Joe Biden announces he is running for president in 2020

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
Opinions, stated as fact by Warren, Dona Brazile, and other staffers. It was in plain sight. Seriously, you guys seem like useful idiots. How did you guys not see how shitty a candidate Hillary was? I knew she was going to lose the presidency when in fucking liberal lefty new York where I live, she had an awful public image. That in itself was terrifying. If you think any Joe schmoe can beat trump in 2020, you're about to repeat 2016.

Your smug dismissive attitude is kindling for every spurned conservative and republican to get off their ass and vote.

You've spent the last 4 years walking down this fucking dark tunnel and you think you see the light at the end... Use your fucking ears man, it's not the freedom of the outdoors ahead, it's a train headed your way. And it's going to hit you by surprise like last time.

Something I've never understood about this so-called conspiracy to rig the election. I get that you already have glossed over the fact that Donna Brazile stated clearly that there is no evidence for that. The theory goes that DNC ran out of cash and Clinton's campaign came in behind the scenes to pay the bills and use their influence to steal the election. This is a grand conspiracy and should have left evidence behind but OK, you are asserting an even more massive cover up, so I'll just let that alone for now.

My questions are:

Bernie only attracted a majority of white male democratic voters. He only drew 20% of black voters, 30% of Hispanic voters and a minority of white women voters. How does your conspiracy square with the asymmetry of support for Clinton over Bernie? Are you claiming that white men are less susceptible to manipulation?

What actions can you point to that the DNC did to bias the election for Clinton? Are you claiming that a leaked debate question is all that was needed to give Clinton a 12% margin of the vote?

I'm leery of people who cite conspiracy theories without proof that they actually happened. Trump's supporters to a man are like that. When people unhinge themselves from reality, we get leaders like that.

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

Does the DCCC have a blacklist or not? Is that just me being conspiratorial?

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
Does the DCCC have a blacklist or not? Is that just me being conspiratorial?

The DCCC's charter is to expand Democratic control of Congress. They don't have a say in who may run or what consultants people use. They do have a say in who receives their support. Not saying I wholly support what they are doing. I do understand why they are going to put resources behind incumbents who contribute to their efforts to expand Democratic Party control of Congress. They are not a government-body and are perfectly within their charter when they said that they won't hire consultants who work to primary incumbents.

If you want to run an anti-establishment campaign, then don't bitch when the establishment doesn't support you. The track record of the so-called Progressive Left was atrocious in the last election, BTW.

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
Does the DCCC have a blacklist or not? Is that just me being conspiratorial?

You failed to answer my questions about the so-called election conspiracy. I let it slide and answered your question. It's time to pay back with an answer to mine.

Fogdog said:
Something I've never understood about this so-called conspiracy to rig the election. I get that you already have glossed over the fact that Donna Brazile stated clearly that there is no evidence for that. The theory goes that DNC ran out of cash and Clinton's campaign came in behind the scenes to pay the bills and use their influence to steal the election. This is a grand conspiracy and should have left evidence behind but OK, you are asserting an even more massive cover up, so I'll just let that alone for now.

My questions are:

Bernie only attracted a majority of white male democratic voters. He only drew 20% of black voters, 30% of Hispanic voters and a minority of white women voters. How does your conspiracy square with the asymmetry of support for Clinton over Bernie? Are you claiming that white men are less susceptible to manipulation?

What actions can you point to that the DNC did to bias the election for Clinton? Are you claiming that a leaked debate question is all that was needed to give Clinton a 12% margin of the vote?

I'm leery of people who cite conspiracy theories without proof that they actually happened. Trump's supporters to a man are like that. When people unhinge themselves from reality, we get leaders like that.

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

Fogdog said:
You failed to answer my questions about the so-called election conspiracy. I let it slide and answered your question. It's time to pay back with an answer to mine.

I don't care about racial makeup of constituency, so those are non sequiturs

"Bernie only attracted a majority of white male democratic voters. He only drew 20% of black voters, 30% of Hispanic voters and a minority of white women voters. How does your conspiracy square with the asymmetry of support for Clinton over Bernie? Are you claiming that white men are less susceptible to manipulation?"

