The Democratic Presidential Debates

The Juggler

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Fucking tone-deaf. He (or really, his staff) is trying to be like Trump with tweets like this. The difference is that Republican voters liked Trump and liked seeing him cut down likes of Cruz, Bush, and Rubio. People don't like you, Mike. Some people think you have the best chance of against Trump, but that doesn't mean they like you....

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368

Eh....I actually laughed a little out loud at this. 

Why would starting a business have anything to do with being president? Where did this idea come from? 

it resonated with the fools that bought trump's nonsense. he probably thinks there is an equal amount of morons on the left. 

See my response above. A lot of people still think having a businessman in the White House makes sense....only this time, he is arguing that an actual successful one who doesn't take a jack hammer to our democracy on a daily basis is good alternative to Trump.

Democrats should be more focused on winning in November rather than wooing far left people by promising a bunch of stuff that has zero chance of happening right now. 

So....2016 again?

3M more votes? With a better run campaign? 
Hopefully.  '18 would be more like it though. He did help fund the right candidates the dems needed to retake the house.

dignin

BLUDGEONING MIKE BLOOMBERG TO DEATH PAID OFF FOR ELIZABETH WARREN—LITERALLY

The Massachusetts Senator, who predicts Bloomberg is counting his money at this very moment, had her best fundraising day to date.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/elizabeth-warren-mike-bloomberg-nevada-debate

ecdanc

The Juggler said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Fucking tone-deaf. He (or really, his staff) is trying to be like Trump with tweets like this. The difference is that Republican voters liked Trump and liked seeing him cut down likes of Cruz, Bush, and Rubio. People don't like you, Mike. Some people think you have the best chance of against Trump, but that doesn't mean they like you....

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368

Eh....I actually laughed a little out loud at this. 

Why would starting a business have anything to do with being president? Where did this idea come from? 

it resonated with the fools that bought trump's nonsense. he probably thinks there is an equal amount of morons on the left. 

See my response above. A lot of people still think having a businessman in the White House makes sense....only this time, he is arguing that an actual successful one who doesn't take a jack hammer to our democracy on a daily basis is good alternative to Trump.

Democrats should be more focused on winning in November rather than wooing far left people by promising a bunch of stuff that has zero chance of happening right now. 

So....2016 again?

3M more votes? With a better run campaign? 
Hopefully.  '18 would be more like it though. He did help fund the right candidates the dems needed to retake the house.

Fucking liberals. lol 

The Juggler

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Fucking tone-deaf. He (or really, his staff) is trying to be like Trump with tweets like this. The difference is that Republican voters liked Trump and liked seeing him cut down likes of Cruz, Bush, and Rubio. People don't like you, Mike. Some people think you have the best chance of against Trump, but that doesn't mean they like you....

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368

Eh....I actually laughed a little out loud at this. 

Why would starting a business have anything to do with being president? Where did this idea come from? 

it resonated with the fools that bought trump's nonsense. he probably thinks there is an equal amount of morons on the left. 

See my response above. A lot of people still think having a businessman in the White House makes sense....only this time, he is arguing that an actual successful one who doesn't take a jack hammer to our democracy on a daily basis is good alternative to Trump.

Democrats should be more focused on winning in November rather than wooing far left people by promising a bunch of stuff that has zero chance of happening right now. 

So....2016 again?

3M more votes? With a better run campaign? 
Hopefully.  '18 would be more like it though. He did help fund the right candidates the dems needed to retake the house.

