2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Thread starter ProdigalHorn
- Start date
Why on God's green earth would you give CNN your eyeballs and Neilsen rating?
Did they really poll 356 people and are extrapolating from that minuscule number?
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
There are some people for whom even positive media coverage is negative, because every time you hear those people speak it's a reminder of how off-putting they are.
I think in general, "Me Too" politicians don't come across well, and I've always felt like those two fit that bill pretty well. They give off an aura of almost desperation to be leaders, and it shows in the way they try and pander to people.
That is especially true of Booker. His "Spartacus Moment" epitomized it. He thought he would look like a guy making a courageous stand. Instead, he looked like a self-promoting clown even to people who agreed with him about Kavanaugh. The inauthentic sanctimony is very strong with him.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
What I see is white liberal media types slobbering over the likes of Beto and Buttgag while they ignore Castro.
Is there any way to explain this other than the obvious?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Would it surpise anyone to learn that "self avowed Socialist" Bernie Sanders donated less than 1% of his income to charity?
He's a fraud. They are all frauds
Bernie Sanders Donated Less Than One Percent To Charity First Year He Made Over $1 Million - The Daily Caller
He's a fraud. They are all frauds
Sanders released 10 years of tax returns Monday, revealing that he earned an average of $280,975 per year from 2009 through 2015, and that his income skyrocketed to $1,062,626 in 2016 .....
Sanders reported $10,600 in charitable contributions in 2016, making up slightly less than one percent of his reported income and falling under the $21,365 average charitable contribution for Americans who earned $250,000 or more that year, according to the latest available IRS data.
Sanders reported $10,600 in charitable contributions in 2016, making up slightly less than one percent of his reported income and falling under the $21,365 average charitable contribution for Americans who earned $250,000 or more that year, according to the latest available IRS data.
Bernie Sanders Donated Less Than One Percent To Charity First Year He Made Over $1 Million - The Daily Caller
But he seems to be perfectly willing to take our money to support his favorite causes!
I found it more ironic that during the Town Hall, Bernie made the point about capitalism.
When asked about how he was a millionaire now, he bragged about his best selling book, and told the audience, "if you want to be a millionaire, you can write a best selling book, too".
Doesn't sound like socialism to me. They are all hypocrites.
When asked about how he was a millionaire now, he bragged about his best selling book, and told the audience, "if you want to be a millionaire, you can write a best selling book, too".
Doesn't sound like socialism to me. They are all hypocrites.
Beta was even stingier.
"The filings show the couple had given $1,166 to charity in 2017 despite having a combined income of $370,412, which calculates to roughly one-third of 1 percent of their income. According to The Washington Post’s James Hohmann, that places O’Rourke last among the 2020 candidates competing in the Democratic primaries."
Beta's response?
He does his best to give back to communities, but noted that some of the ways he gives back are “immeasurable.”
“I’ve served in public office since 2005. I do my best to contribute to the success of my community, of my state, and now, of my country. There are ways that I do this that are measurable and there are ways that I do this that are immeasurable. There are charities that we donate to that we’ve recorded and itemized, others that we have donated to that we have not.
He went on to suggest that his attendance at that town hall, being away from his family, was itself a charitable act.
“I’m doing everything that I can right now, spending this time with you -- not with our kiddos, not back home in El Paso -- because I want to sacrifice everything to make sure that we meet this moment of truth with everything that we’ve got,” O’Rourke told the student.
Turn out the lights, the party is over for Beta.
"The filings show the couple had given $1,166 to charity in 2017 despite having a combined income of $370,412, which calculates to roughly one-third of 1 percent of their income. According to The Washington Post’s James Hohmann, that places O’Rourke last among the 2020 candidates competing in the Democratic primaries."
Beta's response?
He does his best to give back to communities, but noted that some of the ways he gives back are “immeasurable.”
“I’ve served in public office since 2005. I do my best to contribute to the success of my community, of my state, and now, of my country. There are ways that I do this that are measurable and there are ways that I do this that are immeasurable. There are charities that we donate to that we’ve recorded and itemized, others that we have donated to that we have not.
He went on to suggest that his attendance at that town hall, being away from his family, was itself a charitable act.
“I’m doing everything that I can right now, spending this time with you -- not with our kiddos, not back home in El Paso -- because I want to sacrifice everything to make sure that we meet this moment of truth with everything that we’ve got,” O’Rourke told the student.
Turn out the lights, the party is over for Beta.
Butt guy not close to winning nomination
I don't think he'll do that. Trump has been careful on the LGBT front. He isn't a fan of the "T" portion for pretty obvious reasons to most sensible people (including our favorite lesbian). However, he hasn't been particularly hostile to the gay community. He doesn't virtue signal to them a lot like Democrats do, but he has left them alone. He'll come up with a nickname, but I don't think it'll involve Pete Buttigeig's orientation.