Hillary was a household name. Well known as a first lady, her name recognition was very high. The clintons, while imo undeservedly, have high support amongst black Americans. I remember as a kid going to the barber in the Bronx and they had Bill clintons picture on the wall but not George's lol. If they knew how slimy he is and his total lack of character when the cameras go off. He was the first black president before Obama. Idk how but he had support. If you think a 78 yearold independent Democratic Socialist from Vermont would have similar name recognition to the first lady really begs the question as to what you think I'm basing my support on? they're willing to side with Republicans over progressives. Proto fascist Collaborators through and through. Dick Cheney and bush are war criminals, and these establishment fucks are doing everything to sanitize their existence.

"What actions can you point to that the DNC did to bias the election for Clinton?- "
Arey you claiming that a leaked debate question is all that was needed to give Clinton a 12% margin of the vote?"

incredibly disingenuous, while you paint yourself as some charitible honest actor. "I let it slide".

She lost. Grapple with that 12% democratic base advantage over a nobody no one has heard of till that year. That's how god awful a candidate they literally propped up to combat known con artist. The media carried trump to victory, they provided billions in free advertising and yet they seem to never learn their lesson. The DNC limited the debates, made them on a schedule where they were likely ignored as well to reduce optics of Hillary. Seriously. I believe it was all conscious on their part. The kid gloves she was treated with almost made that resentment of the talking heads even worse. How many of you were surprised she lost?

travisw · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
We need to drag the overton window back to FDR

Whose sock is this @ttystikk or @Padawanbater2

Shit @schuylaar already follows you.

Socks used to try harder back in the old days.

londonfog · May 3, 2019

travisw said:
View attachment 4327485 View attachment 4327486

Whose sock is this @ttystikk or @Padawanbater2

View attachment 4327485 View attachment 4327486

Shit @schuylaar already follows you.

Socks used to try harder back in the old days.

lol.
might be just one person on all three. Sad

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
I don't care about racial makeup of constituency, so those are non sequiturs

"Bernie only attracted a majority of white male democratic voters. He only drew 20% of black voters, 30% of Hispanic voters and a minority of white women voters. How does your conspiracy square with the asymmetry of support for Clinton over Bernie? Are you claiming that white men are less susceptible to manipulation?"

Hillary was a household name. Well known as a first lady, her name recognition was very high. The clintons, while imo undeservedly, have high support amongst black Americans. I remember as a kid going to the barber in the Bronx and they had Bill clintons picture on the wall but not George's lol. If they knew how slimy he is and his total lack of character when the cameras go off. He was the first black president before Obama. Idk how but he had support. If you think a 78 yearold independent Democratic Socialist from Vermont would have similar name recognition to the first lady really begs the question as to what you think I'm basing my support on? they're willing to side with Republicans over progressives. Proto fascist Collaborators through and through. Dick Cheney and bush are war criminals, and these establishment fucks are doing everything to sanitize their existence.

"What actions can you point to that the DNC did to bias the election for Clinton?- "
Arey you claiming that a leaked debate question is all that was needed to give Clinton a 12% margin of the vote?"

incredibly disingenuous, while you paint yourself as some charitible honest actor. "I let it slide".

She lost. Grapple with that 12% democratic base advantage over a nobody no one has heard of till that year. That's how god awful a candidate they literally propped up to combat known con artist. The media carried trump to victory, they provided billions in free advertising and yet they seem to never learn their lesson. The DNC limited the debates, made them on a schedule where they were likely ignored as well to reduce optics of Hillary. Seriously. I believe it was all conscious on their part. The kid gloves she was treated with almost made that resentment of the talking heads even worse. How many of you were surprised she lost?

You claimed the DNC rigged the election but your reply addressed everything but that.