Fucking liberals. lol 

Sons of bitches!

mickeyrat

  Sanders' 'summer camp' in Vermont becomes fodder in debate
https://news.yahoo.com/sanders-summer-camp-vermont-becomes-202523143.html

Lerxst1992

dignin said:l

BLUDGEONING MIKE BLOOMBERG TO DEATH PAID OFF FOR ELIZABETH WARREN—LITERALLY

The Massachusetts Senator, who predicts Bloomberg is counting his money at this very moment, had her best fundraising day to date.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/elizabeth-warren-mike-bloomberg-nevada-debate

Having her off life support and competitive for Super Tuesday actually helps the moderates.

if warren is perceived finished at that time sanders could pull 90% of the progressive vote and the others  would rake in 25% each of the moderate vote. Very bad situation for those wanting to avoid a socialist slaughter in November 

Lerxst1992

brianlux said:

Here's an interesting thought.  This, I fully admit, is hypothetical, but I like to get these thoughts down anyway:

There seems to be a wide spread feeling among Democratic voters that this year's Democratic primary is very frustrating.  Other than the die hard fans in each camp, many of us do not feel strongly about any of the front running candidates.  Most of us moderately to strongly dislike certain aspects of all or most of the candidates and many of us strongly dislike some of them altogether.  Yet, when we were talking about Andrew Yang, I heard very little negative feedback about him.  And that's not just here, that is in general.  He seems well liked and well likeable.  So why is he out of the race?  I believe it is money.  Sadly, in America, money wins the game.  (Bloomberg may well prove to be the exception.) 

So my wild assed hypothesis is this:  If every registered Democrat in America had made a one time donation of $10 to Andrew Yang's campaign, I believe he would be leading the pack.  True, he did not do well in the last debate he was in, but there were circumstances that contributed to that:  he was mostly ignored by the panel and given little time, he was exhausted from a crazy hard schedule trying to raise many and he also had to make more appearances than the others to get some exposure, and I have read that his mic was cut at times during the debate. 

The man is well liked by a broad spectrum of people.  If only, in a more perfect world.  If only.

I like yang but part of his problem is the same issue MB had last night, experience. It’s a lot to ask of Yang to take the stage and beat the experienced politician. Yes trump did that, but believe it or not he is a once in a generation highly skilled politician. As an outsider, he knew republicans were ripe for the taking, if he gave them guns and baby judges. And as an outsider, his outlandish attacks stick, something that only works with voters who like bullies, aka republicans 

MB also failed yesterday due to lack of experience. He was sucker punched by warren, mostly because as a woman warren gets away with crap that a man would not. And we have some sort of weird ritual where it’s ok to publicly berate a billionaire. I wonder if any politician other than trump mocked Bernie in the days he had less money, how that would have flied with the voters.

ecdanc

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:l

BLUDGEONING MIKE BLOOMBERG TO DEATH PAID OFF FOR ELIZABETH WARREN—LITERALLY

The Massachusetts Senator, who predicts Bloomberg is counting his money at this very moment, had her best fundraising day to date.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/elizabeth-warren-mike-bloomberg-nevada-debate

Having her off life support and competitive for Super Tuesday actually helps the moderates.

if warren is perceived finished at that time sanders could pull 90% of the progressive vote and the others  would rake in 25% each of the moderate vote. Very bad situation for those wanting to avoid a socialist slaughter in November 

You’re turning me on. 

Lerxst1992

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:l

BLUDGEONING MIKE BLOOMBERG TO DEATH PAID OFF FOR ELIZABETH WARREN—LITERALLY

The Massachusetts Senator, who predicts Bloomberg is counting his money at this very moment, had her best fundraising day to date.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/elizabeth-warren-mike-bloomberg-nevada-debate

Having her off life support and competitive for Super Tuesday actually helps the moderates.

if warren is perceived finished at that time sanders could pull 90% of the progressive vote and the others  would rake in 25% each of the moderate vote. Very bad situation for those wanting to avoid a socialist slaughter in November 

You’re turning me on. 

You’re that high on the orange menace?

ecdanc

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Here's an interesting thought.  This, I fully admit, is hypothetical, but I like to get these thoughts down anyway:

There seems to be a wide spread feeling among Democratic voters that this year's Democratic primary is very frustrating.  Other than the die hard fans in each camp, many of us do not feel strongly about any of the front running candidates.  Most of us moderately to strongly dislike certain aspects of all or most of the candidates and many of us strongly dislike some of them altogether.  Yet, when we were talking about Andrew Yang, I heard very little negative feedback about him.  And that's not just here, that is in general.  He seems well liked and well likeable.  So why is he out of the race?  I believe it is money.  Sadly, in America, money wins the game.  (Bloomberg may well prove to be the exception.) 

