3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 15 minutes ago, row_33 said: after they all destroy themselves before Christmas 2019, who is going to ride in and take the nomination? I can see her riding in on this: 1
row_33 Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: I still think that she wants in and it is killing her that others are getting the media attention. I think that her "advisors" are telling her to wait out the Kamala-Warren phase of this cycle and to this point she is listening. she is brilliant (mostly) and is getting those Keith RIchards transfusions and blood setasides to stockpile for her run starting the week before NH (or is it Iowa??) 2020...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, row_33 said: she is brilliant (mostly) and is getting those Keith RIchards transfusions and blood setasides to stockpile for her run starting the week before NH (or is it Iowa??) 2020... California
Koko78 Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Uncle Joe said: Don't get me started...Oregon lawmakers seek to lower voting age in state to 16, so teens can ‘protect their future’https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/02/oregon-lawmakers-seek-to-lower-voting-age-in-state-to-16-so-teens-can-protect-their-future.html How else are they going to have a broader base of names to forge on absentee ballots?
row_33 Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: California Perrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect....
whatdrought Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 18 hours ago, Foxx said: https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1098324271347175427 Sad testament to the world we live in where I really have to double take to be sure this is satirical. 1 1
Doc Brown Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 9 hours ago, RochesterRob said: I still think that she wants in and it is killing her that others are getting the media attention. I think that her "advisors" are telling her to wait out the Kamala-Warren phase of this cycle and to this point she is listening. I think the right misses its boogeyman.
IDBillzFan Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I think the right misses its boogeyman. Please. We miss the stair-challenged money-launderer, but the left has done a bang up job filling that spot with AOC, Omar, Warren, Harris and Booker. Together, they're the "Laverne and Shirley" to Clinton's "Happy Days." They're "The Jeffersons" to Clinton's "All In The Family." They fill the batschittttcrazy nutbag stupidity, but in Technicolor. In front of a live studio audience. I haven't had this fun watching nutbag leftists go crazy since MSNBC had to call it for Trump.
keepthefaith Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 And now Harris is suggesting reparations for African Americans as compensation for slavery. She is Obama II. She's right out of his school. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/430999-warren-harris-back-reparations-for-black-americans-affected-by-slavery The article is wrong in saying Obama didn't support the policy. Obama talked about it at length before he was a US Senator. He just didn't have the stones to run on it.
row_33 Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 22 hours ago, keepthefaith said: or lazy or over confident or too lacking in stamina or all of the above. The media and polls and libs told her she was the greatest candidate ever until she lost and all these snivelling cowards now claim she was the worst never heard a peep of her being lousy right up to the second she lost...
Doc Brown Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, row_33 said: The media and polls and libs told her she was the greatest candidate ever until she lost and all these snivelling cowards now claim she was the worst never heard a peep of her being lousy right up to the second she lost... There were some exceptions. Here's a Washington Post article explaining how flawed a candidate she was the January before the election. At some point, you cannot blame the national mood or a poor staff or a brilliant opponent for Hillary Clinton’s campaign woes. The latest Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll shows that Clinton, who once led Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) by double digits, is only 2 points ahead of Sanders. Clinton is down 9 points since the DMR/Bloomberg’s December 2015 poll. That means the race is within the margin of error (4.4 percent). Clinton responds as she usually does — poorly. Her attack on Sanders from the left on guns makes sense. She actually has his record to work with, on an issue about which the base is engaged. Her attack over health care makes no sense whatsoever. Clinton is dinging Sanders for a universal health-care plan that she says would require a big tax hike. Huh? This is Sanders, the darling of the left, who has always wanted true, single-payer health care. The idea that Sanders — “the democratic socialist” — would be coming up with a dastardly plan to undermine or take away universal health care, from the left’s perspective, is inconceivable. Left-wing Salon has this to say: After years of the right wing trying one scheme after another to take away Obamacare, it jars the senses to