That may be so, but(t)... If butt man turns out to be Trump's opponent, Trump will pull out all the stops--or should I say pull out all the butt plugs. He will stop at nothing to be re-elected.
Last edited:
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Tucker Carlson and others pronounce Beto's campaign dead of fatal dose of Buttigieg. They also mention that Beto doesn't actually seem to stand for anything. He just parrots the Left's current catch phrase. Duh!
Meanwhile, Ann Coulter says she could not only support, but even work for Bernie Sanders if he would go back to his 2007 stance on immigration! Back then his stance was zero immigration because it was driving down wages for blue collar workers.
Ann is a one issue girl. She feels betrayed by Trump.
Meanwhile, Ann Coulter says she could not only support, but even work for Bernie Sanders if he would go back to his 2007 stance on immigration! Back then his stance was zero immigration because it was driving down wages for blue collar workers.
Ann is a one issue girl. She feels betrayed by Trump.
"Back then his stance was zero immigration because it was driving down wages for blue collar workers."
Not necessarily zero immigration, but not much immigration was the traditional stance of the vast majority of the Democratic Party for generations: FDR, Truman, Cesar Chavez, Carter, Mondale, Clinton, and most of the over-60 Democrats in the Senate and House today until very, very recently. They recognized the economic reality of the blue collar labor market, and supported the interests of blue collar workers.
Most Reaganites, on the other hand, supported lots of immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens (or at least looking the other way and not enforcing the law), to ensure a glut of low skilled labor to keep labor costs down and business profits up. This was in-line with U. of Chicago thinking. Buchanan and his wing of the GOP (of whom Trump is the current GOP manifestation) were outliers back then.
Not necessarily zero immigration, but not much immigration was the traditional stance of the vast majority of the Democratic Party for generations: FDR, Truman, Cesar Chavez, Carter, Mondale, Clinton, and most of the over-60 Democrats in the Senate and House today until very, very recently. They recognized the economic reality of the blue collar labor market, and supported the interests of blue collar workers.
Most Reaganites, on the other hand, supported lots of immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens (or at least looking the other way and not enforcing the law), to ensure a glut of low skilled labor to keep labor costs down and business profits up. This was in-line with U. of Chicago thinking. Buchanan and his wing of the GOP (of whom Trump is the current GOP manifestation) were outliers back then.
Last edited:
I don't think I agree with this. How are you defining "Reaganite"? Because I would call myself one but I do not support illegal *anything*, much less illegal immigration.
That's easy, first look to Reagan himself to see what Reaganites believed and did. A loose immigration policy and amnesty for illegal aliens was exactly what Ronald Reagan and his administration did. In 1986 Reagan granted amnesty to approx. 3 million illegal aliens and permitted them to seek citizenship (sponsored by Senator Simpson (R. Wyo.) often referred to as the "Reagan Amnesty").
Then Reagan issued an executive order in 1987 giving a blanket deferral of deporting illegal minors living in a household with illegal parents who got amnesty and were legalizing. This executive order affected 100,000 families.
Also look at Jack Kemp, Sen. Simpson,
"The 1980s saw the highest rate of immigration to the United States since the 1910s, and the proportion of the foreign-born population reached its highest level since the 1940s."
Check out the video clip below from a Reagan vs. G.W. Bush debate:
A chamber-of-commerce attitude towards immigration prevailed in the GOP in the '80s. Buchanan and his followers were outliers in the GOP of that era (on this issue, but not on abortion, cutting welfare, etc.).
A cynical person could look at the GOP's evolution of attitudes toward immigration (including illegal immigration) from Reagan to now and explain it as follows:
Reagan and his GOP wanted huge numbers of incoming laborers to cause a labor glut to bust the unions. Once the unions were effectively busted, and apparently too weak to ever come back in force (in the private sector at least), then the GOP was free to shift towards more of a Buchanan/Trump position on immigration--a position more in line with the views of the rank-and-file GOP voter who was not a business owner.
Reagan and his GOP wanted huge numbers of incoming laborers to cause a labor glut to bust the unions. Once the unions were effectively busted, and apparently too weak to ever come back in force (in the private sector at least), then the GOP was free to shift towards more of a Buchanan/Trump position on immigration--a position more in line with the views of the rank-and-file GOP voter who was not a business owner.
But why let something trivial like that get in the way of Chop making crap up about Trump.
What happened, as I recall, was that Reagan went along with the amnesty thing for illegals already here in return for stricter border control. After amnesty was granted, the Dems reneged on the border control part. So Reagan got suckered I must admit.
He'll stop at nothing to be reelected, but I don't think he'd view sodomy references as helping him get reelected.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
