The Democratic Candidates

1127128130132133194

Comments

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,777
    edited July 2
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    dankind said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I honestly cannot believe how dumb and tone deaf they still are. Finding a way to lose 
    Scarborough called it what it was... a clown show.  Here's the other thing that vexes me.  There's this 'thought' that even the NYT and MSNBC has bought into, that the party is radically left.  I don't believe it is.  I think the loudest voices are hard left and it's pulling both the candidates and the media that way, to the chagrin of me and I'm sure many US Democrats here on the board.  

    I mean, here we are, the actual voting Democrats on the board of a liberal band like PJ.com, and we all seem to be in shock.  The people here that seem to  gravitate to the policies of the very progressive wing are our friends from Canada, Australia and Europe.  I mean no disrespect to them, but the point is that every time I see an opinion from someone that I know is in the US, it's much closer to the moderate position than the hard progressive.  I'm very, very worried because these candidates are not representing mainstream views.  
    I don't think it's a Canadian or Australian or European thing. And using the members that post in here -- and I try to avoid this place at all costs, but I occasionally do find myself regretfully clicking through here (when the rest of the site seems to be slow) to see what everyone is not listening to each other at all about this time -- is a ridiculously thin reed.

    Anyway, I am an American, and I have not voted in a presidential election since 2000 (maybe 2004) simply because there has not been a candidate who was young enough and progressive enough for me to check the box next to his or her name. I still vote for issues and local candidates who meet my criteria, but I imagine I'll be leaving a blank box again in 2020.

    I don't think I'm the only American out there like this. I'm sure some hold their nose and check a box, but I would guess that more progressives show up, vote for legal weed, against existing discriminatory policies that affect the LGBTQ+ community, for their local progressive candidates, and throw up in their mouth a little when they see the presidential candidates who have to put their teeth in to eat breakfast, leaving that spot blank.

    There are a couple of candidates who would actually get me excited to go to the polls this time around, but I'm almost certain that they'll be put back in their place by the establishment jackasses, their media mouthpieces and their donors by the time November 2020 rolls around.
    So you are saying that you would vote for:
    1. Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants
    2. Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans
    3. Reparations
    4. Re-instituting federally mandated busing

    Legal weed and equal rights are pretty mainstream items.  I wouldn't even call them progressive.  
    I'm not saying any of that. And I wouldn't do so in this forum. 
    Well those are the type of policy proposals that could cause four more years of Trump.  It's not weed and LGBTQ rights. 
    So be it.
    Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.
    I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.
    We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)
    We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.
    It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

    Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

    Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.
    (It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))


    Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.
    That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

    I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.
    Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 17,241
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    dankind said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dankind said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I honestly cannot believe how dumb and tone deaf they still are. Finding a way to lose 
    Scarborough called it what it was... a clown show.  Here's the other thing that vexes me.  There's this 'thought' that even the NYT and MSNBC has bought into, that the party is radically left.  I don't believe it is.  I think the loudest voices are hard left and it's pulling both the candidates and the media that way, to the chagrin of me and I'm sure many US Democrats here on the board.  

    I mean, here we are, the actual voting Democrats on the board of a liberal band like PJ.com, and we all seem to be in shock.  The people here that seem to  gravitate to the policies of the very progressive wing are our friends from Canada, Australia and Europe.  I mean no disrespect to them, but the point is that every time I see an opinion from someone that I know is in the US, it's much closer to the moderate position than the hard progressive.  I'm very, very worried because these candidates are not representing mainstream views.  
    I don't think it's a Canadian or Australian or European thing. And using the members that post in here -- and I try to avoid this place at all costs, but I occasionally do find myself regretfully clicking through here (when the rest of the site seems to be slow) to see what everyone is not listening to each other at all about this time -- is a ridiculously thin reed.

    Anyway, I am an American, and I have not voted in a presidential election since 2000 (maybe 2004) simply because there has not been a candidate who was young enough and progressive enough for me to check the box next to his or her name. I still vote for issues and local candidates who meet my criteria, but I imagine I'll be leaving a blank box again in 2020.

