|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted February 12, 2020 01:15 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 02:05, 12 Feb 2020.
|
The Democratic National convention
Will cause death uprising mayem and riots if they rig the elections against the voice of the snowing people.
Riot. Riot. Riot.
Snow this countries backbone and toxic political structure if i sense bernie is again shoved behind the scenes.
The DNC is pushing a guy average lame named Buttigieg and i know the reality of things. Media supresses bernie sanders like DNC was exposed in sabatoging his campaign in 2016.
Im for real about to say blow UP the political structure and the racist KKK ****s who put it there.
Who is the acronym working for?
DNC is Not For the People or the votes.
We know this.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 12, 2020 04:36 AM |
|
|
Buttigieg is going to get annihilated when the elections move to the east and south. He has already been polling high in Iowa for months but blacks and progressive don't like him and his stronghold is the Midwest. Having him in the race is useful for somebody like Bernie Sanders because he's the other major moderate candidates along with Joe Biden and he soaks up moderate votes. Klobuchar also soaks up moderate votes.
It will be interesting to see if Biden's dip in the polls is sustained or if it will go back up. The more debates they have the weaker he is going to get because he can't compete on stage with Buttigieg as a younger, non-senile moderate.
I have to admit that from a purely entertainment standpoint: having Trump versus Sanders in the general election would be absolutely epic. The two of them would clash so hard.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 12, 2020 04:38 AM |
|
|
And let's face it: if you don't live in a swing state, you don't actually have the right to vote. Your ballot is ceremonial confetti. So for most of us, it's all about the epic entertainment.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 12, 2020 04:49 AM |
|
|
Andrew Yang, the Democratic Party's best candidate, has just dropped out. Now it's down to the War of the Whitties. The Fightin' Whitties.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
|
posted February 20, 2020 07:41 PM |
|
|
How was Bloomberg yesterday? I heard he was just as empty a shell as Biden has been.
My thoughts on the remaining candidates:
Tulsi is not going to make it to Super Tuesday, Klobuchar has an annoying voice, Biden is a walking corpse, though he may still be observed to at times imitate human behaviour, Pete is gay, so he'll never win over many Republicans, Steyer may be a surprise, Warren is like Bernie, but not as thrilling and also a bit more 'moderate' and Bernie... might not win the nomination because of a brokered convention.
It sure smells more and more of another four years of Trump (with most Republicans firmly behind him and Democrats being so disunited), and worse, of another four years of negative Trump media coverage. We get it, he is not without (many) flaw(s), but he is definitely not the antichrist, nor is he the worst president... as of yet. Such cheap antagonising tactics will not win the White House for the DNC.
The Count
PS: Yang was a breath of fresh air. His presence will be missed.
____________
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 20, 2020 09:18 PM |
|
|
Bloomberg has a very boring personality but he still managed to be mayor of NYC 12 years, so I guess charisma is't everything. He makes Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's life easier because he more widely distributes the moderate voters. He is a stronger candidate than any of the other moderates.
As far as the condemnation game: you will notice that when the general election rolls around, the nominee (whoever they are) will tone it down and start to sound more embracing of the entire country.
It's not really any different from 2016. In the GOP primaries it was open season to bash Obama but when general elections came even Trump turned it down a notch.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 02:12 AM |
|
|
It'll be another 4 years of Trump. I for one welcome all the continued leftist attacks across all leftist-controlled media. I'd like to see more people besides myself wake up to the poison that is the leftist party and their obvious stranglehold on all media. These past 4 years have taught me even more about the state of this country than all the previous years of my life combined. The democratic party are directly doing everything they can to dismantle what our forefathers laid out the blueprints for.
The republican party isn't without faults, not by a longshot; that's not what I'm saying. They encompass the rich and corrupt just like the others. But at least they're not so hell-bent on dismantling this country through every single means at their disposal.
|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 06:07 AM |
|
|
Do you reckon the Democratic party may break up? The margin between moderates and progressives has only widened as of late.
The Count
____________
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 07:56 AM |
|
|
George Soros Attacks Facebook: ‘Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be In Control’
With Mark Zuckerberg deciding to allow more leeway for free speech on his social media platform, some leftists are now trashing Facebook as a would-be enforcement arm of all things evil.