So my wild assed hypothesis is this:  If every registered Democrat in America had made a one time donation of $10 to Andrew Yang's campaign, I believe he would be leading the pack.  True, he did not do well in the last debate he was in, but there were circumstances that contributed to that:  he was mostly ignored by the panel and given little time, he was exhausted from a crazy hard schedule trying to raise many and he also had to make more appearances than the others to get some exposure, and I have read that his mic was cut at times during the debate. 

The man is well liked by a broad spectrum of people.  If only, in a more perfect world.  If only.

I like yang but part of his problem is the same issue MB had last night, experience. It’s a lot to ask of Yang to take the stage and beat the experienced politician. Yes trump did that, but believe it or not he is a once in a generation highly skilled politician. As an outsider, he knew republicans were ripe for the taking, if he gave them guns and baby judges. And as an outsider, his outlandish attacks stick, something that only works with voters who like bullies, aka republicans 

MB also failed yesterday due to lack of experience. He was sucker punched by warren, mostly because as a woman warren gets away with crap that a man would not. And we have some sort of weird ritual where it’s ok to publicly berate a billionaire. I wonder if any politician other than trump mocked Bernie in the days he had less money, how that would have flied with the voters.

You still at it with the reverse sexism shtick?

dignin

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Here's an interesting thought.  This, I fully admit, is hypothetical, but I like to get these thoughts down anyway:

There seems to be a wide spread feeling among Democratic voters that this year's Democratic primary is very frustrating.  Other than the die hard fans in each camp, many of us do not feel strongly about any of the front running candidates.  Most of us moderately to strongly dislike certain aspects of all or most of the candidates and many of us strongly dislike some of them altogether.  Yet, when we were talking about Andrew Yang, I heard very little negative feedback about him.  And that's not just here, that is in general.  He seems well liked and well likeable.  So why is he out of the race?  I believe it is money.  Sadly, in America, money wins the game.  (Bloomberg may well prove to be the exception.) 

So my wild assed hypothesis is this:  If every registered Democrat in America had made a one time donation of $10 to Andrew Yang's campaign, I believe he would be leading the pack.  True, he did not do well in the last debate he was in, but there were circumstances that contributed to that:  he was mostly ignored by the panel and given little time, he was exhausted from a crazy hard schedule trying to raise many and he also had to make more appearances than the others to get some exposure, and I have read that his mic was cut at times during the debate. 

The man is well liked by a broad spectrum of people.  If only, in a more perfect world.  If only.

I like yang but part of his problem is the same issue MB had last night, experience. It’s a lot to ask of Yang to take the stage and beat the experienced politician. Yes trump did that, but believe it or not he is a once in a generation highly skilled politician. As an outsider, he knew republicans were ripe for the taking, if he gave them guns and baby judges. And as an outsider, his outlandish attacks stick, something that only works with voters who like bullies, aka republicans 

MB also failed yesterday due to lack of experience. He was sucker punched by warren, mostly because as a woman warren gets away with crap that a man would not. And we have some sort of weird ritual where it’s ok to publicly berate a billionaire. I wonder if any politician other than trump mocked Bernie in the days he had less money, how that would have flied with the voters.

Poor Bloomberg got sucker punched. I'm sure Trump will put kid gloves on in the general election.

