Elizabeth Warren and Her Ancestry. Thoughts?
Comments
-
"Cling to their guns & religion"
"Basket of deplorables"
Elitism had as much to do with this as racism & sexism, whether people like it or not. That's a fact, Jack
Keep it up, and it will keep happening0 -
my2hands said:"Cling to their guns & religion"
"Basket of deplorables"
Elitism had as much to do with this as racism & sexism, whether people like it or not. That's a fact, Jack
Keep it up, and it will keep happening
So are you saying that these people need to be finessed a bit and they will come to their senses and change their votes?
This definitely seems to be what you are implying over and over. I disagree.
I think that these simple bastards you speak of are 100% fixed in their value system and if there is any good in them, they are so conflicted it wouldn't matter if their candidate is compromised by their country's biggest historical opponent, has a history of cheating people, chronically lies, bangs prostitutes, grabs p**sies, mocked disabled people, insulted veterans, is a fat tub of shit, has a mushroom d*ck, and cannot even go poo without buggering that simple task up (among a wide range of other things).
I think that- given they endorse such a man no matter what- it doesn't matter how you treat them. So... may as well call a spade a spade. There's no need to 'respect' idiocy or immorality."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
This is an interesting topic for me. I tend to agree with My2Hands. Because it's not about trying to change the minds of people that won't change. It's about the visual seen by the independents and others. Now - the reality is that Trump and his supporters have done far worse so it probably shouldn't matter. But my opinion is don't give them any ammo.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:my2hands said:"Cling to their guns & religion"
"Basket of deplorables"
Elitism had as much to do with this as racism & sexism, whether people like it or not. That's a fact, Jack
Keep it up, and it will keep happening
So are you saying that these people need to be finessed a bit and they will come to their senses and change their votes?
This definitely seems to be what you are implying over and over. I disagree.
I think that these simple bastards you speak of are 100% fixed in their value system and if there is any good in them, they are so conflicted it wouldn't matter if their candidate is compromised by their country's biggest historical opponent, has a history of cheating people, chronically lies, bangs prostitutes, grabs p**sies, mocked disabled people, insulted veterans, is a fat tub of shit, has a mushroom d*ck, and cannot even go poo without buggering that simple task up (among a wide range of other things).
I think that- given they endorse such a man no matter what- it doesn't matter how you treat them. So... may as well call a spade a spade. There's no need to 'respect' idiocy or immorality.hippiemom = goodness0 -
That’s a different issue, though. The independents and undecided voters likely need to be reached differently than the dyed in the wool republicans, and I think that’s what we’ve been referring to.cincybearcat said:
This is an interesting topic for me. I tend to agree with My2Hands. Because it's not about trying to change the minds of people that won't change. It's about the visual seen by the independents and others. Now - the reality is that Trump and his supporters have done far worse so it probably shouldn't matter. But my opinion is don't give them any ammo.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:my2hands said:"Cling to their guns & religion"
"Basket of deplorables"
Elitism had as much to do with this as racism & sexism, whether people like it or not. That's a fact, Jack
Keep it up, and it will keep happening
So are you saying that these people need to be finessed a bit and they will come to their senses and change their votes?
This definitely seems to be what you are implying over and over. I disagree.
I think that these simple bastards you speak of are 100% fixed in their value system and if there is any good in them, they are so conflicted it wouldn't matter if their candidate is compromised by their country's biggest historical opponent, has a history of cheating people, chronically lies, bangs prostitutes, grabs p**sies, mocked disabled people, insulted veterans, is a fat tub of shit, has a mushroom d*ck, and cannot even go poo without buggering that simple task up (among a wide range of other things).
