I think these are a bunch of Wall-Street Democrats who are being dishonest about what really terrifies them. It is not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren losing; it is Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren winning.Sabin wrote:Meanwhile, the other end of the aisle is so terrified of their prospects they are trying to enlist Hillary Clinton to run again.
Campaign 2020
Re: Campaign 2020
Re: Campaign 2020
Meanwhile, the other end of the aisle is so terrified of their prospects they are trying to enlist Hillary Clinton to run again.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... 0.amp.html
My biggest takeaway is this: these people are out of touch. These are insiders ranging from Connie Schultz to John Kerry, and they all STILL seem to think that their best shot at beating Donald Trump is Joe Biden. I understand thinking that a few months ago. Who can think that today after watching these debate performances? Who thinks this man is capable of taking on Donald Trump? I don’t, and I don’t want future generations to read their debate transcripts either.
But Hillary Clinton? Again? Or Mike Bloomberg?
Perhaps what’s happening right now in the Democratic Party is akin to the GOP 1964, when the Eastern Establishment awakened too late in the convention to realize they had lost their grip on the party, that there were no phone calls to make to swing it to Rockefeller, that he was too damaged, and that there was no white knight to jump in at the last moment to save them from the Goldwaterites. We know how that election turned out... but we also know it was the motivating energy behind the party for the next fifty years.
Or perhaps what’s happening now is it’s just a Democratic primary.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... 0.amp.html
My biggest takeaway is this: these people are out of touch. These are insiders ranging from Connie Schultz to John Kerry, and they all STILL seem to think that their best shot at beating Donald Trump is Joe Biden. I understand thinking that a few months ago. Who can think that today after watching these debate performances? Who thinks this man is capable of taking on Donald Trump? I don’t, and I don’t want future generations to read their debate transcripts either.
But Hillary Clinton? Again? Or Mike Bloomberg?
Perhaps what’s happening right now in the Democratic Party is akin to the GOP 1964, when the Eastern Establishment awakened too late in the convention to realize they had lost their grip on the party, that there were no phone calls to make to swing it to Rockefeller, that he was too damaged, and that there was no white knight to jump in at the last moment to save them from the Goldwaterites. We know how that election turned out... but we also know it was the motivating energy behind the party for the next fifty years.
Or perhaps what’s happening now is it’s just a Democratic primary.
"How's the despair?"
- Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Campaign 2020
Quoting a comment someone left below the editorial the New York Times is publishing tomorrow about William Taylor's testimony:
It's all going to come out now. All of it. Impeachment is a given, and even if Trump survives removal from office, his presidency and his legacy is ruined.The only difference between the Ukraine revelations and the earlier Russia inquiry is that in this case the facts have come out. The president has been unable to obstruct justice. That's progress.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
- Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Campaign 2020
Clinton may very well have meant the latter definition, but I think it more likely she meant the first, not in any sincere way but more as a put-down. In any event, I wish she would stop muddying the waters on this one. "Asset" is a little too close to "agent", and either way "Russian asset/agent" is getting to be like the right wing's "fake news". As these accusations accumulate, some people are unable to tell the proverbial from the literal or the jokes from the earnest suspicions. Plus, the only focus should be on Trump. Jill Stein is irrelevant, and Tulsi Gabbard should be likewise, and if her popularity increases even by a little as a net effect of the attention given her, then we've proven that we've learned nothing.Big Magilla wrote:The word "asset" has two meanings.
The meaning that most people think of when they hear the word is something of value that is owned and controlled. If that's what Clinton is saying, it's unproven. That, however, is the second dictionary meaning. The first meaning, though, is something Gabbard, like Jill Stein, could very well be. That is," a useful valuable thing, person, or quality", something or someone who will take votes away from the party's candidate.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
- OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
I doubt she'll run third party. It's all rhetoric. She's a small time politician from a tiny, super-blue state. She will know that she has no shot of winning the presidency and has every chance of being destroyed, vilified, and run out of office on a rail if she helps elect Trump. No, she's just trying to engorge her donor base.
Everyone thinks they need to tighten the reins on the debates. Bernie's going to be in them and they are having far more than they need. They are overcompensating for perceived bias from 2016, so they can level all the accusations at them, but what's the point in continuing to give a platform to anyone who has no shot at the nomination. If she were at 10% regularly, she would be clamoring for an increase in the minimum requirements to get into the debate. She would prove herself the hypocrite that any of us who've seen her about-face on gay rights said when she entered the race in the first place.
Everyone thinks they need to tighten the reins on the debates. Bernie's going to be in them and they are having far more than they need. They are overcompensating for perceived bias from 2016, so they can level all the accusations at them, but what's the point in continuing to give a platform to anyone who has no shot at the nomination. If she were at 10% regularly, she would be clamoring for an increase in the minimum requirements to get into the debate. She would prove herself the hypocrite that any of us who've seen her about-face on gay rights said when she entered the race in the first place.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Campaign 2020
I disagree. There's a lot that can be said about Tulsi Gabbard's lack of consistency but the one note she hits more than anything else is criticizing the Democratic Party. A month ago, she was complaining about how she wasn't likely to make the next debate due to the DNC's unfair criteria for acceptable polling (who in their right mind watches these debates and thinks there are too few people on the stage?) and once she got in she was talking about boycotting the debate. I think she wants to build up a persona as someone who is being blocked by the establishment and she will use that for a third party run, as in she is running to get the truth out.OscarGuy wrote
Gabbard's campaign is going nowhere and she's running out of money. My guess is that she's sticking around hoping to be the last woman standing for Veep slot and, barring that, she's out by the end of the year.