Your candidate got his ass handed to him by a better candidate plain and simple. Bloomberg was joke last night and all the attacks were fair.

cincybearcat

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Here's an interesting thought.  This, I fully admit, is hypothetical, but I like to get these thoughts down anyway:

There seems to be a wide spread feeling among Democratic voters that this year's Democratic primary is very frustrating.  Other than the die hard fans in each camp, many of us do not feel strongly about any of the front running candidates.  Most of us moderately to strongly dislike certain aspects of all or most of the candidates and many of us strongly dislike some of them altogether.  Yet, when we were talking about Andrew Yang, I heard very little negative feedback about him.  And that's not just here, that is in general.  He seems well liked and well likeable.  So why is he out of the race?  I believe it is money.  Sadly, in America, money wins the game.  (Bloomberg may well prove to be the exception.) 

So my wild assed hypothesis is this:  If every registered Democrat in America had made a one time donation of $10 to Andrew Yang's campaign, I believe he would be leading the pack.  True, he did not do well in the last debate he was in, but there were circumstances that contributed to that:  he was mostly ignored by the panel and given little time, he was exhausted from a crazy hard schedule trying to raise many and he also had to make more appearances than the others to get some exposure, and I have read that his mic was cut at times during the debate. 

The man is well liked by a broad spectrum of people.  If only, in a more perfect world.  If only.

I like yang but part of his problem is the same issue MB had last night, experience. It’s a lot to ask of Yang to take the stage and beat the experienced politician. Yes trump did that, but believe it or not he is a once in a generation highly skilled politician. As an outsider, he knew republicans were ripe for the taking, if he gave them guns and baby judges. And as an outsider, his outlandish attacks stick, something that only works with voters who like bullies, aka republicans 

MB also failed yesterday due to lack of experience. He was sucker punched by warren, mostly because as a woman warren gets away with crap that a man would not. And we have some sort of weird ritual where it’s ok to publicly berate a billionaire. I wonder if any politician other than trump mocked Bernie in the days he had less money, how that would have flied with the voters.

Poor Bloomberg got sucker punched. I'm sure Trump will put kid gloves on in the general election.

Your candidate got his ass handed to him by a better candidate plain and simple. Bloomberg was joke last night and all the attacks were fair.

Bloomberg was awful. Warren playing for second place is sad. 

dignin

cincybearcat said:

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Here's an interesting thought.  This, I fully admit, is hypothetical, but I like to get these thoughts down anyway:

There seems to be a wide spread feeling among Democratic voters that this year's Democratic primary is very frustrating.  Other than the die hard fans in each camp, many of us do not feel strongly about any of the front running candidates.  Most of us moderately to strongly dislike certain aspects of all or most of the candidates and many of us strongly dislike some of them altogether.  Yet, when we were talking about Andrew Yang, I heard very little negative feedback about him.  And that's not just here, that is in general.  He seems well liked and well likeable.  So why is he out of the race?  I believe it is money.  Sadly, in America, money wins the game.  (Bloomberg may well prove to be the exception.) 

So my wild assed hypothesis is this:  If every registered Democrat in America had made a one time donation of $10 to Andrew Yang's campaign, I believe he would be leading the pack.  True, he did not do well in the last debate he was in, but there were circumstances that contributed to that:  he was mostly ignored by the panel and given little time, he was exhausted from a crazy hard schedule trying to raise many and he also had to make more appearances than the others to get some exposure, and I have read that his mic was cut at times during the debate. 

The man is well liked by a broad spectrum of people.  If only, in a more perfect world.  If only.

I like yang but part of his problem is the same issue MB had last night, experience. It’s a lot to ask of Yang to take the stage and beat the experienced politician. Yes trump did that, but believe it or not he is a once in a generation highly skilled politician. As an outsider, he knew republicans were ripe for the taking, if he gave them guns and baby judges. And as an outsider, his outlandish attacks stick, something that only works with voters who like bullies, aka republicans 

MB also failed yesterday due to lack of experience. He was sucker punched by warren, mostly because as a woman warren gets away with crap that a man would not. And we have some sort of weird ritual where it’s ok to publicly berate a billionaire. I wonder if any politician other than trump mocked Bernie in the days he had less money, how that would have flied with the voters.