I think that- given they endorse such a man no matter what- it doesn't matter how you treat them. So... may as well call a spade a spade. There's no need to 'respect' idiocy or immorality.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
This."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Never going to happen.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
This.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
It would make for a very interesting election and at least give us a much clearer picture of where people stand in this country. Maybe Trump will motivate that type of turnout in 2020. If we can't reach a 3/4 population turnout for the upcoming presidential election then we never will. I guess I'll never understand those who choose not to vote. No candidate is perfect, but there has got to be someone who at least represents a majority of your ideals or someone who completely does not and is not who you want to win. Maybe I'm being naive because so much of the country has resigned to the fact that no matter what, nothing changes for them personally no matter who is president so they just don't care anymore.mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participationIt's a hopeless situation...0 -
mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself0 -
Hence the focus on the “issues,” particularly local issues, district/state. Healthcare, education, wages, environment, gender equality. No “basket of deplorable” or “clinging to their guns and religion,” rhetoric. And very little talk of impeachment of Team Trump Treason as most voters want the “evidence” first. Me? On that issue, like Team Trump Treason, I’m going with my gut. But with the constant lies, assists from putin on the ritz and disenfranchisement of voters, anything is possible.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls. Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Voting should be mandatory.Halifax2TheMax said:
Never going to happen.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
This.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awfulbrianlux said:
Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls. Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself
0 -
I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).my2hands said:
Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awfulbrianlux said:
Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls. Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Did you vote for Obama?brianlux said:
I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).my2hands said:
Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awfulbrianlux said:
Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls. Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself0 -
That's a real question.my2hands said:
Did you vote for Obama?brianlux said:
I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).my2hands said:
Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awfulbrianlux said:
Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls. Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself
My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary.
Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss.
Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary.0 -
I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.my2hands said:
That's a real question.my2hands said:
Did you vote for Obama?brianlux said:
I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).my2hands said:
Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awfulbrianlux said:
Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls. Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself
My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary.
Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss.
Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.PJ_Soul said:
I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.my2hands said:
That's a real question.my2hands said:
Did you vote for Obama?brianlux said:
I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).my2hands said:
Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awfulbrianlux said:
Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls. Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself
My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary.
Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss.
Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary.
Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion0 -
Fine. I disagree. Anyone who would vote for that piece of shit, after ALL the terrible things they knew about him, have no real moral compass at all. I think there is NO excuse for it. And no, nobody has ever been on the ballot like Trump, so it's never happened before. I sure as hell don't think they're scum for voting for Trump because he's a cheater, lol.my2hands said:
I disagree. I know some trump voters, they are not scum. I definitely disagree with them politically, but that doesnt make them scum.PJ_Soul said:
I think anyone would vote for Trump for ANY reason is scum. Hillary has nothing to do with it.my2hands said:
That's a real question.my2hands said:
Did you vote for Obama?brianlux said:
I didn't vote for her or Trump (but I live in a state that was 100% for sure going to give Hillary it's electoral college votes).my2hands said:
Or Hillary was an awful candidate and had no enthusiasm behind her as a candidate? I actually believe if Hillary were a male candidate she would have lost the popular vote as well, she was awfulbrianlux said:
Trump would not be president if more people had shown up at the polls. Too many Clinton votes were lost by too many people assuming she had it in the bag.Lerxst1992 said:mickeyrat said:I wanna see what happens with 75-85%plus participation
Are you referring to Voter turnout?
If so, check out the wiki for 2016 elections for fla, pa and oh
Turnout was at or above 70% and democrats lost all of those states by plenty of votes.
Dems focusing on turnout first is usually a catastrophic disaster. Dems win when they have a winning message communicated effectively.
When they do that, turnout will take care of itself
My assumption is you voted for Obama despite him being a lock to take CA both times. And then didnt vote for Hillary.
Democrats only need to look at their awful robot elit7st candidate to realize why Trump lost. But I guess its easier to label 60 million morons and racists than own the loss.
Dont blame me, I voted for Bernie in the primary.
Why would you paint them all with such a broad brush? Were people that voted for W in 2004 scum? Are people who supported Bill Clinton scum? A married man with a daughter getting blown by a young intern in the oval office is about as scumbag as it gets in my opinion
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
W in 2004 was much worse in my opinion, do I really need to remind people? Bunch of fucking psychos in that admin that lit the world on fire, and demonized gays daily...
Trump is childs play0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help