Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[3rdnlng]

25 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Maybe. But there'd be a discussion about fixing actual problems instead of impeachment that will fail 100%. 

 

 

Claro. 

 

But he is an accelerant too. 

I can't fathom you saying that with a straight face. Tell it to the Dreamers. Two years ago the dems had a perfect avenue to getting 2.5 times what they had been pressing for and they backed away to avoid giving Trump a win. What about the USMCA? WTF has it taken a year to finally be getting some traction in the House? 

 

Let's see "3rd Chair" is taken and while you could get the mantle of "4th Chair" you are not allowed near a courtroom. (it's a likability thing) Ah, I got it: "Empty Chair" seems about right for you. I could have went with "Yesbut" but that is already taken. 

[John Adams]

50 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I can't fathom you saying that with a straight face. Tell it to the Dreamers. Two years ago the dems had a perfect avenue to getting 2.5 times what they had been pressing for and they backed away to avoid giving Trump a win. What about the USMCA? WTF has it taken a year to finally be getting some traction in the House? 

 

Did you only pick those two examples showing one party's intractability by accident, or do you think this is a one-party issue? 

 

If we stopped with this stupid storyline that the other side is "evil," and instead worked across the aisle, things would get done. But that doesn't sell papers or win primaries. 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Did you only pick those two examples showing one party's intractability by accident, or do you think this is a one-party issue? 

 

If we stopped with this stupid storyline that the other side is "evil," and instead worked across the aisle, things would get done. But that doesn't sell papers or win primaries. 

 

 

I give you two examples of the Dems disingenuous MO and you choose to ignore them. The Dems have shown time and again what their priorities are. Generally speaking, they base their policies on what's good for the Democrat Party and what will give them the most power. The Republican positions (generally speaking) tend to be based more on what's best for this country. I gave you two examples of that and you go back to Empty Chair rhetoric, designed to celebrate do nothing stalemates. The reason the Dems are so afraid of Trump is that he promised to upset the apple cart and is actually doing it. 

 

BTW, Nancy Pelosi is now attempting to take credit for the USMCA. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

BTW, Nancy Pelosi is now attempting to take credit for the USMCA. 

  These people... 

[section122]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I give you two examples of the Dems disingenuous MO and you choose to ignore them. The Dems have shown time and again what their priorities are. Generally speaking, they base their policies on what's good for the Democrat Party and what will give them the most power. The Republican positions (generally speaking) tend to be based more on what's best for this country. I gave you two examples of that and you go back to Empty Chair rhetoric, designed to celebrate do nothing stalemates. The reason the Dems are so afraid of Trump is that he promised to upset the apple cart and is actually doing it. 

 

BTW, Nancy Pelosi is now attempting to take credit for the USMCA. 

 

You don't actually believe the bolded do you?  The Republican position (just like the dems) is whatever will get them more power or allow them to hold on to power.  Both sides do this.  Perhaps you forgot about the supreme court appointment in 2016?

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

 

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."  There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. 

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "  McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.

 

Which was followed up by the sham Brett Kavanaugh witch hunt by the Dems.

Edited December 10, 2019 by section122

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, section122 said:

 

You don't actually believe the bolded do you?  The Republican position (just like the dems) is whatever will get them more power or allow them to hold on to power.  Both sides do this.  Perhaps you forgot about the supreme court appointment in 2016?

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

 

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."

There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. 

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.

 

Which was followed up by the sham Brett Kavanaugh witch hunt by the Dems.

And somehow this refutes anything I put in bold? 

[section122]

11 minutes ago, section122 said:

The Republican positions (generally speaking) tend to be based more on what's best for this country.

 

This is what I put in bold so yes I would say it does.  You really truly think the Republican party does what is best for the country and not for the party itself?  Really you truly believe that?

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

27 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

And somehow this refutes anything I put in bold? 

 

..probably the dirtiest era in politics I've seen in my 66 years....and the Clinton Dynasty got the ball rolling.......corruption now surfacing is mind boggling....FBI, DOJ, CIA, etc......makes J Edgar and Watergate look like Fisher Price play stuff.......never thought I'd see an orchestrated coup to overthrow a sitting President.....sure it's power and control on BOTH sides, but the shenanigans to get it are dirtier and dirtier.....I had an opportunity to run for a Councilman seat on my local Town Board, registered at that time as a Republican (now Independent).....a Board Republican who I grew up with told me not to bother because I was "too outspoken and would not tow the Party line"......wonder how many potentially "good ones" out there today say "no way in hell" as far as running for ANY party knowing you, your family, et al will be dragged through the mud and then some......so the possible potential of the "best and the brightest" is lost and we're stuck with the parasitic relics firmly entrenched with "term limits" a laughable dream....

Edited December 10, 2019 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

This is what I put in bold so yes I would say it does.  You really truly think the Republican party does what is best for the country and not for the party itself?  Really you truly believe that?

 

 

 

In all instances? No. In the important instances? Yes. The dems prove time and time again that they are incapable of doing what's right for the country and eschewing partisanship. Just look at the 2 instances that I gave John Adams. Can you tell me you don't cringe with the constant lies coming from the mouths of Swallwell, Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi Hank Johnson, Maxine Watters and the Squad? 

[snafu]

7 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

Spin cycle winding down for most of the field these days. It's a 4 horse race, and I wonder if Bloomberg stays in it until the convention on the off-chance that it's divided. 

 

You think it would go well for Bloomberg if he's the fifth place candidate who comes out of the convention after spending millions and millions to "buy" superdelegate support?

