2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Thread starter ProdigalHorn
- Start date
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
All of his twitter commentary downplays Biden, pete, etc. He talks frequently about how the dens are unfair to Bernie. In backwards order I see Bernie, warren, Pete, Biden, klobechar as his largest threats. He cut Biden off significantly with his Ukraine stint. It really just comes down to three to four states.
Did Trump cut Biden off or was it Biden who cut himself off since he was the one who actually did something that Trump was accused of?
Plus, this would have never come to light if it weren't for the whole impeachment brought on by the Democrats. So, was it really Trump or possibly Biden or the House Democrats?
Some Democrats think that since Trump won while acting like an ******* that they can win by acting like ********. I don't think that's true. The reason why Trump's assholicness didn't sink him is that he was mostly an ******* to people who have shown flagrant contempt for American voters in critical states. Democrats can't pull that off, because they largely are those contemptuous people. They haven't figured that out yet, but it's true. I don't think Trump should do this, because he also says a price for it, but it hurts him less.
By the way, if Trump actually does eat his steak well-done, then the attack had merit. A prime filet mignon won't taste much different from a scorched round steak from Sizzler. However, it's a dumb attack. A bunch of pretentious douches in New York City will relate to it, but will a bunch of unionized blue collar workers in Wisconsin care? I doubt it.
Last edited:
I mostly agree with this, but if he's being honest, he might prefer to face Elizabeth Warren over Bernie. She is almost as radical as Bernie is, but she's easier to attack in a lot of ways. First, she's a phony, and Bernie is sincere. Second, Bernie has some blue collar appeal. Elizabeth Warren has very little, because she's over the top pretentious, more politically correct, and less likeable. Third, Warren's political instincts are terrible. Trump would have a field day. He could just hassle her all day about the Native American crap, and she'd get defensive about it and take more DNA tests. In fact, that DNA test fiasco just shows how horrendous her political instincts are. It was one of dumbest things I've ever seen a politician do.
In some ways, she's like Hillary and similarly disadvantaged. The media has been telling her for years that she's great when she very clearly is not. That has led to her making no adjustments or efforts to improve her political skills and value.
Did he really? Let's suppose the Ukraine fiasco had never happened and that Trump never had made an issue of it. Does anyone think for one second that Biden's primary opponents wouldn't have used the issue? Do you really think that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren whose campaigns were based heavily on anticorruption wouldn't have absolutely curb-stomped him on this? Of course they would have. The only reason they didn't is that they didn't want to be seen as defending or justifying Trump in the middle of an impeachment.
What I think Biden apologists have a hard time admitting is that the Hunter Biden stuff was dirty on its face and that Biden's defense was preposterous. People might be able to accept that Biden couldn't be proven guilty of violating any laws (mostly because it's damn near impossible to legally prove political sleaziness), but they weren't going to just accept that Biden didn't know anything about it or had nothing to do with it. It just wasn't plausible, and the media treating it as if it were not only plausible but conclusively established didn't simply make as big of a difference as they thought.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
For picking a president?
If so, then Alice Cooper should be president. School is out now.
I was watching MSNBC at a hotel last week to get financial news and Kramer was on doing his bit. He started talking about Bernie and went on to say, "socialist Bernie, or is a Communist"? And it wasn't stated as a question. Although there isn't much difference between the two, even the liberal media is pointing out what he really is.
You laugh but have you seen some of the tweets, FB post, and text lately? We could use some literacy fixing here in the ol'US of A.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Communists always tout literacy. It is a farce.
Look at rates of literacy growth before and after Communist revolution in the first couple of years before and after. It is going to be worse afterwards in the short term. Then the rates usually rebounds but no higher than before.
This is even with a totalitarian regime prioritizing literacy over most else with not constraint of budget or funding. Also, I would rather be free and not be able to read than a slave that can read. With capitalism, I get to be free and read. I pick that.
Look at rates of literacy growth before and after Communist revolution in the first couple of years before and after. It is going to be worse afterwards in the short term. Then the rates usually rebounds but no higher than before.
This is even with a totalitarian regime prioritizing literacy over most else with not constraint of budget or funding. Also, I would rather be free and not be able to read than a slave that can read. With capitalism, I get to be free and read. I pick that.
And even if you improve literacy, it's of little
benefit if you heavily restrict what people are allowed to read.
Last edited:
And that's part of the broader agenda to protect the revolution. They don't have a free speech and free press, because the revolution can't tolerate dissent. You have to be able to break some eggs to make an omelet, and you can't break the eggs if someone's calling you on it publicly whether he's doing it in print, on the internet, or the airwaves.
They may have elections, but they can't tolerate the possibility of losing even in the short term. Accordingly, they rig the elections. They'll have a one-party state, or if they have other parties, they'll make their subservience to the socialist or communist party a condition of their existence as some Eastern European countries did under communism.
They can't really respect civil rights and liberties, because you can't seize the means of production if the government can't act arbitrarily and summarily.
In other words, "democratic socialism" isn't really a thing, and Bernie needs to be challenged on that issue. It is a facade to make something that is totalitarian look benevolent and like it's acting with the consent of the governed.