If the reason Bernie lost was DNC rigging, why the assymetry in who voted for him? THE ONLY group of voters in the Democratic Party that gave Sanders a majority were white men. Your conspiracy theory dismisses the ability of all other groups to make a decision for themselves. But white men weren't affected? Your theory has the whiff of bias. Also, you fail to show anything to prove you case in terms of actions by the DNC that caused Bernie to lose. He had full access to the offices of the DNC, full use of computer systems, databases (some of which his staff hacked into) and he reneged on his agreement to pay for that use. Yet he was never denied use of the offices of the DNC. Talk about kid gloves.

The other bit about "she lost", as if she lost all on her own by being an "awful candidate" is disingenuous. First, Trump won the EC but lost the popular vote by 3 million. So, no. Clinton ran a competitive, close race. She trounced Bernie fair and square, something Bernie's boyz dismiss with a baseless fake conspiracy theory. She lost by a few thousand votes in a few key districts to give Trump the nod in the EC.

I'm not blaming Sanders voters for the loss. 90% of people who voted for Sanders in the primary voted for Clinton in the general election, which is a historically high proportion of party faithfulness compared to past elections. I expect we'll continue to argue but rally around the party's nomination in the fall. What you do with your vote is your own decision but I don't expect many to turn their backs on the Democratic Party and allow Trump to win again as you claim. That is a childish threat that we have come to expect from the Cult of Sanders. Like your rigged theory, it doesn't hold up upon inspection either. :"Give me Bernie or I'll give you Trump". fuck that. Bernie would have lost in a landslide if he had won the nomination.

In the upcoming election, I see a great, diverse field of candidates. I don't like either of the old white men in that lineup but will vote for either if they should win the nomination.

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

travisw said:
View attachment 4327485 View attachment 4327486

Whose sock is this @ttystikk or @Padawanbater2

View attachment 4327485 View attachment 4327486

Shit @schuylaar already follows you.

Socks used to try harder back in the old days.

Ignorant of commonplace terminology like "the overton window" while commenting on a politics forum. Ignorant and proud of it. Not just ignorant, but prone to lazy conspiratorial thinking "he's gotta be an alt". You could have googled the term for context, but a trigger word sent you off on a search, idk how you lack the self awareness of how terrible a rebuttal you've made. Guilt by association. What other authoritarian tribal crap goes on in this fetid corpse of a forum?

Since.your a lazy ignoramus who can't even extend their vocabulary without having ptsd

From Wikipedia

The Overton window is a term for the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who claimed that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences.[1][2] According to Overton, the window contains the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office in the current climate of public opinion.

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

londonfog said:
lol.
might be just one person on all three. Sad

I could say the same thing about you all. This place is not merely an echo chamber, anyone who tries having an honest conversation will have it derailed purposely for the sake of whatever function you guys decide this place has. It isn't honest discourse. I pop up here once every few months see why I left and then repeat. The fact that you are more afraid of having discussion about policies and measures needed to enact those, or the consequences of potential candidates, it's shit slinging and nonsensical support for the sake of it. It boggles your minds people disagree with you.

I am a democratic-socialist, not a member of the Democratic party. There are millions of voters like me, and social-democrats outnumber us as well and that would be someone like Warren, or Andrew yang who believe in strong social safety nets to bolster capitalism and maintain it.

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

What I think will happen, the progressive voting block will coalesce around Warren and Sanders, the establishment centrist votes will be split on various identity based candidates because none of them actually care about policy specifics outside of Warren, Sanders, Yang, Gabbard and Gravel. Klobuchar has no chance, Julian Castro has no chance, Beto is going to be memed into oblivion, Biden is done for, his initial support is going to be challenged the entire way, "how did we get here?". Kamala is a liar and a cop, no chance. Corey Booker might get some support in the Northeast but likely to fizzle out. Buttigieg is going to be exposed to be a vapid smooth talker with no really appealing moral convictions.

I'll be back in 2 months to see how accurate I was.

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
I could say the same thing about you all. This place is not merely an echo chamber, anyone who tries having an honest conversation will have it derailed purposely for the sake of whatever function you guys decide this place has. It isn't honest discourse. I pop up here once every few months see why I left and then repeat. The fact that you are more afraid of having discussion about policies and measures needed to enact those, or the consequences of potential candidates, it's shit slinging and nonsensical support for the sake of it. It boggles your minds people disagree with you.