    I don't think I'm the only American out there like this. I'm sure some hold their nose and check a box, but I would guess that more progressives show up, vote for legal weed, against existing discriminatory policies that affect the LGBTQ+ community, for their local progressive candidates, and throw up in their mouth a little when they see the presidential candidates who have to put their teeth in to eat breakfast, leaving that spot blank.

    There are a couple of candidates who would actually get me excited to go to the polls this time around, but I'm almost certain that they'll be put back in their place by the establishment jackasses, their media mouthpieces and their donors by the time November 2020 rolls around.
    So you are saying that you would vote for:
    1. Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants
    2. Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans
    3. Reparations
    4. Re-instituting federally mandated busing

    Legal weed and equal rights are pretty mainstream items.  I wouldn't even call them progressive.  
    I'm not saying any of that. And I wouldn't do so in this forum. 
    Well those are the type of policy proposals that could cause four more years of Trump.  It's not weed and LGBTQ rights. 
    So be it.
    Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.
    I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.
    We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)
    We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.
    It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

    Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

    Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.
    (It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))


    Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.
    That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

    I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.
    Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.
    A basic truth, to me, is that opinion is not a fact.  A fact is a fact. 
    We were talking general elections.
    I agree with your idea, just not enough to think it is a fact and that it should then be shared by everyone.  Other people can have their own opinions and one might be that it is always the best time to be principled. 
    That is for them to think and to say, or not.

    Also, both Dan and I lived in states that voted Blue despite his not voting and my voting for Weedman.
    How can we know that people who really hated Trump voting would have made the difference, or that it would this time.  Perhaps the states line up the way the states line up...and that is just a sad reality about the USA right now?

    Oh well.  Continue...we could probably bat this back and forth a bunch w/o really getting anywhere.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,777
    edited July 2
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.
    I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.
    We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)
    We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.
    It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

    Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

    Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.
    (It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))


    Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.
    That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

    I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.
    Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.
    A basic truth, to me, is that opinion is not a fact.  A fact is a fact. 
    We were talking general elections.
    I agree with your idea, just not enough to think it is a fact and that it should then be shared by everyone.  Other people can have their own opinions and one might be that it is always the best time to be principled. 
    That is for them to think and to say, or not.

    Also, both Dan and I lived in states that voted Blue despite his not voting and my voting for Weedman.
    How can we know that people who really hated Trump voting would have made the difference, or that it would this time.  Perhaps the states line up the way the states line up...and that is just a sad reality about the USA right now?

    Oh well.  Continue...we could probably bat this back and forth a bunch w/o really getting anywhere.
    I don't feel the need to qualify things like that on message boards. I thought my statement "The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle" is obviously an opinion, so I doubt that it's necessary for you qualify it like that, nor to take my saying that the same way as me saying "it is 100% FACT". I never claimed it was fact, and actually that isn't even a point that can be fact in any case, since it's just about people making a choice, so the concept doesn't even apply IMO.
    I do think it's very safe to assume that, given the very slim margin by which Trump won and the voter turn out, liberals who didn't bother to vote were absolutely the reason Trump won (I would also say that about Comey's fuck up before the election was also a reason all on its own, but that is impossible to verify). I think that if you crunched the numbers there, you would likely end up with a real fact showing that no-show libs put Trump in office. 
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 11,562
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.
    I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.
    We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)
    We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.
    It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

    Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

    Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.
    (It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))


    Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.
    That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

    I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.
    Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.
    A basic truth, to me, is that opinion is not a fact.  A fact is a fact. 
    We were talking general elections.
    I agree with your idea, just not enough to think it is a fact and that it should then be shared by everyone.  Other people can have their own opinions and one might be that it is always the best time to be principled. 
    That is for them to think and to say, or not.

    Also, both Dan and I lived in states that voted Blue despite his not voting and my voting for Weedman.
    How can we know that people who really hated Trump voting would have made the difference, or that it would this time.  Perhaps the states line up the way the states line up...and that is just a sad reality about the USA right now?