They are right now, but if he's the nominee, they'll get behind him. I don't know that Jim Cramer will, because he doesn't hate the free market. However, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media will drop these concerns about Bernie once he's the nominee if it's a Bernie vs. Trump election. After spending the last four years in Trump freak-out mode, they're not going to help Trump get reelected.
Here's one thing that could change the game. I somewhat wonder whether or not the Democratic Party will unify around Sanders just to beat Trump. Officially they will. However, the people who write the checks (who definitely aren't socialists) may not be willing to take this lying down. It wouldn't surprise me if we have a socially moderate centrist third party candidate with real money behind him.
For example, it wouldn't shock me if Bloomberg loses the nomination to Bernie but chooses to run as an independent. If he does that, I don't think he's going to be content to just split the Democratic vote and hand the election to Trump (though I think he'd prefer that to Bernie winning). I think he'd try to build a broader coalition that includes moderate, suburban Republicans. It would not shock me if he picks someone like Mitt Romney to be his running mate and presents an centrist, Bill Clinton-style agenda.
For example, I could see him promising to reduce the deficit with a modest tax increase (to appease Democrats) but also with entitlement reform (to appeal to Republicans and frankly anyone who can do second grade math). I could see him being pro-military but also pro-immigration and pro-free trade. I could even see him making some concessions on social issues. He might promise to appoint Anthony Kennedy-style moderates to the courts. That would signal being pro-choice on abortion and generally being OK with gays but not being over-the-top of about letting the freak in a dress whip his junk out in front of your daughter while she's taking a shower or forcing the Christian baker at gunpoint to cater the gay wedding.
If that sort of ticket emerges and is viable, I could see the media really turning on Bernie. Short of that, it won't happen in the general election.
Actually it was Biden's horrible response to the Ukraine story that killed him. He did everything he could to ignore the story which resulted in Republicans shaping the narrative. Then each time someone brought it up to him, he would lose his temper and attack the person for asking the question. Couple that with his other weird antics like calling a voter fat or telling another to vote for someone else. He's just a terrible candidate.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Bernie made his wife his official "media buyer"...with a 15% commission.
He then uses political donations from college kids and low income Americans to buy ads. Thus, $100M in ads gets Bernie a $15M kickback
Is this an allegory about all socialists?
Peter Schweizer: Bernie Sanders rails about common good but public service has made him (and his family) rich
He then uses political donations from college kids and low income Americans to buy ads. Thus, $100M in ads gets Bernie a $15M kickback
Is this an allegory about all socialists?
Peter Schweizer: Bernie Sanders rails about common good but public service has made him (and his family) rich
I agree with this, but I don't think there was a good response he could have given on Ukraine. He and his son did something sleazy, even if it was legal. There is no good answer for a coke head making that kind of money in a job for which he had no experience and no qualifications other than that his dad was the Vice President of the United States. There was no way to explain it away.
The question remains of why he did something that politically stupid in the first place. I think the answer is that back when he was helping to line Hunter's pockets, he didn't expect to run for office again and therefore never have to answer for it. He knew Hillary would be the nominee to repay her for shutting up and backing the ticket after the 2008 race. He assumed she would win and seek reelection in 2020 and that his boat had sailed. Trump winning completely changed the dynamic for him. It shoved Hillary out of the way and gave him one more bite at the apple.
This book should be mandatory reading for 17-30 year olds in America. The chapter on Warren is also very revealing in how she amassed $14 million as well as enriched her daughter through TARP.
Well, he wouldn't be much of a socialist if he didn't engage in some self-dealing and some nepotism (or "nepotizz" if you're Jack Black).
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
In this light, then it was impeachment that killed him since people would not have been talking about Ukraine without it. They tripped themselves on that - europeans call it "own goal."
My sense is that Dem voters were only ever for Biden when they thought he had the best chance to beat Trump. Which was largely a result of the media telling them that, at the direction of the DNC. He has no policy stand to appeal to anyone. Ask anyone, "What does Biden stand for?" No one has an answer. I bet Biden himself would stumble to answer if asked. His entire claim is, "I was Obama's VP and I am not Trump." That is voting against something rather than for something. I have done that in the past too, you end up settling for someone you dont really like. Then it doesnt work (Bob Dole, John McCain, Willard Mitt Romney).
Dems are still desperately searching for that person. They are willing to vote for anyone, from an open commie to a soft Republican. They would vote for Bob the Wonder Carp if they thought he could beat the Trump. This is a single issue campaign on the Dem side, motivated primarily by hate.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I would prefer to see this kind of stuff not allowed.
That it is allowed is another argument in favor of billionaire elected officials.
Speaking of this, I wonder if 60 Minutes has ever looked into campaign finance issues with regard to AOC, Omar and Tlaib? Seems like a ripe issue for them and I cannot help but believe they would be all over it if it involved Rs.
Oppression is being defined living with reality. Oppression is defined as not receiving money for nothing. Oppression is defined as any white person in a position of power or accomplishment regardless of merit. Oppression is defined as enforcing our laws.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