Poor Bloomberg got sucker punched. I'm sure Trump will put kid gloves on in the general election.

Your candidate got his ass handed to him by a better candidate plain and simple. Bloomberg was joke last night and all the attacks were fair.

Bloomberg was awful. Warren playing for second place is sad. 

I don't think she is, but we really don't know her campaigns calculations. She sure didn't look like a second place candidate last night.

cincybearcat

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Here's an interesting thought.  This, I fully admit, is hypothetical, but I like to get these thoughts down anyway:

There seems to be a wide spread feeling among Democratic voters that this year's Democratic primary is very frustrating.  Other than the die hard fans in each camp, many of us do not feel strongly about any of the front running candidates.  Most of us moderately to strongly dislike certain aspects of all or most of the candidates and many of us strongly dislike some of them altogether.  Yet, when we were talking about Andrew Yang, I heard very little negative feedback about him.  And that's not just here, that is in general.  He seems well liked and well likeable.  So why is he out of the race?  I believe it is money.  Sadly, in America, money wins the game.  (Bloomberg may well prove to be the exception.) 

So my wild assed hypothesis is this:  If every registered Democrat in America had made a one time donation of $10 to Andrew Yang's campaign, I believe he would be leading the pack.  True, he did not do well in the last debate he was in, but there were circumstances that contributed to that:  he was mostly ignored by the panel and given little time, he was exhausted from a crazy hard schedule trying to raise many and he also had to make more appearances than the others to get some exposure, and I have read that his mic was cut at times during the debate. 

The man is well liked by a broad spectrum of people.  If only, in a more perfect world.  If only.

I like yang but part of his problem is the same issue MB had last night, experience. It’s a lot to ask of Yang to take the stage and beat the experienced politician. Yes trump did that, but believe it or not he is a once in a generation highly skilled politician. As an outsider, he knew republicans were ripe for the taking, if he gave them guns and baby judges. And as an outsider, his outlandish attacks stick, something that only works with voters who like bullies, aka republicans 

MB also failed yesterday due to lack of experience. He was sucker punched by warren, mostly because as a woman warren gets away with crap that a man would not. And we have some sort of weird ritual where it’s ok to publicly berate a billionaire. I wonder if any politician other than trump mocked Bernie in the days he had less money, how that would have flied with the voters.

Poor Bloomberg got sucker punched. I'm sure Trump will put kid gloves on in the general election.

Your candidate got his ass handed to him by a better candidate plain and simple. Bloomberg was joke last night and all the attacks were fair.

Bloomberg was awful. Warren playing for second place is sad. 

I don't think she is, but we really don't know her campaigns calculations. She sure didn't look like a second place candidate last night.

Yeah we’re are going to disagree. I feel she became bernies attack dog. 

Watching the remainder of the debate now. Bloomberg has a couple of moments. 

Warren has mentioned a lot of trillions of $ 

RoleModelsinBlood31

Warren landed a tomahawk in Bloomberg’s back last night, that’s for sure.

dignin

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Warren landed a tomahawk in Bloomberg’s back last night, that’s for sure.

Why is this happening?

Russia is looking to help Trump win in 2020, election security official told lawmakers

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-2020/index.html

RoleModelsinBlood31

dignin said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Warren landed a tomahawk in Bloomberg’s back last night, that’s for sure.

Why is this happening?

Russia is looking to help Trump win in 2020, election security official told lawmakers

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-2020/index.html

CNN wants to start the narrative early so when trump wins they can blame Russia again and undermine  his win. We all just watched an attempted coup of an elected prez, whether or not some will admit it or not.

this is the opening monologue from Lou Dobbs Tonight earlier this week, it’s important that people read it and think and realize what we’ve all witnessed these last three and a half years.