 

I don't.

 

 

 

[section122]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

In all instances? No. In the important instances? Yes. The dems prove time and time again that they are incapable of doing what's right for the country and eschewing partisanship. Just look at the 2 instances that I gave John Adams. Can you tell me you don't cringe with the constant lies coming from the mouths of Swallwell, Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi Hank Johnson, Maxine Watters and the Squad? 

 

Absolutely cringe almost any time Peolsi opens her mouth.  How are you that rich and can't afford properly fitting dentures? 

 

You gave Jon Adams 2 instances and I gave one back to you.  I cringe that Trump tweets 30+ times in a day and our 70+ year old president gets into twitter beefs.  I cringed when Obama was a Kenyan.  I cringed when it came out that the DNC rigged the primary for HRC.  I cringed when Clinton was impeached for getting a #### ###.  I cringed when we went to war over WMDs.  How about the obstructionism during Obama's tenure as president?

 

Is that enough examples?  Both sides are dirty.  Neither side gets to pretend anymore that it is country over politics.  That has been made clear by BOTH parties for at least the last 20 years.

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

Absolutely cringe almost any time Peolsi opens her mouth.  How are you that rich and can't afford properly fitting dentures? 

 

You gave Jon Adams 2 instances and I gave one back to you.  I cringe that Trump tweets 30+ times in a day and our 70+ year old president gets into twitter beefs.  I cringed when Obama was a Kenyan.  I cringed when it came out that the DNC rigged the primary for HRC.  I cringed when Clinton was impeached for getting a #### ###.  I cringed when we went to war over WMDs.  How about the obstructionism during Obama's tenure as president?

 

Is that enough examples?  Both sides are dirty.  Neither side gets to pretend anymore that it is country over politics.  That has been made clear by BOTH parties for at least the last 20 years.

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a statement like what's in bold above? 

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

Is that enough examples?  Both sides are dirty.  Neither side gets to pretend anymore that it is country over politics.  That has been made clear by BOTH parties for at least the last 20 years.

This is said with nothing but respect, but you’re SO close to breaking through, but haven’t yet. Your mistake is laboring under the delusion there are two sides. 
 

That’s the trick. 
 

There are not two sides (at the federal level). There’s one establishment (bipartisan) and everyone else. It’s not about R v D or C v L or any partisan paradigm — that’s the distraction to keep us fighting with each other rather than holding those who deserve it to account. 
 

 

[row_33]

people still trying to be groovy over President Clinton's proclivities?

 

it was an interesting time, 3 partners at law and accounting firms that I knew were fired after telling jokes in public business situations about Bill's proclivities

 

at gatherings for funerals/weddings/birthdays/anniversaries.... some older men thought it would be funny to tell a joke along these lines, one time his 5 year old granddaughter asked what that word meant out loud

 

so thanks Bill for making everything cheaper and more vulgar and stupid than it already was... 

 

 

[John Adams]

19 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I give you two examples of the Dems disingenuous MO and you choose to ignore them. The Dems have shown time and again what their priorities are. Generally speaking, they base their policies on what's good for the Democrat Party and what will give them the most power. The Republican positions (generally speaking) tend to be based more on what's best for this country. I gave you two examples of that and you go back to Empty Chair rhetoric, designed to celebrate do nothing stalemates. The reason the Dems are so afraid of Trump is that he promised to upset the apple cart and is actually doing it. 

 

BTW, Nancy Pelosi is now attempting to take credit for the USMCA. 

 

Yes, the Republicans monetary responsibility that benefits the country is awe-inspiring. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

This is a health policy aggregator and the titles are links to the stories:

Buttigieg Reveals Blue Cross Was One Of McKinsey Clients He Worked On Prior To Insurer Slashing 10% Of Workforce
 

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew fire on the presidential campaign trail for his consulting work for McKinsey. Buttigieg says he "never worked on a project" inconsistent with his values, and maintains that although he worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan during his tenure, he focused on expenditures like rent, utilities and company travel. Two years after he worked on the case, the insurer cut up to 1,000 jobs.
 

</snip>

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, John Adams said:

 

Yes, the Republicans monetary responsibility that benefits the country is awe-inspiring. 

Sad retort. When one is incapable of debating the subject, change it, eh? 

[B-Man]

CREDIT WHERE IT’S DUE:

Spartacus makes a calm statement about yesterday’s murder of Jersey City police Detective Joe Seals and Jewish civilians but refrains from turning it into a political “anti-NRA” screed. First, now is not the time. Second, I’m willing to bet good money that the perpetrators were not NRA members, and even go so far as to say the weapons used were obtained in violation of already-existing law.

 

 

That said, we know the Jewish supermarket was targeted, yet nobody has released the names of the perpetrators so far.
I’m guessing it’s those damned Presbyterians again.

 

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, B-Man said:

CREDIT WHERE IT’S DUE:

Spartacus makes a calm statement about yesterday’s murder of Jersey City police Detective Joe Seals and Jewish civilians but refrains from turning it into a political “anti-NRA” screed. First, now is not the time. Second, I’m willing to bet good money that the perpetrators were not NRA members, and even go so far as to say the weapons used were obtained in violation of already-existing law.

 

 

That said, we know the Jewish supermarket was targeted, yet nobody has released the names of the perpetrators so far.
I’m guessing it’s those damned Presbyterians again.

 

 

 

 

.

In other words, the attack was preordained? 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/NathanBrandWA/status/1204835809813245953