watch Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton accuse her primary rival, Bernie Sanders, of wanting to take away Obamacare. Sanders, she now insists, would do so from the left by instituting a program — single-payer healthcare — that would be more progressive than the Affordable Care Act. It did not help that the campaign sent out the wooden Chelsea Clinton to attack Sanders. (“It’s a typical Clinton campaign move. Have a bad week at the polls? Overreact with a terrible, transparent attack that anyone with an IQ north of negative can see through. The fact that this move might alienate the Sanders supporters she’ll need later on if she wins the nomination does not seem to enter the calculation.”) Over at U.S. News & World Report, Clinton elicits more hisses and boos. “A single-payer system, like it does in many other countries, would cover everybody, period. To say otherwise is either willfully misunderstanding how it would work or simple scaremongering. . . . he’s sliming Sanders with the accusation that he wants to take health insurance away from people. It’s a garbage attack, and makes even less sense considering that she’s going to need Sanders’ supporters come November when she (as is still very likely) becomes the Democratic nominee. (Democrats, incidentally, really like single-payer, as do independents.)” The Nation, in endorsing Sanders, sounds like right-wing talk show hosts whining about establishment Republicans: [T]he limits of a Clinton presidency are clear. Her talk of seeking common ground with Republicans and making deals to “get things done” in Washington will not bring the change that is so desperately needed. . . . She rejects single-payer healthcare and refuses to consider breaking up the big banks. We also fear that she might accept a budgetary “grand bargain” with the Republicans that would lock in austerity for decades to come. In short, at a time the left — like the right — wants to fight against compromise and corruption, Clinton is fighting the beloved Sanders in just the same terms the GOP would. It’s baffling why she thinks this would help when she is at risk now of losing both Iowa and New Hampshire. Her loyalists say it’s good for her to get a challenge in the primary. In theory that is right, but if it comes at the expense of further depressing the left-wing base (which hasn’t liked the Clintons for years), it’s a really bad thing. So we come back to Hillary Clinton, the candidate. At some point, even Democrats might concede she is unlikable, regarded as dishonest and untrustworthy and, to boot, politically tone-deaf. In the Clinton marriage, Bill got all the political talent, it seems. One can speculate that as the Clinton circle got smaller out of fear and paranoia, the number of people willing to level with her shrank dramatically or disappeared altogether. When she has a dumb idea or gets panicked and starts flailing away — as she did in 2008 — it appears there is no one to stop her. Left to her own devices, she’s a poor candidate. Maybe VP Joe Biden should have gotten in after all. Edited February 22, 2019 by Doc Brown 1
/dev/null Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 43 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: I haven't had this fun watching nutbag leftists go crazy since MSNBC had to call it for Trump. Good times. 1 1
row_33 Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 That was way early, the last six months it was a love fest for her without any negative remarks allowed.
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, /dev/null said: Good times. Rachel Maddow at 3:44 is downright prophetic. 1
whatdrought Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-dad-says-parents-are-turning-in-their-grave-over-her-comments-on-weed-and-being-jamaican?fbclid=IwAR3j1HYoiGclXatRVxENDYO4YTCfWbESIRbGbjGJBc_-E27j_Bu0xRBYEUw
row_33 Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: oh Bernie, please don't run as a third party independent even though most resentful people think a third party will bring instant Utopia don't throw us into the briar patch, Bernie, and drain away Dem votes in 2020 and (may you live forever...) 2024 1
Hedge Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, /dev/null said: Good times. The only thing that could have made that clip better was if it was set to the Benny Hill theme song. And to follow that video of greatness, I'm going to drop this old one in too. With all that we know now, listen to this, and be amazed at both the truth bombs President Trump dropped on us early on, and that he is still in the fight. Sometimes the right man turns up at the right time. Edited February 22, 2019 by Hedge 2 1
Koko78 Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: 1.) It's Newsweek - they're idiots. Edit: So is this Twitter dumbass. The article is from last June. 2.) This rule change was enacted some months ago; this isn't new. 3.) The Vermont Democrat Party has declared that Bernie is a member of the state Democrat party, regardless of whether he officially joins. 4.) The rule has been skirted. Edited February 22, 2019 by Koko78 1 1
row_33 Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 So the Dems don't want Schultz and they don't want Bernie. Those would two AWESOME independent candidates in 2020.
Recommended Posts