    Oh well.  Continue...we could probably bat this back and forth a bunch w/o really getting anywhere.
    I don't feel the need to qualify things like that on message boards. That my statement "The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle" is obviously an opinion, so I doubt that it's necessary for you qualify it like that, nor to take my saying that the same way as me saying "it is 100% FACT". I never claimed it was FACT, and actually that isn't even a point that can be fact in any case, since it's just about people making a choice, so the concept doesn't even apply IMO.
    I do think it's very safe to assume that, given the very slim margin by which Trump won and the voter turn out, liberals who didn't bother to vote were absolutely the reason Trump won (I would also say that about Comey's fuck up before the election was also a reason all on its own, but that is impossible to verify). I think that if you crunched the numbers there, you would likely end up with a real fact showing that no-show libs put Trump in office. 
    Totally. The black vote was way down without Obama running. Many that voted for Bernie in the primary didn't vote for Hillary in the general (and some even voted Trump) because either they felt Hillary had it in the bag (hell that's what they were being told the whole time), or because they believed the theory that the DNC railroaded Bernie. I contend that if she just pegged Bernie as her running mate, she'd have won easily. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 17,241
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.
    I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.
    We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)
    We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.
    It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

    Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

    Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.
    (It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))


    Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.
    That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

    I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.
    Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.
    A basic truth, to me, is that opinion is not a fact.  A fact is a fact. 
    We were talking general elections.
    I agree with your idea, just not enough to think it is a fact and that it should then be shared by everyone.  Other people can have their own opinions and one might be that it is always the best time to be principled. 
    That is for them to think and to say, or not.

    Also, both Dan and I lived in states that voted Blue despite his not voting and my voting for Weedman.
    How can we know that people who really hated Trump voting would have made the difference, or that it would this time.  Perhaps the states line up the way the states line up...and that is just a sad reality about the USA right now?

    Oh well.  Continue...we could probably bat this back and forth a bunch w/o really getting anywhere.
    I don't feel the need to qualify things like that on message boards. I thought my statement "The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle" is obviously an opinion, so I doubt that it's necessary for you qualify it like that, nor to take my saying that the same way as me saying "it is 100% FACT". I never claimed it was fact, and actually that isn't even a point that can be fact in any case, since it's just about people making a choice, so the concept doesn't even apply IMO.
    I do think it's very safe to assume that, given the very slim margin by which Trump won and the voter turn out, liberals who didn't bother to vote were absolutely the reason Trump won (I would also say that about Comey's fuck up before the election was also a reason all on its own, but that is impossible to verify). I think that if you crunched the numbers there, you would likely end up with a real fact showing that no-show libs put Trump in office. 
    A difference of opinion, I do feel that this is a place for people to express opinions and not have someone else's truth presented as 100% what they should do...but that is fine.  You be you, I will be me, and this crazy rock will keep on spinning.

    I hope that Trump loses and I hope that next time around (or sometime in the near future) we actually have an intelligent way to select candidates. 
    Time to revolt!
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,777
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Dankind... you should vote. Help get Trump out of office dude. People not voting is exactly what is going to keep him there.
    I see what you are saying....and I do vote, and for the first time will vote for a Dem (voted Weedbrain Johnson last time in a blue state), but I think his point is really a strong one.
    We keep putting up weak candidates.  (And old ones!)
    We are told by the press (look it is already happening with this debate circuit) to whom we should be paying attention, and by the party who the legitimate contenders are.
    It will not happen now, but it needs to happen soon -- find a way to relay what people really feel about issues and allow them to explain their views.  Being the best candidate is not about being the best debater, or about being the person who will talk over people, about who the press hammers us over the head with as being 'one of the favorites', or even the person that the party pundits will tell people should be taken most seriously....it should be about someone who has their own ideas and stands for them.  (And, consequently, finds a large number of people who process these ideas and agree.)

    Pretty sure most of us agree on this point, so it is silly to stand in the hallway and yell it out loud...but that is really the larger deal.