Writing for The New York Times , billionaire and far-left activist George Soros attacked Zuckerberg for allowing President Donald Trump to be elected in 2016 and enabling his coming re-election in 2020.
Recalling a dinner he attended in Davos, Switzerland, Soros remembered being asked if Facebook was behaving more responsibly four years after Trump’s re-election.
“Facebook helped Trump to get elected and I am afraid that it will do the same in 2020,” Soros claimed to have said during the dinner.
Soros even accused Facebook of developing “an informal mutual assistance operation or agreement” with President Trump in exchange for protection against attacks from regulators and the media.
A Facebook spokesman told Business Insider that this charge is “just plain wrong.”
“I believe that Mr. Trump and Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, realize that their interests are aligned — the president’s in winning elections, Mr. Zuckerberg’s in making money,” asserted Soros.
“Let’s look at the evidence: In 2016, Facebook provided the Trump campaign with embedded staff who helped to optimize its advertising program. (Hillary Clinton’s campaign was also approached, but it declined to embed a Facebook team in her campaign’s operations.) Brad Parscale, the digital director of Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign and now his campaign manager for 2020, said that Facebook helped Mr. Trump and gave him the edge. This seems to have marked the beginning of a special relationship.”
Soros then cited Zuckerberg’s meeting with the president in the Oval Office in the fall of 2019 and Trump later saying in regards to the meeting, “I’d rather have him just do whatever he is going to do. He’s done a hell of a job, when you think of it.”
...
Etc. All these hellish monsters fighting. But this is clarely said. Must be censorship. People must vote as we want.
Its of course deep state all those banksters satanists and other thugs behind puppets on the scene.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 09:10 AM |
|
|
Guys, it's about bending and breaking the rules - and in an obvious way. I mean, the senators in the impeachment farce: what would Trumpy have to do for them to not simply strangle everything and vote everything down, including listning to witnesses?
And THAT is your GOVERNMENT.
I mean, don't get me wrong - it doesn't matter whether it's labelled Republican or Democratic. The Democratic Party isn't in any real sense of the word "left" or "leftist", it's just left from the Republicans which doesn't mean much.
Americans shouldn't vote NEITHER, but others. THAT would shake things up, and in a healthier way than voting a bum.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 02:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Guys, it's about bending and breaking the rules - and in an obvious way. I mean, the senators in the impeachment farce: what would Trumpy have to do for them to not simply strangle everything and vote everything down, including listning to witnesses?
And THAT is your GOVERNMENT.
Who would have thought that a purely partisan action would have been a garbage fire? If we learned anything about the impeachment debacle its that Americans don't have a damn clue how the impeachment process works and what roles and responsibilities the two chambers have in the process.
Pelosi's idiotic gambit was doomed form the start. The impeachment vote was totally partisan. Despite her claims it was a grave and serious matter, she sat on the articles for a month. The managers, who had the authority to subpoena witnesses and then petition the courts when those subpoenas failed, thought they could ram it through. So they the transmit the articles to the Senate, with a weak case, hoping that somehow the Senate, will throw them a bone. The senators are the jury; it's not their role to present a case. Lastly, since no federal statutes were listed in the articles, any senators of integrity should have voted nay on grounds that the prosecution failed to allege a claim. But no, it had to be partisan.
In response to the partisan action, it got mostly a partisan response. "But, but Romney!" And? The guy has a well known grudge against the president and given his age, I'm sure he will not seek reelection and will make millions writing a book later, something like "Why I voted to Impeach" or something like that. I also find it fascinating that 3 senators who voted to impeach for abuse of power, were using their political powers to try and remove a potential political rival. The irony.
What bothers me greatly about the impeachment farce is that nobody seems to care about the precedent it is setting. With how weak the articles were against Trump, what happens when a Republican-controlled House doesn't like a Democrat president. Are they going to go after them for bogus reasons as well?
But it's done now. The Dems failed to slow down Trump, their party is fracturing, and their candidates are weak. I'm wondering if they'll be a little more introspective when they lose in November or if they will fall back on the tired "Russian interference" claim.