I am a democratic-socialist, not a member of the Democratic party. There are millions of voters like me, and social-democrats outnumber us as well and that would be someone like Warren, or Andrew yang who believe in strong social safety nets to bolster capitalism and maintain it.

You aren't having an "honest conversation". You dredge up old dead fake conspiracies, threaten and avoid directly answering difficult questions.

One bit of information you are overlooking is how badly the so-called Progressive left did in 2018. You can cite all the opinion polls you like but in the only poll that mattered, only a handful of so-called Progressives won a National seat. Just a glance at results for 2018 candidates that were endorsed by Bernie's "Our Revolution" shows a whopping large number of candidates in the "lost" column compared to ones in the win (most in local elections). One would expect a better showing if your numbers were as high as you claim. Oh, and not one of those successful "Progressives" won in a purple district. Many Democrats won in contested districts but not a single of your "Progressives".

Do you know who else in the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls support policies for strong social safety nets? Every one of them.

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
What I think will happen, the progressive voting block will coalesce around Warren and Sanders, the establishment centrist votes will be split on various identity based candidates because none of them actually care about policy specifics outside of Warren, Sanders, Yang, Gabbard and Gravel. Klobuchar has no chance, Julian Castro has no chance, Beto is going to be memed into oblivion, Biden is done for, his initial support is going to be challenged the entire way, "how did we get here?". Kamala is a liar and a cop, no chance. Corey Booker might get some support in the Northeast but likely to fizzle out. Buttigieg is going to be exposed to be a vapid smooth talker with no really appealing moral convictions.

I'll be back in 2 months to see how accurate I was.

Next time, be sure to prepare a better conspiracy theory to explain losing .

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

Your arguing with a caricature. And no you didn't ask hard questions, just disingenuous questions. I can't teach you to see what's right before your eyes. The 2016 election couldn't do that for you pal.

Your projection is palpable. Let's use race as a deciding factor to influence voter turnout!

You seriously sound like a trump supporter when you tried to point out brown and black people don't know who Sanders is and how he's unelectable because the brown folk don't like him as much. You guys care so much about cosmetic bullshit is embarrassing.

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

Fogdog said:
Next time, be sure to prepare a better conspiracy theory to explain losing .

I don't need one. The DCCC already advocates blacklisting anyone who tries to primary a fellow democratic. We could rid the DNC of the rot but they think it makes the party better, so we will have to drag them kicking and screaming out in the open.

Also, progressives did pretty good. They offer a Boogeyman for republican talking heads, like AOC or Ro Khanna or ilhan Ohmar. They speak the truth and expose the obvious flaws in our party politics. Somehow Democrats want to help primary ilhan Omar by propping up a republican. Collaborators with proto-fascists rings true every time.

The most favorable politicians are all progressives. Everyone I've named are extremely popular locally and among young democratic voters. I engage politically outside this echo chamber, and what I see is promising. I'll wait another 2 months to come back with an I told you so.

Bernie Sanders had an impressive town hall on Fox 'news', and their constituents agreed with his message on the whole., He can broaden the electorate by inticing far leftists center left and protectionist right wing together. He even has support among libertarian right wingers, for his foreign policy record. (Just passed through the Senate a bill to end the yemen genocide, to be vetoed by president trump).

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
Your arguing with a caricature. And no you didn't ask hard questions, just disingenuous questions. I can't teach you to see what's right before your eyes. The 2016 election couldn't do that for you pal.

The problem with your explanation is it assumes white men are more resistant to manipulation than women, black people and Hispanics. I think you should reconsider saying that.

Oh, and about that huge group, of "millions of voters"? No evidence of that in the election polls. Why is that?

Shua1991 said:
I don't need one. The DCCC already advocates blacklisting anyone who tries to primary a fellow democratic. We could rid the DNC of the rot but they think it makes the party better, so we will have to drag them kicking and screaming out in the open.