"How's the despair?"
- OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
Gabbard's campaign is going nowhere and she's running out of money. My guess is that she's sticking around hoping to be the last woman standing for Veep slot and, barring that, she's out by the end of the year.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Campaign 2020
If Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are not the nominee, frustrated "progressives" would vote for her.
"How's the despair?"
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19362
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
The word "asset" has two meanings.
The meaning that most people think of when they hear the word is something of value that is owned and controlled. If that's what Clinton is saying, it's unproven. That, however, is the second dictionary meaning. The first meaning, though, is something Gabbard, like Jill Stein, could very well be. That is," a useful valuable thing, person, or quality", something or someone who will take votes away from the party's candidate.
I would think, though, that she would take more votes away from Trump or Pence than any of the other Democrats.
The meaning that most people think of when they hear the word is something of value that is owned and controlled. If that's what Clinton is saying, it's unproven. That, however, is the second dictionary meaning. The first meaning, though, is something Gabbard, like Jill Stein, could very well be. That is," a useful valuable thing, person, or quality", something or someone who will take votes away from the party's candidate.
I would think, though, that she would take more votes away from Trump or Pence than any of the other Democrats.
Re: Campaign 2020
Considering that Hillary Clinton is in a Twitter fight with Tulsi Gabbard at the moment...
I have a business acquaintance I've interacted with a handful of times over the past three years. Every time we've interacted my biggest takeaway has been "Wow, that guy is a conservative." I brought up Bill De Blasio to ask about his performance (not simply to him but he was in a room), his response "Fucking socialist Mayor, can't believe it." I've since learned as recently as two years ago he went on Glenn Beck historical city tours. I can understand that in 2010 (I guess?) but giving Glenn Beck hundreds of dollars within the past two years? All of our interactions were totally pleasant but again: clearly, a conservative.
I recently learned he quit the film industry for a career in politics. And which campaign is he working on?
Tulsi Gabbard's.
It's entirely possible that he's an honest actor working with Rep. Gabbard simply because, hey, there aren't any Republicans running for high office this go-round (yet? nahhhhh). And Gabbard's rhetoric certainly has a history of appealing to people like Bannon and various fringes of the far right. But that's about as good as it could possibly be. And that's still not good.
I have no idea if Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset here to throw the election to Republicans. But I don't want to find out and getting called out on social media isn't helping.
I have a business acquaintance I've interacted with a handful of times over the past three years. Every time we've interacted my biggest takeaway has been "Wow, that guy is a conservative." I brought up Bill De Blasio to ask about his performance (not simply to him but he was in a room), his response "Fucking socialist Mayor, can't believe it." I've since learned as recently as two years ago he went on Glenn Beck historical city tours. I can understand that in 2010 (I guess?) but giving Glenn Beck hundreds of dollars within the past two years? All of our interactions were totally pleasant but again: clearly, a conservative.
I recently learned he quit the film industry for a career in politics. And which campaign is he working on?
Tulsi Gabbard's.
It's entirely possible that he's an honest actor working with Rep. Gabbard simply because, hey, there aren't any Republicans running for high office this go-round (yet? nahhhhh). And Gabbard's rhetoric certainly has a history of appealing to people like Bannon and various fringes of the far right. But that's about as good as it could possibly be. And that's still not good.
I have no idea if Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset here to throw the election to Republicans. But I don't want to find out and getting called out on social media isn't helping.
"How's the despair?"
Re: Campaign 2020
Thanks Tee....too much 24/7 MSNBC for me...gotta break
removed that gaudy post!
removed that gaudy post!
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
I think your memory's tricking you. The "New Topic" box has always been on the page preceding,like so:Bog wrote:Very possibly the case...but it used to show a box saying "post topic" in the same locale it shows "post reply" within a thread.
viewforum.php?f=53
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
Not even close. Every respectable new outlet is describing it as complete capitulation.Sabin wrote:Did Trumps' Foreign/Military Failure turn into a Foreign/Military Victory?Mister Tee wrote
And, in the past week, I'd say the actions re: Syria/the Kurds has pushed the foreign policy failure Key emphatically down. It took two years for Iraq to become as clear a negative for Bush as this situation has for Trump in just a matter of days.
I've been busy and haven't had time to answer your previous post. Will try to get to it in the next 24-48 hours,
I do echo Bog on Pelosi. I was thinking today, it's between her and the whistleblower for Time's Person of the Year.
Re: Campaign 2020
Did Trumps' Foreign/Military Failure turn into a Foreign/Military Victory?Mister Tee wrote
And, in the past week, I'd say the actions re: Syria/the Kurds has pushed the foreign policy failure Key emphatically down. It took two years for Iraq to become as clear a negative for Bush as this situation has for Trump in just a matter of days.
"How's the despair?"