Dobbs: … We are going to examine … the most important subject of our time. The Democrat Party – in league with the Dept of Justice, the FBI, in addition to at least three of the nation’s intelligence agencies – tried to impeach the President without evidence or crime of any kind and conspired to overthrow the President of the United States. Despite bringing the immense weights of those departments and agencies against President Trump, he persevered. He has prevailed, and he stands exonerated of all the baseless charges and vindicated by the acquittal of partisan charges and congressional abuse of power straight out. …

First, the President was put through Crossfire Hurricane, a nearly 11-month-long probe that began in July 2016. That’s right: while the President was still a candidate … in which the FBI agents investigated … When the FBI came up with nothing, the radical Dems conspired with Obama era holdovers and loyalists to create a special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller. Almost two years of investigation resulted in clear and unequivocal exoneration and vindication of the president.

After failing in Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation that collapsed, the radical Dems quickly maneuvered and tried to initiate an impeachment without evidence … without only baseless partisan charges … charges entirely partisan … transparently farcical. President Trump was immediately acquitted nearly two weeks ago.

With the special counsel, there was no collusion, so radical Dems moved on to obstruction, and the President again [was] exonerated. The Dems tried impeachment [on] abuse of power. There was none, so they claimed then obstruction of Congress. But there was none.

So why would the American people continue to put up with more subversion … more attempts to overthrow an already historic president? And what will be the price for the party of hate come November 3rd of this year? …

The radical Dems efforts to overthrow President Trump have always been tied to early actions of the Deep State – members of the permanent bureaucracy in Washington – who seditiously worked from the earliest days of the Trump campaign to try to prevent and eventually remove President Trump from gaining office. …

[There is] a key moment that could have changed the way the President’s first three-and-a-half years in office enfolded – the DoJ’s corrupt decision not to prosecute a man for leaking classified information. That man was the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee, James Wolfe. Wolfe was indicted in 2018 for leaking information to four journalists, including one with whom he was having an affair. He also lied to the FBI. As we reported here before, Wolfe’s indictment shows he picked up a highly classified document on March 2017 to take to the Senate Intelligence Committee. A later FBI sentencing recommendation confirmed that that document included the first two FISA warrants for Carter Page. But James Wolfe was never charged with leaking those classified documents. Most of the charges against him were dropped in what could be called nothing other than a sweetheart deal orchestrated by former US Attorney Jesse Liu. Wolfe was allowed to plead guilty to one count – just one count of lying to investigators – for which he served two months. Two months in prison.

It continues but you get the point.

Halifax2TheMax

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

dignin said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Warren landed a tomahawk in Bloomberg’s back last night, that’s for sure.

Why is this happening?

Russia is looking to help Trump win in 2020, election security official told lawmakers

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-2020/index.html

CNN wants to start the narrative early so when trump wins they can blame Russia again and undermine  his win. We all just watched an attempted coup of an elected prez, whether or not some will admit it or not.

this is the opening monologue from Lou Dobbs Tonight earlier this week, it’s important that people read it and think and realize what we’ve all witnessed these last three and a half years.

Dobbs: … We are going to examine … the most important subject of our time. The Democrat Party – in league with the Dept of Justice, the FBI, in addition to at least three of the nation’s intelligence agencies – tried to impeach the President without evidence or crime of any kind and conspired to overthrow the President of the United States. Despite bringing the immense weights of those departments and agencies against President Trump, he persevered. He has prevailed, and he stands exonerated of all the baseless charges and vindicated by the acquittal of partisan charges and congressional abuse of power straight out. …

First, the President was put through Crossfire Hurricane, a nearly 11-month-long probe that began in July 2016. That’s right: while the President was still a candidate … in which the FBI agents investigated … When the FBI came up with nothing, the radical Dems conspired with Obama era holdovers and loyalists to create a special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller. Almost two years of investigation resulted in clear and unequivocal exoneration and vindication of the president.

After failing in Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation that collapsed, the radical Dems quickly maneuvered and tried to initiate an impeachment without evidence … without only baseless partisan charges … charges entirely partisan … transparently farcical. President Trump was immediately acquitted nearly two weeks ago.