Also, progressives did pretty good. They offer a Boogeyman for republican talking heads, like AOC or Ro Khanna or ilhan Ohmar. They speak the truth and expose the obvious flaws in our party politics. Somehow Democrats want to help primary ilhan Omar by propping up a republican. Collaborators with proto-fascists rings true every time.

Out of 235 Democrats that won seats in the house, you name 3 so-called Progressives. In the past, I counted 6. That's 6 out of 235. That's not "good". That's barely hanging on. The evidence of a nascent Progressive movement is in your head and not in Congress.

The Democratic Party already supports the policies your so-called Progressive movement professes to be "revolutionary". If you want campaign finance reform, elimination of gerrymandering, a more responsive government, strengthening of social safety nets, are you going to look to Republicans to provide them? The last I saw, Republicans came within a few votes of privatizing Medicare and social security as well as repealing the ACA without anything to replace it. So, good luck with that.

As far as blacklisting of consultants who work for candidates that are primarying an incumbent Democrat? The DCCC has every legal right to do that and it's in their charter to expand Democratically held seats in congress. Its not a conspiracy if its a stated policy out there for everybody to see. When you run as an outsider, don't expect help from the insiders. Yet your kind cry bloody murder when you find out that the DCCC is about supporting the strongest candidates, not the ones you want. That entitled attitude runs deep in the so-called Progressive camp.

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

Grandma's in pantsuits aren't motivating people to go to the polls. Warren still has lower approval ratings than Biden, that should frighten you, we elected a president who's known to have taken a ride on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita express(as with bill Clinton). White old men are who you need to win the election. Stop pretending people who address this fact are racists and rather accept this as the pragmatic truth. I think Warren could have won 2016, but party politics decided a coronation was preferable to competition. Hindsight never seems to improve the Democratic establishment's conduct, it just offers worse examples as a reason for support. Be slightly less bad Republicans, and then expect to win, sign on to the wars and crime bills and racial politics but expect none of the negative consequences for engaging in them. Then gaslight your opponent to pretend nothing happened. Transparent.

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
Grandma's in pantsuits aren't motivating people to go to the polls. Warren still has lower approval ratings than Biden, that should frighten you

Ahh, so now that you are out of fake stories to tell you go after physical appearance. It is well known that Bernie's bros have a reputation for misogyny, not just among voters but on his campaign staff as well. In spite of your low esteem for older women, Clinton, the pant-suited 70 year old granny won the popular vote in 2016. Just goes to show that most people see past physical appearance when choosing who to vote for. You can't tell me that Trump and Sanders have much physical appeal. But they are men, so it doesn't matter, right?

I think Warren's problems stem from her radical policies scaring people off. Not that I'm bothered by them but I'm guessing a lot of people think she's not electable because of them.

Shua1991 · May 3, 2019

Fogdog said:
Ahh, so now that you are out of fake stories to tell you go after physical appearance. It is well known that Bernie's bros have a reputation for misogyny, not just among voters but on his campaign staff as well. In spite of your low esteem for older women, Clinton, the pant-suited 70 year old granny won the popular vote in 2016. Just goes to show that most people see past physical appearance when choosing who to vote for. You can't tell me that Trump and Sanders have much physical appeal. But they are men, so it doesn't matter, right?

Keep projecting whatever you want, you still have nothing to attack but strawmen. I'm not sexist. More guilt by association. Lazy thinking all around.must be easy to be a farm animal, they say when you don't use it, you lose it. Ask Hillary what she thought of Monica Lewinsky. Right, she didn't trust women either. How about all those lesbians she said shouldn't have the right to marriage? Oh right let's conveniently forget that. She was a Goldwater girl in her youth. If Warren ran in 2016, I'd have no complaints. But that didn't happen.

Fogdog · May 3, 2019

Shua1991 said:
Keep projecting whatever you want, you still have nothing to attack but strawmen. I'm not sexist. More guilt by association. Lazy thinking all around.must be easy to be a farm animal, they say when you don't use it, you lose it.

Hey you are the one who brought up physical appearance as a detractor. Now face the music. Why is a woman's age and appearance a detractor to you but not a man's?

Joe Biden announces he is running for president in 2020

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads