Democratic Primary Fucktussle!

[butters]

where's the yawn emoji when you need one?

 

[KeithD]

But, they ARE Communists.

Bullshit. Who do you think you're fooling? Nobody believes your crap.

 

[Ramone45]

Bullshit. Who do you think you're fooling? Nobody believes your crap.

I'm afraid they do.

 

[KeithD]

I'm afraid they do.

I don't know why I haven't put a silly jackass like you on ignore long before now. Fixed.

 

[moonflasher]

I'm afraid they do.

And there it is...next thing you know Keith will put you on ignore. He does that with those who don't agree with his nonsense.

Watch how he responds to this

 

[Ziggins]

But, they ARE Communists. Bernie, absolutely. Pete, probably. Warren hates freedom, liberty and self-sufficiency. She definitely hates people and is a hypocrite (but they ALL are)

Commies! Sic 'em boy! Good dog!

 

[JackLuis]

NH voter says live on MSNBC that network’s effort to tear down Bernie Sanders made her vote for him

“I think it is completely cynical to say that he has lost 50% of his vote from the last time when there were two candidates,” the voter replied. “This time there are multiple, wonderful candidates that would be great candidates and people that we could unify behind.”

“The kind of ‘Stop Bernie’ cynicism that I heard from a number of people… It made me angry, so I said, Bernie’s got my vote,” she added.

 

[YDB95]

But, they ARE Communists.

Words have meanings, my friend. A hundred years of abuse of that particular word by people like you has not changed that.

 

[Ramone45]

Words have meanings, my friend. A hundred years of abuse of that particular word by people like you has not changed that.

You have a valid point. Communism has a specific meaning. And so far, the radical left wing candidates have not expressly stated that they think the government should take over private enterprise and private property. But they are opposed to traditional American values such as freedom, liberty, independence, rule of law, self sufficiency.
They hate the people and they do not trust them to care for themselves. They certainly do not believe in limited government and allowing people to retain their hard earned resources to provide for themselves as they see fit.

 

[Ramone45]

I don't know why I haven't put a silly jackass like you on ignore long before now. Fixed.

You're going to read my posts anyways. Sorry to upset you

 

[YDB95]

You have a valid point. Communism has a specific meaning. And so far, the radical left wing candidates have not expressly stated that they think the government should take over private enterprise and private property. But they are opposed to traditional American values such as freedom, liberty, independence, rule of law, self sufficiency.

Because they want to provide people with the tools to earn a living wage and provide for themselves and their families? That's an interesting definition of "opposed to traditional American values". Also a completely, utterly wrong definition. Read a history book or two. The myth of rugged American individualism is just that - a myth. Prior to the New Deal, it was fairly common for communities to provide help where needed - when they could. If they couldn't, widespread poverty reigned. We don't want to go back there. Besides, while it's certainly a nice thing to do, no one should be expected to always have to bail out their neighbours when hard times hit.

They hate the people and they do not trust them to care for themselves.

How so? Exactly how do you believe progressives "don't trust people to care for themselves"?

Because we support affordable health care? Listen, if I need surgery, I don't want to have to do it myself! Would you?

Or because we support a living wage? That's the exact opposite of not trusting people to care for themselves; it's ensuring that they CAN do that.

Or because we oppose reproductive freedom? Oh wait, we don't; your side does.

Or because we support a safety net? The whole point of a safety net is ensuring people don't end up on the street when they hit a patch of bad luck. The cold hard truth is, for most people, there does come a point where they need help. To acknowledge that isn't "communistic" in any way.

They certainly do not believe in limited government and allowing people to retain their hard earned resources to provide for themselves as they see fit.

Sure we do. What I'm all but certain you're referring to is tax policy proposals that have absolutely nothing to do with "hard earned resources".

 

[JackLuis]

As of 7:30 EST ~70% counted

Bernie Sanders 60,279 26.12%
Pete Buttigieg 55,211 23.93%
Amy Klobuchar 45,518 19.72%
Elizabeth Warren 21,752 9.43%
Joe Biden 20,137 8.73%

 

[YDB95]

It's been called for Sanders. He and Buttigieg are about even in delegates, and I think Warren is still in third place although she didn't win any delegates in NH.

