2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

mb227 said:
I suspect she actually believed that the identity politics voters would show up for Fauxcahontas on Tuesday......
Click to expand...

I watched some but not all of their debates. She had openings to lay out her ideas, especially in the areas of banking, Wall Street and corporate governance. But she never did that. I think she was told not to. That, if she did, she would have no chance of winning as some of her ideas in these fields are pretty radical. These ideas, which she did lay out before she was running, were where she gained her original core supporters. By the end, it seemed like she was confused about who she was anymore and started trying to be all things to all people. It never worked. I wonder if she regrets not being true to herself now, in hindsight?
 
Mr. Deez said:
Yes, but I just had one beer with my lunch.
Click to expand...
68f36254a88ad87a34f9ecb7c2cb7547.jpg
 
UTChE96 said:
I agree her ideology is closer to Sanders but as you mentioned she has no principles. I wouldn't be surprised if she is shopping her endorsement around to the highest bidder. Let's not forget that Warren is a Democrat. She's closer to the establishment than she tries to pretend. In terms of political power, Biden can offer more than Sanders. Bernie really never learned how to play the political game which is why he got cucked the past two primaries.
Click to expand...

Biden does indeed offer more than Bernie in terms of political power. That dude wrote the book on patronage in (and around) politics.

Bernie painted himself into a corner by railing against patronage. If he gives it then his base has a WTF moment. If he doesn't then everyone flocks to Biden because he has no compunction about handing out gifts. He does it about as often as he sniffs a woman's hair.
 
Like I said, it’s about losing honorably and not hurting down ticket candidates.

 
mchammer said:
Not really. If combo of Dem and Bernie get more states combined than Dem alone, then it may go to US House for presidential election. Divide and conquer. Don’t be on same ballot in certain competitive states.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would go to the House. For that to happen, Bernie would have to actually get electoral votes. I don't see that happening even in the most Democratic states. He would draw votes away from Biden. (I think he would draw very few away from Trump.) In states that are close enough and which he drew enough votes, Trump would carry those states. The only state where he'd have a chance is maybe Vermont, and even there it would be a long shot.

But even if it went to the House, Trump would win. Remember, each state only gets to vote once. Wyoming and California get the same number of votes.
 
Monahorns said:
Also, it is not the Federal governments job to constrain local and state governments. That is not what the Constitution grants the FedGov the power to do. It is very specific and if it isn't granted specifically, then FedGov DOESN'T have that power.
Click to expand...

The problem is that we kinda did give the federal government that power at least to a point when we enacted the 14th Amendment. Giving the federal courts the power to force states to grant the equal protection of the laws and not to deny life, liberty, or property without due process of laws and far more importantly, to define what all of that means is a massive forfeiture of state power and submission to federal power.

Like I've said before, I could come up with a plausible rationale to strike down every state law in the United States through the 14th Amendment. I'm not saying I'd win. I'm saying that I could come up with a viable case to bring to court and get to a trial on the merits. Effectively, the federal judiciary has veto power over every state law. I think we've taken it even further than the Reconstruction Congress that authored the amendment intended, but even if followed as they intended, it put the federal government firmly into the driver's seat.

And of course, we insanely took it to another level when we adopted the direct election of senators and gave the federal government unlimited power to tax personal income (which of course weakened the states' abilities to raise money). I still can't believe the stupid-*** state legislators of the early 20th century were willing to self-neuter to that degree. They gave up the only checks on federal power that they had.
 
bystander said:
America Punished Elizabeth Warren for Her Competence

One of the gems in this article as to why she lost in the DEMOCRAT primary:

Kate Manne, a philosopher at Cornell University, describes misogyny as an ideology that serves, ultimately, to reinforce a patriarchal status quo. “Misogyny is the law-enforcement branch of patriarchy,” Manne argues. It rewards those who uphold the existing order of things; it punishes those who fight against it. It is perhaps the mechanism at play when a woman puts herself forward as a presidential candidate and finds her attributes—her intelligence, her experience, her compassion—understood as threats. It is perhaps that mechanism at play when a woman says, “I believe in us,” and is accused of being “self-righteous.”

So those who are against the seizure of wealth, support women who object to transwomen who compete and dominate in their sport, who are against communism and who are against extreme Liberalism are now misogynists.

Wonder why Bernie is losing...
Click to expand...

This POS article has more idiocy than one can explain. The overriding theme of it is that Warren is basically right about everything and massively competent and that voters didn't choose her because they were stupid and couldn't handle a confident woman. And of course, none of Warren's merits (of being right or of being competent) are supported by evidence or even much argument. They are just deemed established. And of course, her supposed perfection is extremely debatable. Set aside ideology. Is she more competent or successful than Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg? Hell-friggin'-no.

She was a law professor who had to fake being a Native American to get her job. Not seeing a lot of accomplishment there. Is she smart? I guess so but not by law professor standards. I had several law professors who outclass her in brains and some by a very long way. She came up with a government agency. OK, that's nice. Lots of people have done that too. We have thousands of agencies, and every one of them was thought up by somebody. She got elected to the Senate in an extremely blue state. Good for her. Lots of people have done that too.