With the special counsel, there was no collusion, so radical Dems moved on to obstruction, and the President again [was] exonerated. The Dems tried impeachment [on] abuse of power. There was none, so they claimed then obstruction of Congress. But there was none.

So why would the American people continue to put up with more subversion … more attempts to overthrow an already historic president? And what will be the price for the party of hate come November 3rd of this year? …

The radical Dems efforts to overthrow President Trump have always been tied to early actions of the Deep State – members of the permanent bureaucracy in Washington – who seditiously worked from the earliest days of the Trump campaign to try to prevent and eventually remove President Trump from gaining office. …

[There is] a key moment that could have changed the way the President’s first three-and-a-half years in office enfolded – the DoJ’s corrupt decision not to prosecute a man for leaking classified information. That man was the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee, James Wolfe. Wolfe was indicted in 2018 for leaking information to four journalists, including one with whom he was having an affair. He also lied to the FBI. As we reported here before, Wolfe’s indictment shows he picked up a highly classified document on March 2017 to take to the Senate Intelligence Committee. A later FBI sentencing recommendation confirmed that that document included the first two FISA warrants for Carter Page. But James Wolfe was never charged with leaking those classified documents. Most of the charges against him were dropped in what could be called nothing other than a sweetheart deal orchestrated by former US Attorney Jesse Liu. Wolfe was allowed to plead guilty to one count – just one count of lying to investigators – for which he served two months. Two months in prison.

It continues but you get the point.

Yea, that Lou Dobbs is a doddering old white man with no firm grasp on reality and a microphone. Who appointed Team Mueller? Was it a dem? Where was Team Trump Treason’s AG in 2018? My god, do you follow a calendar?

You burning coal yet or just that skunky purple strain in the walk-in, blowing your hits in your apron when you can’t hold your breath long enough to get to the kitchen exhaust over the oven or fryilators? Because you stoned if you believe Lou Dobbs and his conspiracy theories.

brianlux

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Here's an interesting thought.  This, I fully admit, is hypothetical, but I like to get these thoughts down anyway:

There seems to be a wide spread feeling among Democratic voters that this year's Democratic primary is very frustrating.  Other than the die hard fans in each camp, many of us do not feel strongly about any of the front running candidates.  Most of us moderately to strongly dislike certain aspects of all or most of the candidates and many of us strongly dislike some of them altogether.  Yet, when we were talking about Andrew Yang, I heard very little negative feedback about him.  And that's not just here, that is in general.  He seems well liked and well likeable.  So why is he out of the race?  I believe it is money.  Sadly, in America, money wins the game.  (Bloomberg may well prove to be the exception.) 

So my wild assed hypothesis is this:  If every registered Democrat in America had made a one time donation of $10 to Andrew Yang's campaign, I believe he would be leading the pack.  True, he did not do well in the last debate he was in, but there were circumstances that contributed to that:  he was mostly ignored by the panel and given little time, he was exhausted from a crazy hard schedule trying to raise many and he also had to make more appearances than the others to get some exposure, and I have read that his mic was cut at times during the debate. 

The man is well liked by a broad spectrum of people.  If only, in a more perfect world.  If only.

I like yang but part of his problem is the same issue MB had last night, experience. It’s a lot to ask of Yang to take the stage and beat the experienced politician. Yes trump did that, but believe it or not he is a once in a generation highly skilled politician. As an outsider, he knew republicans were ripe for the taking, if he gave them guns and baby judges. And as an outsider, his outlandish attacks stick, something that only works with voters who like bullies, aka republicans 

MB also failed yesterday due to lack of experience. He was sucker punched by warren, mostly because as a woman warren gets away with crap that a man would not. And we have some sort of weird ritual where it’s ok to publicly berate a billionaire. I wonder if any politician other than trump mocked Bernie in the days he had less money, how that would have flied with the voters.

I'll just address the part I put it bold since that is what relates to Yang here. 