 

[JackLuis]

Mike Bloomberg’s best shot at the Democratic nomination has only one clear path — and it could be a huge gift for Trump

Bloomberg appears to have gotten the largest poll bump after last week’s disastrous Iowa caucuses, surging to third place in the latest Quinnipiac poll with 15%. A Morning Consult poll released on Monday similarly found Bloomberg in third with 17%. Though Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., now leads both national polls for the first time, supplanting Biden as the apparent frontrunner, Bloomberg’s plan to flood the airwaves with $300 million worth of ads appears to be paying off.

“If Sanders soars through the first four primaries … Mike may end up as the only thing standing between Bernie and the nomination,” Bloomberg’s former mayoral campaign manager Bradley Tusk told The Hill. “A large portion of the party believes that Bernie can’t beat Trump — and that beating Trump is all that matters,” he added. It’s worth noting that head-to-head polling data suggests Sanders would perform just as well against Trump as Bloomberg would.

As political scientist V.O. Key wrote in his 1966 book, “the task of the convention is to unite the party in support of a presidential candidate.” Contested conventions, however, often result in animosities that “reach such intensity that deadlock ensues and whatever party unity is achieved by the convention is mere façade.”

“There are going to be a lot of people,” added top Sanders adviser Jeff Weaver, “who are going to be very upset if they feel like the election was stolen from them by a cabal of corporate types.”

Who's buns will be buttered at the Convention?

 

[YDB95]

Meh, the Democrats will always have their share of doomsayers. Let 'em whine.

 

[KeithD]

The problem with the polls about Sanders's chances against Trump is that they don't seem to take into account that the Republicans--and Trump--have kept their powder dry on Bernie since the 2016 elections. If he gets the nomination, I believe they will tear him limb from limb with just the sort of attacks that will resonate with American voters. With the help they've gotten, they've deep-sixed nearly every Democratic politicians running for high office from Kerry to Hillary Clinton to, now, Biden. All of this Ukraine stuff on Biden, no matter how empty, has taken effect, I think. (Although we'll see what the "not-strange" state primaries do, assuming Biden can get to them.)

The fact is that the Republicans and Trump will do a massive deep-six job on Sanders's obdurate leftist views and lack of delivery. They want him to be the Democratic candidate. I could see him even taking AOC as his VP candidate just because he's so unyielding and considers himself so pure, which would be the kiss of death for his candidacy and the Democratic Party (and the American people, for that matter) in the election. I can see Bernie being that sort of "I don't give a shit about anything but me" candidate. Not that different from Trump.

Bloomberg's possible mistake is in saying he'd dump all of that money on a campaign (against Trump) whether or not he, Bloomberg, was the Democratic candidate. On that basis, why not just take his money, promise him a cabinet position, and ignore him as a candidate?

 

[YDB95]

The problem with the polls about Sanders's chances against Trump is that they don't seem to take into account that the Republicans--and Trump--have kept their powder dry on Bernie since the 2016 elections. If he gets the nomination, I believe they will tear him limb from limb with just the sort of attacks that will resonate with American voters.

They'll play dirty with ANY nominee. If the Democrats could somehow bring Ronald Reagan back to life, convince him to return to the party and repeal the 22nd amendment so he could run for president again, they'd throw the same slime at him - "they hate America", "they hate traditional values", "they're coming for your guns", "they want to tax you into bankruptcy and give it all to Those People" - it's what they do, period. The great thing about Sanders is he doesn't try to duck and run from the labels like most mushy-middle Democrats do. He fights back, and he doesn't apologise for who and what he is.

Which doesn't mean anyone has to support him in the primaries. (I'm supporting Warren, of whom I believe the same is true.) But you shouldn't avoid him because you're afraid the Republicans will slime him. They'll slime anyone.

 

[KeithD]

They'll play dirty with ANY nominee.

Yes, but they have a whole bunch of stuff with Bernie that will resonate with a large proportion of American voters, and they'll have ways of delivering it that Americans will fall for without realizing their prejudices are being worked--the far leftism, that he's old and medically frail (the heart attack is enough to do it), that he's Jewish (but not supported by the Jewish lobby. "Even they don't want him"), that he's so stubborn and sour, that he can't/won't deliver but will want to break the bank doing so. It doesn't matter how much of it is true or relevant. The Swiftboaters can make it resonate.

Just watch and see. Those who say he can beat Trump haven't seen what the Swiftboaters have in store for him.

 

[YDB95]

Just watch and see. Those who say he can beat Trump haven't seen what the Swiftboaters have in store for him.