    Not voting is casting a vote, if the person is paying attention.  A personal choice.
    (It helps to live in a state (MA) where they have voted D all but 4 times since 1928 and voted (strongly) for Hillary in 2016.  I felt this way last go-around when I voted for The Weedman instead of Hilary...although NJ only carried 55% for D last time vs. 41% R.  (Guess a lot of people voted for the Weedman! lol))


    Yeah, I get that, I have been known not to vote for lack of a single candidate that I wanted in office ... But not when it's a vote as crucial as the 2020 one is. The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle, or to make a statement about democratic nominees. FAR too much is at stake with this one.
    That is your opinion.  I see you feel strongly about it, but your opinion that it is 100% NOT the time to hold to principle only applies to you.

    I happen to agree, that however symbolic my vote, I feel compelled to vote for the person who has the best chance against the cheeto.  That is my opinion.
    Well I'm not sure about that... Yeah, it's obviously my opinion, but the consequence of people doing with the 2020 vote that they did with the 2016 vote because they didn't like Hillary will be that Trump remains in office. So I would have thought that anyone who wants Trump out of office would agree that 2020 is not the election to be choosing not to vote, or to write-in and stuff like that. Isn't the person who has the best chance against the cheeto necessarily the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be? Or are you just talking about the primaries?? If so, apologies - I thought we were only talking about the 2020 general election.
    A basic truth, to me, is that opinion is not a fact.  A fact is a fact. 
    We were talking general elections.
    I agree with your idea, just not enough to think it is a fact and that it should then be shared by everyone.  Other people can have their own opinions and one might be that it is always the best time to be principled. 
    That is for them to think and to say, or not.

    Also, both Dan and I lived in states that voted Blue despite his not voting and my voting for Weedman.
    How can we know that people who really hated Trump voting would have made the difference, or that it would this time.  Perhaps the states line up the way the states line up...and that is just a sad reality about the USA right now?

    Oh well.  Continue...we could probably bat this back and forth a bunch w/o really getting anywhere.
    I don't feel the need to qualify things like that on message boards. I thought my statement "The 2020 US elections are 100% NOT the time to abstain from voting out of principle" is obviously an opinion, so I doubt that it's necessary for you qualify it like that, nor to take my saying that the same way as me saying "it is 100% FACT". I never claimed it was fact, and actually that isn't even a point that can be fact in any case, since it's just about people making a choice, so the concept doesn't even apply IMO.
    I do think it's very safe to assume that, given the very slim margin by which Trump won and the voter turn out, liberals who didn't bother to vote were absolutely the reason Trump won (I would also say that about Comey's fuck up before the election was also a reason all on its own, but that is impossible to verify). I think that if you crunched the numbers there, you would likely end up with a real fact showing that no-show libs put Trump in office. 
    A difference of opinion, I do feel that this is a place for people to express opinions and not have someone else's truth presented as 100% what they should do...but that is fine.  You be you, I will be me, and this crazy rock will keep on spinning.

    I hope that Trump loses and I hope that next time around (or sometime in the near future) we actually have an intelligent way to select candidates. 
    Time to revolt!
    Okay, I'm just saying I wasn't even doing that. :willshrug: I still think it's 100% not the time to be choosing principle over getting Trump out of the WH. But I can't make anybody do anything by saying it on a message board, so I don't see what's problematic with the way I expressed myself there.

    If Trump wins again it's going to get truly fucked up. Imagine what that thing will do when he isn't thinking about re-election. OMG.

    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 20,110

    don't be flight 93!!

    Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

    The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

    For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

    Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

    The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

    This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

    It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

    And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

    This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

    If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

    But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

    Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

    He’s right.

    Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.


    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,720
    So the answer is what don’t vote because the Democrats can’t put up a great candidate I say hell no im voting for who ever makes it out of the 20 , fuck the dictator 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,448
    mcgruff10 said:

    don't be flight 93!!

    Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

    The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

    For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

    Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

    The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

    This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

    It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

    And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

    This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

    If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

    But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

    Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

    He’s right.

    Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.



    Source? 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,673
    mcgruff10 said:

    don't be flight 93!!

    Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

    The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

    For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

    Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

    The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

    This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

    It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

    And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

    This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

    If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

    But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

    Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

    He’s right.

    Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.



    Source? 
    Looks like it was National Review - https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/hillary-clinton-democratic-party-leftward-turn/
    I think there is a lot of merit in this opinion piece. It is something that has been brought up here many times when issues mentioned in the article have been discussed, most recently the dummies at the debate who all raised their hands about providing healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants. MRussell and others have repeated pointed out that the Dems need to have broader appeal, certainly going into the general.
    Just a few posts above MRussell asked:
    So you are saying that you would vote for:
    1. Free healthcare for undocumented immigrants
    2. Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans
    3. Reparations
    4. Re-instituting federally mandated busing
    Legal weed and equal rights are pretty mainstream items.  I wouldn't even call them progressive.  

    If they stick to their "progressive" takes on every issue, they will not win moderate Dems, centrist independents and of course more liberal Republicans.  There were plenty of Republicans who held their nose and voted Trump because of the general dislike and distrust of Clinton, but had they been presented with an option they considered more palatable, they certainly would have voted against Trump. The Dems need to put up a candidate that can appeal to the general population, not only to progressive ideologues. The piece, while an opinion piece, stated what should be common sense. Whether it is common sense to the more progressive wing of the Dem party remains to be seen.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 20,110

    Sorry about forgetting the link, thanks Jeff!!!


    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 17,241
    In my opinion, The National Review is one of the "journalistic" parties guilty of being a partisan megaphone.  
    Both sides have them, this one just happens to blast the agenda of the Far Right.

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,673
    In my opinion, The National Review is one of the "journalistic" parties guilty of being a partisan megaphone.  
    Both sides have them, this one just happens to blast the agenda of the Far Right.

    No doubt, although I think it is more of a thinking person's right biased publication, especially when compared with Breitbart or FauxNews. They certainly have bias, but the articles aren't written by toothless, hillbilly TrumpHumpers. And there have been plenty of #nevertrump articles in that pub as well. Regardless of the bias, I found this particular article/opinion piece to be a good warning to the Dems about what kind of candidate to put up against Trump.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    In my opinion, The National Review is one of the "journalistic" parties guilty of being a partisan megaphone.  
    Both sides have them, this one just happens to blast the agenda of the Far Right.

    To be fair, the NRO has a pretty wide range of writers.  I am a pretty avid reader of the periodical and while you're right, they are absolutely conservative, there are key writers there that are anti-Trump.  French and Goldberg in particular are highly critical.  Others, like McCarthy, are not.  So it really depends.  But they are influential and I think very thoughtful. I just happen to disagree with most of what they write.  But they don't throw bombs, so I like that (at least French and Goldberg).  
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 17,241
    Fair enough.  For myself, I am tired of reading pieces I feel like are trying to sell me on something, or to create one narrative with an agenda in mind. 
    Could be that I am overly skeptical of every writer these days.

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    Fair enough.  For myself, I am tired of reading pieces I feel like are trying to sell me on something, or to create one narrative with an agenda in mind. 
    Could be that I am overly skeptical of every writer these days.

    I wish the left had writers as good as those on NRO and Reason.  The Atlantic is pretty good, but they tend to be more social/culture writers than political.  HuffPo is written by children whose experience consisted of a week of blogging.  New Yorker is good, but I don't feel like they churn as many as I can consume.  
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,512

    Could be that I am overly skeptical of every writer these days.

    No. It's still an opinion piece (backed by no evidence). One from someone who most likely doesn't have the best of intentions for the democratic party. Definitely someone who doesn't want to see the status quo changed.
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,673
    dignin said:

    Could be that I am overly skeptical of every writer these days.