Yes, it is true Andrew Yang does not have much experience in the politics-as-usual format.  But I would argue that the problem is not necessarily that someone like Yang has little experience in an institution that has proven itself to be dysfunctional and ineffective.  Indicators of the system as it stands to be dysfunctional and ineffective include:

-Failure to address climate change in a timely fashion.

-An increasing disparity between the wealthy and the poor.

-Increased homelessness in America.

-Unequal opportunities for women (some improvement, but still unequal with men).

-In general, the U.S. is lagging behind in education.

-Inability to rein in pharmaceutical companies and health care systems to make health care available to all those who nee it.

-The inability to curb gun violence.

-Failure to maintain infrastructure properly.

-Continued reliance on moving goods by roadway instead of refurbishing our rail system (way behind Europe and other places that way).

-Loss of manufacturing.

I would argue that someone like Yang who is bright and energetic, who has innovative ideas, who strives to unite rather than divide, who emphasizes humanity- that to me is more valuable than electing yet another career politician who will simply carry on business as usual. 

Be assured, I am under no delusion that America is yet willing to discontinue going down the failing path it is on.  Using the analogy of a substance abuser, we may need to hit rock bottom before we crawl back up and begin to become a healthier nation once again.  But I can at least hope that someone like Andrew Yang will provide some food for thought and perhaps some inspiration for taking action and making sensible changes.   And maybe even get elected some day.  Stranger things have happened- look who is POTUS today.

Spiritual_Chaos

cincybearcat said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Here's an interesting thought.  This, I fully admit, is hypothetical, but I like to get these thoughts down anyway:

There seems to be a wide spread feeling among Democratic voters that this year's Democratic primary is very frustrating.  Other than the die hard fans in each camp, many of us do not feel strongly about any of the front running candidates.  Most of us moderately to strongly dislike certain aspects of all or most of the candidates and many of us strongly dislike some of them altogether.  Yet, when we were talking about Andrew Yang, I heard very little negative feedback about him.  And that's not just here, that is in general.  He seems well liked and well likeable.  So why is he out of the race?  I believe it is money.  Sadly, in America, money wins the game.  (Bloomberg may well prove to be the exception.) 

So my wild assed hypothesis is this:  If every registered Democrat in America had made a one time donation of $10 to Andrew Yang's campaign, I believe he would be leading the pack.  True, he did not do well in the last debate he was in, but there were circumstances that contributed to that:  he was mostly ignored by the panel and given little time, he was exhausted from a crazy hard schedule trying to raise many and he also had to make more appearances than the others to get some exposure, and I have read that his mic was cut at times during the debate. 

The man is well liked by a broad spectrum of people.  If only, in a more perfect world.  If only.

I like yang but part of his problem is the same issue MB had last night, experience. It’s a lot to ask of Yang to take the stage and beat the experienced politician. Yes trump did that, but believe it or not he is a once in a generation highly skilled politician. As an outsider, he knew republicans were ripe for the taking, if he gave them guns and baby judges. And as an outsider, his outlandish attacks stick, something that only works with voters who like bullies, aka republicans 

MB also failed yesterday due to lack of experience. He was sucker punched by warren, mostly because as a woman warren gets away with crap that a man would not. And we have some sort of weird ritual where it’s ok to publicly berate a billionaire. I wonder if any politician other than trump mocked Bernie in the days he had less money, how that would have flied with the voters.

Poor Bloomberg got sucker punched. I'm sure Trump will put kid gloves on in the general election.

Your candidate got his ass handed to him by a better candidate plain and simple. Bloomberg was joke last night and all the attacks were fair.

Bloomberg was awful. Warren playing for second place is sad. 

I don't think she is, but we really don't know her campaigns calculations. She sure didn't look like a second place candidate last night.

Yeah we’re are going to disagree. I feel she became bernies attack dog. 

She has gone against Bernie lately too. No need for this fabricated narrative. She's as egodriven as the rest of them. Untill after Tuesday of the Super