believe it does occur, and I wanted people here to understand what they were walking into by selecting him as their candidate. In my opinion, Biden has always been the most vulnerable of our leading candidates for these types of attacks.
Am I crazy to think guys like Bernie and Yang actually have a favorable standing among some Republican voters?
Yang yes, Bernie more as a "we'd like him to win the primary please" candidate.
I mean when Bernie did that Fox News town hall, he was welcomed with applause for his views on health care and that's essentially the most socialist proposal the Dems have, outside of Yang literally giving people free money.
Yep, it's all in how the question is framed. But because Republicans are so racist, they just can't let go of the idea of some imaginary illegal immigrant getting health care, as if that would be the standard. They'd rather burn the entire system down than allow such a horrid thing as helping someone that isn't white.
Republicans have always been hypocritical when it comes to rule of law. Same goes with the old "small government" lie. They want small government when it concerns their pocket book. But they want HIUGE government when it comes to things restricting the rights of others. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52666 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:44 am Post subject:
Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Wait. So NOW you believe there might be forces out there sewing division?
I never said there weren’t.
Sure you have. You're just conveniently selective in where you acknowledge it occurs.
To be fair though, I think it is questionable that CL denounces people for posting anti-Biden pieces and then posts something like that Bernie piece.
No, I haven’t. I’ve posted negative things about Biden (his creepy behavior around females, the issue with Hunter Biden...long before it became a mainstream rallying cry by Trump I might add), not because I don’t believe that it doesn’t occur, but precisely because I believe it does occur, and I wanted people here to understand what they were walking into by selecting him as their candidate. In my opinion, Biden has always been the most vulnerable of our leading candidates for these types of attacks.
I'm referring to Russian interference in regards to Gabbard. As for the "Creepy Joe" stuff, it has been so overblown and misrepresented and it's insulting that you pretend you just post it so that "people know the vulnerability". _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