The reality is that there is an element of the media to which she is almost genetically engineered to impress. She is far more credentialed than she is accomplished. She is well-educated and pretentious and relates very well to others who are like that and looks down on those who aren't like that. Well, that's our media. They adore her, because they are just like her.

I also notice another theme in the article that I started noticing in 2016 with regard to Hillary Clinton - it is becoming politically incorrect and taboo to have a problem with a woman's personality or demeanor or to treat them differently because of it. There's a definite push to make it so that a woman can act like a ***** and have it be unacceptable for anyone to treat her differently than if she didn't. Not sure exactly where that's heading, but it's definitely being pushed.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The biggest glass I have is "ein Maß." It's a full liter, and I only pull that out on special occasions. For example, I used it during the Trump-Clinton debates. I wanted to have a beer buzz during those entire debates.
Click to expand...
I am disgruntled that no one else had thought to post that huge beer. Hornfans is slipping, and it does not sit well with me. :cool:
 
Mr. Deez said:
This POS article has more idiocy than one can explain. The overriding theme of it is that Warren is basically right about everything and massively competent and that voters didn't choose her because they were stupid and couldn't handle a confident woman. And of course, none of Warren's merits (of being right or of being competent) are supported by evidence or even much argument. They are just deemed established. And of course, her supposed perfection is extremely debatable. Set aside ideology. Is she more competent or successful than Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg? Hell-friggin'-no.

She was a law professor who had to fake being a Native American to get her job. Not seeing a lot of accomplishment there. Is she smart? I guess so but not by law professor standards. I had several law professors who outclass her in brains and some by a very long way. She came up with a government agency. OK, that's nice. Lots of people have done that too. We have thousands of agencies, and every one of them was thought up by somebody. She got elected to the Senate in an extremely blue state. Good for her. Lots of people have done that too.

The reality is that there is an element of the media to which she is almost genetically engineered to impress. She is far more credentialed than she is accomplished. She is well-educated and pretentious and relates very well to others who are like that and looks down on those who aren't like that. Well, that's our media. They adore her, because they are just like her.

I also notice another theme in the article that I started noticing in 2016 with regard to Hillary Clinton - it is becoming politically incorrect and taboo to have a problem with a woman's personality or demeanor or to treat them differently because of it. There's a definite push to make it so that a woman can act like a ***** and have it be unacceptable for anyone to treat her differently than if she didn't. Not sure exactly where that's heading, but it's definitely being pushed.
Click to expand...

Watch that MSNBC clip where they try to deal with some simple math and their endorsement of Warren's plan begins to make more sense
 
horninchicago said:
I have actually found a great Texas barbecue place up here, believe it or not. The guy honed his craft in Lockhart and Austin.

I typically wouldn't believe it, but being you are who you are, I'll take your word for it :)

Obligatory Longhorn-Chicago deep dish pizza connection info:

Ike_Sewell
Click to expand...

I like Ike!!! My grandfather ran an insurance agency in Wills Point and my aunt and her husband ran a small grocery store. My grandparents owned a ranch there as well. Great place to go spend time in the summer when I was a kid.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I also notice another theme in the article that I started noticing in 2016 with regard to Hillary Clinton - it is becoming politically incorrect and taboo to have a problem with a woman's personality or demeanor or to treat them differently because of it. There's a definite push to make it so that a woman can act like a ***** and have it be unacceptable for anyone to treat her differently than if she didn't. Not sure exactly where that's heading, but it's definitely being pushed.
Click to expand...

It's the misogyny card. If you want to drive them crazy call them shrill. THEY HATE THAT.

They greatly resent the image of a strong deep-voiced man as being the only person who can effectively lead a group. John Wayne. Darth Vader. Ha... they can't compete with that Marlboro Man type image and it drives them crazy.
 
The pity party is in full swing...

'We persist': Elizabeth Warren says a woman will eventually become president

I say until you send us a female candidate who is not an arrogant, statist, communist, America hater then you will continue to be crushed. This pity party about losing because you're a woman is BAD for America. You are a narcissist and are assuming you are fit to run the greatest super power in the world because you have some credentials. Instead you are a cancer to our society because your focus is too narrow as virtue signaling social activist. By declaring DEMOCRATS (LOL) to be misogynist is to throw America under the bus because your personal ambitions continue to be delusional. They are not even in the realm of possibility but like a child you continue to believe in Santa Claus because you believe YOU are entitled.
 
bystander said:
The pity party is in full swing...

'We persist': Elizabeth Warren says a woman will eventually become president

I say until you send us a female candidate who is not an arrogant, statist, communist, America hater then you will continue to be crushed. This pity party about losing because you're a woman is BAD for America. You are a narcissist and are assuming you are fit to run the greatest super power in the world because you have some credentials. Instead you are a cancer to our society because your focus is too narrow as virtue signaling social activist. By declaring DEMOCRATS (LOL) to be misogynist is to throw America under the bus because your personal ambitions continue to be delusional. They are not even in the realm of possibility but like a child you continue to believe in Santa Claus because you believe YOU are entitled.
Click to expand...

Shapiro addressed some of this

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top