RE: Soros. It's funny to reading about a billionaire supporter of Party X complain another billionaire allegedly supports Party Y.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 03:53 PM |
|
|
The farce is in the fact that the jury is allowed to determine what can be used to make the case. THAT is the farce. (Which is, bigger picture, a general problem with the way legal things are handled: the main battle is about what is allowed as evidence and what is not.)
And "weak candidates" - Have there ever been weaker republican candidates that actually got elected than the last two, Trump and Bush? Seriously, who would trust Trump with ANYthing, if he was your neighbor or a clerk in a bank or insurance?
They say, a people gets the statespersons they deserve. If that's true, yeah, well, good luck.
|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 04:19 PM |
|
|
Trump was a great candidate, he is just not that good a president.
The Count
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 05:18 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
The farce is in the fact that the jury is allowed to determine what can be used to make the case. THAT is the farce. (Which is, bigger picture, a general problem with the way legal things are handled: the main battle is about what is allowed as evidence and what is not.)
And "weak candidates" - Have there ever been weaker republican candidates that actually got elected than the last two, Trump and Bush? Seriously, who would trust Trump with ANYthing, if he was your neighbor or a clerk in a bank or insurance?
They say, a people gets the statespersons they deserve. If that's true, yeah, well, good luck.
Everyone new the rules of the game before playing. Again, Pelosi took a gamble, lost, and now looks like a total clown, especially after her tantrum at the state of the union. I actually pity her. She didn't want to press the issue but was beholden to the desires of her party. I know she made my state rep, Rashida Tlaib, very happy with the decision. It got her mind off the ethics violation charges she is facing.
Trump got elected because his opponent, Clinton, was easily the weakest candidate the Dems put up since Mondale. A political insider, senator, and secretary of state, who was so phony, uncharismatic, and unrelatable, that a complete political outsider was able to win the election. "But she won the popular vote!" is a protest we commonly hear and, again, everyone knew what the rules of the game were before playing. She was a weak candidate and the DNC's decision to screw Sanders is what ultimately cost her the election, coupled with the resentment Obama cultivated in many areas of the country, sealed her fate. If she had won the bid naturally, I believe Sander's supporters would not have stayed home or voted 3rd party.
As to trusting Trump, he has enough successes to ride on that it's now his game to lose. I think more than enough people trust his leadership than the likes of Sanders and Warren, who despite years of service, have little to show but staggeringly expensive plans.
As to your final sentiment, the feeling is mutual. I pity Merkel. Having to shoulder a crumbling coalition must be exhausting.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 06:34 PM |
|
|
I disagree with you.
Yes, the acting politicians know the rules, but sometimes you have to simply call the hand of the opponent to actually show openly that the deck is stacked.
I also don't think that Clinton was a weak candiate. She was made to look so in the course of Trump's campaign - it's Trump who was the weak candidate, if you ignore all the campaigning and lies and fake news and claims and whatnot.
Secondly, your election system is utter crap because it cements the fact that it's a two horse race no matter how many races take part. The SMART choice in 16 would have been to vote for a third candidate, simply because both big party candidates left a lot to be wished for. But that doesn't work in your system that is "biassed".
There is no "leadership" with Trump, obviously.
Our system may not be flawless, but it's mirroring the fact that there are no "people's parties anymore". Instead, political parties drift apart, since there are a lot of different priorities that cannot be dealt with via a simple A or B.
It has become complicated and your system is simplifying it in a manner that isn't compatible with the 21st century.
Quote:
Trump was a great candidate, he is just not that good a president.
A "great candidate"? For the office of POTUS? He wouldn't have been a great candidate for the job of a janitor in a 6 family apartment building.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 07:54 PM |
|
|
The entire process was stacked from start to finish. The impeachment was stacked by the Dems, the trial by the Republicans. Everyone KNEW what the outcome would be but the Democrats were Hell-bent on bruising the guy. So they took their weak case to the Senate where, as predicted, it was voted down among party lines. The entire thing was a gigantic waste of time and a spectacular backfire on the Dems's part. I am very curious to see if they will suffer a similar fate like Newt and the House Republicans after the Clinton impeachment. I suspect, at minimum, for Pelosi and the old guard to be attacked by the younger members and a change in party leadership. While I'm uncertain the Dems will lose the house, I suspect their majority will shrink considerably.
