The Democratic Presidential Debates

1…294295297299300…345

Comments

  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,994
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Not the guy you want at the helm during a covid19 pandemic.
    Yeah, no shit. 
    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, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,598
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Not the guy you want at the helm during a covid19 pandemic.
    Not the guy you want at the helm. 
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    JimmyV said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Not the guy you want at the helm during a covid19 pandemic.
    Not the guy you want at the helm. 
    Not the guy (in any situation)
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    F Me In The Brain said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:
    The Juggler said:
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    I sure hope all these Bernie bros who learned the definition of the word plurality last week still remember at the end of the day today

    Does Bernie have a “whiteness” problem? Seems as if he didn’t do as well with the people who aren’t white...

    If only we had an expert on the subject who could explain that to us. 

    Stupid tweet.

    And....that is pretty much what is left.  You have been telling us for a month (months?) what people in America really want.  
    Have I?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,860
    what dreams said:
    I just caught a snippet of Warren on ABC World News. She was asked what role gender played, and she gave a great answer -- if she said it played a role, she would be called a whiner. If she said gender played no role, women everywhere would ask her what planet she's on.  I was a Klobuchar supporter until Monday night, and she would have been a fantastic president. But Warren would have been an absolute delight to watch in a debate against Trump.

    I wish Harris hadn't made such poor calculations in her strategy. And Tulsi Gabbard, doesn't she have similar military credentials as Mayor Pete? But we make fun of her? I'm glad so many women ran. They were all fantastic. I hope women continue to run and run and run until we truly own 50% or more of our government's offices and positions.


    Women comprise more than half of the voters so it seems the anti woman vote is not gender specific.

    I liked Harris at first but she made a terrible choice on M4A.

    I liked Tulsi at first but she made a terrible choice on Putin.

    I liked Amy throughout and wish she did better with voters.

    I was indifferent about Liz but her actions on the dna test, on her promise to serve her full term, and her blaming the billionaire for all the world's problems...well...enough said. 
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    Not the guy you want to get into a meme-battle with, Mike.....


    Suburban voters in PA will be moved by memes.  They usually spend the evening on twitter after cooking dinner, helping teh kids with homework, catching up with the spouses, etc.  After that, it's all social media gifs and memes. 
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,388
    edited March 2020
    I swear dude is emotionally stunted to post such childish shit all the time...

    I put him at about 8 yrs old emotionally....
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________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 '14
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    pjl44 said:
    CM189191 said:
    pjl44 said:
    This is Bernie's last stand. He should run Green if he doesn't get the Dem nomination. My maximum chaos pipe dream is still alive.

    R- Trump
    D- Biden
    L- Amash
    G- Sanders
    Bernie's last stand was three and a half years ago. He should have walked away when his head held high when he had the opportunity. Now he's just embarrassing himself, and his supporters.

    Stop trying to make third party a thing.  We are two party system. Our checks and balances are in the three branches of government. And Sanders running as a green is going to cost Democrats the other two branches. We already lost two supreme Court Justices and a slew of federal court appointments. we can't afford to make the same mistake again.
    You don't have to respond to everything like you've been given 30 seconds to shout at the camera on Hardball

    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    Lerxst1992 said:
    what dreams said:
    I just caught a snippet of Warren on ABC World News. She was asked what role gender played, and she gave a great answer -- if she said it played a role, she would be called a whiner. If she said gender played no role, women everywhere would ask her what planet she's on.  I was a Klobuchar supporter until Monday night, and she would have been a fantastic president. But Warren would have been an absolute delight to watch in a debate against Trump.

    I wish Harris hadn't made such poor calculations in her strategy. And Tulsi Gabbard, doesn't she have similar military credentials as Mayor Pete? But we make fun of her? I'm glad so many women ran. They were all fantastic. I hope women continue to run and run and run until we truly own 50% or more of our government's offices and positions.


    Women comprise more than half of the voters so it seems the anti woman vote is not gender specific.

    I liked Harris at first but she made a terrible choice on M4A.

    I liked Tulsi at first but she made a terrible choice on Putin.

    I liked Amy throughout and wish she did better with voters.