    No. It's still an opinion piece (backed by no evidence). One from someone who most likely doesn't have the best of intentions for the democratic party. Definitely someone who doesn't want to see the status quo changed.
    It is definitely an opinion piece (which I mentioned a number of times), and the author is absolutely writing for a primarily conservative audience - National Review readers. I don't think he'd ultimately mind the status quo changing but not with a Dem. But he's also not a big Trump guy. The Atlantic listed him as one of the top 50 political commentators in this country, so my point was that he isn't a TrumpHumper and there can be truths to be gleaned even though there is bias throughout the article. The people on the left who can't find truth in the article are the people who will ultimately assist in Trump's re-election. The TrumpHumpers are a solid lock to vote for Trump. But for everyone else, there has to be a candidate with mass appeal who can take the majority of the votes and send Trump packing.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 21,500
    The issue I have with the article is that it pretends all of those items of scary, lib socialism are in fact the dem nominee’s position when in reality they’re just different view points from disparate members of the dem party, debating their wants. Now, if the dem nominee stands at the podium spouting support for such nonsense, then it would have merit. It’s a political hack piece to define the dem nominee prior to the dems having selected their candidate.

    One thing repubs have over dems, is the ability to stick to their party’s issues so you don’t have a lot of ugly internal debate leading up to the convention, selection of the nominee and the general. What were the differences between any of the 19 candidates on any policy of significance? 9-9-9 versus lower taxes on corporations. They were all “pro-life.” No major differences in policy and they all fell in goose step with Team Trump Treason. Dems argue amongst themselves even after the election is over.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,006
    The issue I have with the article is that it pretends all of those items of scary, lib socialism are in fact the dem nominee’s position when in reality they’re just different view points from disparate members of the dem party, debating their wants. Now, if the dem nominee stands at the podium spouting support for such nonsense, then it would have merit. It’s a political hack piece to define the dem nominee prior to the dems having selected their candidate.

    One thing repubs have over dems, is the ability to stick to their party’s issues so you don’t have a lot of ugly internal debate leading up to the convention, selection of the nominee and the general. What were the differences between any of the 19 candidates on any policy of significance? 9-9-9 versus lower taxes on corporations. They were all “pro-life.” No major differences in policy and they all fell in goose step with Team Trump Treason. Dems argue amongst themselves even after the election is over.
    Yeah I don't know that I agree with the article at all, even though there may be nuggets of truth in there.  My comments were about the NRO broadly.  I wish the left had competent writers.  And your points are accurate.  
    Plus, I would argue that Sanders is just as consequential.  I don't want to stir up trouble, but I don't think he minded that Hillary lost, nor did his most ardent supporters.   If she won, he would never have been able to run for president in 2020.  
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,307
    When is the next debate? No talks yet on How many people Will be cut?
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,307
    edited July 4
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,269
    Don't count out Don't Know...whoever they are, they are right there with Biden???
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 21,500
    Don't count out Don't Know...whoever they are, they are right there with Biden???
    Those are the people not paying attention or who remain undecided. That number will drop as it gets closer to election time. It’s the folks who “don’t know” the day before the election that I worry about.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,307
    Don't count out Don't Know...whoever they are, they are right there with Biden???
    One could do a joke about it also being Elisabeth Warren but under her tribal name or whatever. If one would enjoy that kind of jokes about Warren.
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,762
    Don't count out Don't Know...whoever they are, they are right there with Biden???
    Don’t know is amazing. Don’t know yells louder than Bernie, has more plans but than warren, is Gay AND black, and licks women and children’s hair instead of just sniffing them. 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,742
    Closed for review.
    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,531
    edited July 9
    When is the next debate? No talks yet on How many people Will be cut?
    July 30, 31 Live in the D. Everyone should be there except Eric. No idea if Styer will be there.
    Post edited by Hi! on
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,307
    Hi! said:
    When is the next debate? No talks yet on How many people Will be cut?
    July 30, 31 Live in the D. Everyone should be there except Eric. No idea if Styer will be there.
    No Eric :/
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • Hi!Hi! Posts: 1,531
    Hi! said:
    When is the next debate? No talks yet on How many people Will be cut?
    July 30, 31 Live in the D. Everyone should be there except Eric. No idea if Styer will be there.
    No Eric :/
    I know. I guess he decided to pass the torch.
This discussion has been closed.