Clinton was absolutely weak. Despite having every advantage but money (highly favorable media coverage, being a former senator, being the secretary of state, lots of support) she still managed to lose to a brutish outsider who ran a shocking campaign, breaking the most basic of campaign norms. Ultimately, her arrogance was her undoing.
I will not disagree about our system and actively pity those who believe that Democrats and Republicans are anything but different arms of the same beasts. Even better are idiots who say "Republicans/Democrats only want power!" Well, duh. Of course they do. If they weren't concerned with power, they would impose term limits on Reps, Senators, and the Justices. I would like to see a transformation of the parties and believe a schism is possible in the Democratic party should the Dems screw Sanders again (despite him being an "Independent").
Clearly Trump is leading if he is able to push his agenda through despite overwhelming opposition from the media and the Democrats. I wouldn't call him implacable but he has been able to accomplish a surprising amount given the circumstances.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 08:29 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
A "great candidate"? For the office of POTUS? He wouldn't have been a great candidate for the job of a janitor in a 6 family apartment building.
One is a great candidate if one is very likely to succeed in one's candidacy. Trump's bid for the White House was a strong one, hence he was a great candidate for president.
OmegaDestroyer said:
I wouldn't call him implacable but he has been able to accomplish a surprising amount given the circumstances.
I agree. He may even be able to sign a favourable trade deal with China before election day if the outbreak there weakens their economy enough.
The Count
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 08:33 PM |
|
|
If he is reelected - despite democrats pushing their best to counter + 90% of medias lying day and night to help that, it means he is/was good. Period, unless you believe some conspiracy.
All the noise around is leftist opinions, as expected they can't lose without pushing some bs.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 08:48 PM |
|
|
Look. Clinton would have been an infinitely better president than Trump could ever be - not that this would say much, because Trump is anything but fit to be one. It doesn't matter how canditates APPEAR to be - being president isn't a TV show.
It's really simple. The American president has an awful lot of power. Trump on that seat? I mean, who has an easy feeling with him at the helm? If you have to be thankful that passenger planes are shot accidentally, avoiding a lot due to the shame involved...
2016 no one in their right mind could vote the guy, but having to endure that twittering oaf for 4 years should be enough to tell everybody that Donald Trump isn't president material and never was.
I consider this an issue as obvious as climate change. It's not even debatable.
At this point I would just say that in 2016 more women were prepared to vote Trump (as hard to fathom it is that ANY woman would vote for him) than men were prepared to vote Clinton.
I think that if the Reps had nominated an ACCEPTABLE, actually charming candidate (like Rob Lowe), it would have been a landslide victory, because all women had voted him because he was charming as opposed to a career female, while all men had voted for him over the suffragette.
So, if you wanted to say that, yes, Clinton was a crappy candidate - you'd need a more womanly one. But Trump was a lot crappier, because this is just IMAGE. The POTUS, though, is about abilities, and Clinton would wipe the floor with Trump.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 09:11 PM |
|
|
OmegaDestroyer said:
what happens when a Republican-controlled House doesn't like a Democrat president. Are they going to go after them for bogus reasons as well?
But it's done now. The Dems failed to slow down Trump, their party is fracturing, and their candidates are weak.
The left have been fighting against Trump since he made office. The impeachment bullsnow was their last pitiful attempt to put their bullsnow back on track at the helm. They're still full steam ahead everywhere else. The republicans should have pressed charges for such snow, but they've been sitting on their hands(or laughing all the way to the bank) while the dems have been running rampant, continually face-raping common sense and the Constitution. Both parties are to blame, as they are all rotten to some degree. Hillary should have faced prison by now. So should the entire Bush administration, the media, and countless others in power or enforcing that power, since near the beginning of the U.S. It's all an absolute disgrace to a country that has the blueprints to be the greatest nation to ever exist in the history of mankind, and outright squanders it.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