    I was indifferent about Liz but her actions on the dna test, on her promise to serve her full term, and her blaming the billionaire for all the world's problems...well...enough said. 

    support Biden and each of these women will have a prominent role in the next administration  

    (except Tulsi, she's terrible)
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Let Dairy Die??? Did you guys see that?
    Wtf was that all about? Did spiritual supply the funding for that to happen?
    Rather be supporting opposing the dairy industry, than be okey with jumping on supporting Trump opposing anyone that isn't white.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,388
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Let Dairy Die??? Did you guys see that?
    Wtf was that all about? Did spiritual supply the funding for that to happen?
    Rather be supporting opposing the dairy industry, than be okey with jumping on supporting Trump opposing anyone that isn't white.
    sooooo you're fave candidate is from and represents a state that has dairy as a pretty major employer in Ben And Jerrys, Vermont cheese, milk bottlers and associated products.

    Yeah, ALL for the worker arent you.....
    _____________________________________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 '14
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    mrussel1 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:

    Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president.  At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
    What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?

    For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government.  We are not a multi-party system.  We are not set up that way.  
    So what happens?
    Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation.  This is all well and good.  However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college.  If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president.  The last time this happened was 1824.  Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.  
    Fail to see the problem..(?)
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,598
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:

    Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president.  At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
    What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?

    For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government.  We are not a multi-party system.  We are not set up that way.  
    So what happens?
    Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation.  This is all well and good.  However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college.  If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president.  The last time this happened was 1824.  Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.  
    Fail to see the problem..(?)
    With the House choosing the President? 
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    edited March 2020
    mickeyrat said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Let Dairy Die??? Did you guys see that?
    Wtf was that all about? Did spiritual supply the funding for that to happen?
    Rather be supporting opposing the dairy industry, than be okey with jumping on supporting Trump opposing anyone that isn't white.
    sooooo you're fave candidate is from and represents a state that has dairy as a pretty major employer in Ben And Jerrys, Vermont cheese, milk bottlers and associated products.

    Yeah, ALL for the worker arent you.....
    What level of arguing is this on...
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    JimmyV said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:

    Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president.  At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
    What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?

    For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government.  We are not a multi-party system.  We are not set up that way.  
    So what happens?
    Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation.  This is all well and good.  However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college.  If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president.  The last time this happened was 1824.  Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.  
    Fail to see the problem..(?)
    With the House choosing the President? 
    Yes.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    JimmyV said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:

    Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president.  At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
    What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?

    For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government.  We are not a multi-party system.  We are not set up that way.  
    So what happens?
    Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation.  This is all well and good.  However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college.  If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president.  The last time this happened was 1824.  Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.  
    Fail to see the problem..(?)
    With the House choosing the President? 
    Yes.
    I guess your opinion on that would change based on who controls the House, wouldn't it?  Or do you think it's generally the right situation for the House to have the final say in who is the president?
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    This place is really falling apart after Chris Matthews left.


    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    This place is really falling apart after Chris Matthews left.


    Math is hard.  
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,994
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    I think this is pretty reasonable. Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me. 

    lol...Timothy Burke. Well I guess there's still an audience for those Deadspin guys...albeit a small one. 
    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, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,471
    edited March 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    JimmyV said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    CM189191 said:

    Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president.  At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
    What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?

    For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government.  We are not a multi-party system.  We are not set up that way.  
    So what happens?
    Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation.  This is all well and good.  However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college.  If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president.  The last time this happened was 1824.  Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.  
    Fail to see the problem..(?)
    With the House choosing the President? 
    Yes.
    I guess your opinion on that would change based on who controls the House, wouldn't it?  Or do you think it's generally the right situation for the House to have the final say in who is the president?
    If it means people have decided to have more than two parties representing, then yes on both I guess. If that is how the the law is and you do not want to change it (like it being the majority of votes choosing President (usually called "the popular vote") and removing the 270 threshold). People voted in the people into congress? So it would be a classic case of Representative democracy(?)

    In Sweden, the prime minister is chosen by a majority in the parliament (a majority of the 349 votes). And we have "universal" healthcare. So seems to work decently. Even though I understand it is not exactly the same.

    Or maybe I am misunderstanding completely your post. I'm tired. I'm leaving work in 30 minutes. I wasn't even suppose to work today.

    and in before: THAT IS NOT HOW AMERICA WORKS.
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
This discussion has been closed.

Categories