Yes, but that will be an issue for any Democratic nominee. There's no use in trying to avoid it. What we need to do is fight back, and Sanders knows how to do that.

 

[KeithD]

Yes, but that will be an issue for any Democratic nominee. There's no use in trying to avoid it. What we need to do is fight back, and Sanders knows how to do that.

My point is that it will be more so with Bernie. It has been with Biden, but even Biden doesn't have the baggage to work with that they have with Bernie. Dumb bunnies are assuming they aren't ragging on Bernie because he isn't touchable--that he has some sort of anti-Trump serum going for him. That's not the case; they're laying in wait for him. They are salivating that it will be him. What they have to work with simply is NOT the same for all Democratic possibilities.

(And Bernie isn't even a Democrat--party work for him will be tepid at best. This came out in 2016 and was painted as evil--but it was reasonable and understandable. He's trying to steal a party without committing to it. Why the hell would long-term party workers commit to him and his supporters who are only there for him? They'll bust their butts just for the real Democrats running down ticket. That's a Bernie disadvantage no other Democratic candidate would have.)

 

[YDB95]

My point is that it will be more so with Bernie. It has been with Biden, but even Biden doesn't have the baggage to work with that they have with Bernie. Dumb bunnies are assuming they aren't ragging on Bernie because he isn't touchable--that he has some sort of anti-Trump serum going for him. That's not the case; they're laying in wait for him. They are salivating that it will be him. What they have to work with simply is NOT the same for all Democratic possibilities.

I would certainly agree that his supporters are full of it if they think he's immune. But I just don't believe anyone is any more immune to the right wing shit machine than any of the others. I stopped believing in that in 2004, when we had a three-time Purple Heart winner against a guy who used family connections to get into the National Guard during Vietnam and then went AWOL from it for a year - and look which of the two ended up on the defensive over his record!

Bottom line, if the Republicans don't have anything to attack, they'll invent something out of whole cloth (where was Obama born? What did Al Gore really say about the Internet?). I simply don't see any point in factoring that into my choice of whom to support.

 

[KeithD]

I would certainly agree that his supporters are full of it if they think he's immune. But I just don't believe anyone is any more immune to the right wing shit machine than any of the others. I stopped believing in that in 2004, when we had a three-time Purple Heart winner against a guy who used family connections to get into the National Guard during Vietnam and then went AWOL from it for a year - and look which of the two ended up on the defensive over his record!

Bottom line, if the Republicans don't have anything to attack, they'll invent something out of whole cloth (where was Obama born? What did Al Gore really say about the Internet?). I simply don't see any point in factoring that into my choice of whom to support.

I'm not advocating someone not support Bernie if they want to (and I'll certainly vote for him if he gets the nomination). I'm advocating dumb bunnies stop saying he has the best chances of winning against Trump. He doesn't. He has much (much, much) more stuff for the Swiftboaters to use against him than any other Democratic candidate does (unless the Swiftboaters are really good at touching the homophobia thread running through American society). No, they aren't all the same in their vulnerability to Republican/Trump/Russian Swiftboating.

 

[YDB95]

No, they aren't all the same in their vulnerability to Republican/Trump/Russian Swiftboating.

We're going to have to disagree about that. Like I said, where there isn't something to attack, they simply invent it.

 

[KeithD]

We're going to have to disagree about that. Like I said, where there isn't something to attack, they simply invent it.

They don't have to do much inventing re Bernie and you can bet it's all been packaged already since 2016, when they didn't have to use it. I think you are failing to understand my point. It isn't what the Swiftboaters are going to do with anything; it's what the Bernie dumb bunnies seem to think are Bernie's chances against Trump (as opposed to anyone else's). I don't think they are putting his advantages in this regard out there a strategic positioning; I think they actually are naïve enough to believe it and thus to falsely believe he and they are some sort of gift from God to the Democratic Party that the party can take or they are leaving--like they did the last time, resulting in what we are now facing as a nation.

 

[YDB95]

It isn't what the Swiftboaters are going to do with anything; it's what the Bernie dumb bunnies seem to think are Bernie's chances against Trump (as opposed to anyone else's). I don't think they are putting his advantages in this regard out there a strategic positioning; I think they actually are naïve enough to believe it and thus to falsely believe he and they are some sort of gift from God to the Democratic Party that the party can take or they are leaving--like they did the last time, resulting in what we are now facing as a nation.

Okay, THAT I agree with. Anyone who thinks the Dems can afford any defections needs hir head examined.