Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61

Thread: 2020 Democratic Presidential Nominee chances

  1. #1 2020 Democratic Presidential Nominee chances 
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:


    1.) Bernie Sanders - 80%

    2.) Tulsi Gabbard - 55%

    3.) Elizabeth Warren - 40%

    4.) Andrew Yang - 30%

    5.) Kirsten Gillibrand - 25%

    6.) Beto O'Rourke - 20%

    7.) Corey Booker - 15%

    8.) Kamala Harris - 10%

    9.) Joe Biden - 2%

    10.) Hillary Clinton - 0%


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    1,005
    I see you're stirring the pot as usual Ascended, glad to see you back dude.


    I would personally rank Beto and Kamala higher. Also not sure Bernie is that viable. He lost of a lot of his support since the election. A lot of the Bernie bros I know kind of turned on him. Although by 2020, their misplaced anger may have mellowed enough that they would support him again. But it's way too early to tell in my opinion.


    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Doesn’t matter who the voters pick. The corrupt corporofascist DNC will pick their preferred tool and then rig the primary. Just like they did with her heinousness. My guess is that Kamala has already been picked. I really don’t care, fool me once...
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Doesn’t matter who the voters pick. The corrupt corporofascist DNC will pick their preferred tool and then rig the primary. Just like they did with her heinousness. My guess is that Kamala has already been picked. I really don’t care, fool me once...
    Eh, if Trump is still the Republican Candidate and not in prison, then I will vote Dem in the general pretty much regardless of the candidate.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:


    1.) Bernie Sanders - 80%

    2.) Tulsi Gabbard - 55%

    3.) Elizabeth Warren - 40%

    4.) Andrew Yang - 30%

    5.) Kirsten Gillibrand - 25%

    6.) Beto O'Rourke - 20%

    7.) Corey Booker - 15%

    8.) Kamala Harris - 10%

    9.) Joe Biden - 2%

    10.) Hillary Clinton - 0%
    Your scoring is peculiar. Shouldn't the scores add up to 100%?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Doesn’t matter who the voters pick. The corrupt corporofascist DNC will pick their preferred tool and then rig the primary. Just like they did with her heinousness. My guess is that Kamala has already been picked. I really don’t care, fool me once...



    Half of me thinks you may well be right, but I really hope 'this time' you aren't!



    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    I see you're stirring the pot as usual Ascended, glad to see you back dude.


    I would personally rank Beto and Kamala higher. Also not sure Bernie is that viable. He lost of a lot of his support since the election. A lot of the Bernie bros I know kind of turned on him. Although by 2020, their misplaced anger may have mellowed enough that they would support him again. But it's way too early to tell in my opinion.

    Hey Travis, thanks for the welcome. Stirring the pot I've probably been watching too much TYT.

    I remember last time around with you telling me about Bernie and at the time not knowing much about him.
    You were right though, he would have been a much better candidate than Hillary.

    I still think he is the best candidate this time, if
    he decides to run that is. He just appears, to me at least, to be the most honest & sound on policies that will improve people's lives.


    There are a couple of candidates that come across really well and are easy to like i.e. Kamala Harris & Corey Booker, yet their records & corporate ties put me off.
    I can't see either of them being for ordinary people in the same way as a Bernie, Gabbard or Warren.


    I also wouldn't bet against Kirsten Gillibrand, she wouldn't be my first pick but I do think out of all the possibles she is the smartest. May have some iffy things in her record,
    however it's still better than most of the corporate Dems and she has at least shown a willingness to move to the left on the issues. I don't think she's a hopeless case.


    Really not a Biden fan, don't think he'd do anything for ordinary people and I think he get squashed by Trump in the general.


    Love Andrew Yang's policies, but I fear for him that America isn't ready yet to elect an Asian American President, I don't think it should make a difference, but it probably will.


    Beto, well, I wanted him to beat Cruz in Texas for the senate, but since then it's been shown on TYT he is taking money from big oil, got to wonder what he'd be like on the environment,
    that said, again he's far from the worst pick and about million times better than Trump.


    Personally, I'd love to see a Sanders / Gabbard ticket, I think they'd have a real shot in 2020.


    This said, I'd take any of my predictions with a big pinch of salt, I thought Rubio was going to win for the Republicans last time around!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:


    1.) Bernie Sanders - 80%

    2.) Tulsi Gabbard - 55%

    3.) Elizabeth Warren - 40%

    4.) Andrew Yang - 30%

    5.) Kirsten Gillibrand - 25%

    6.) Beto O'Rourke - 20%

    7.) Corey Booker - 15%

    8.) Kamala Harris - 10%

    9.) Joe Biden - 2%

    10.) Hillary Clinton - 0%
    Your scoring is peculiar. Shouldn't the scores add up to 100%?

    Err, probably. I kind of scored them in a strange way by using the percentages, hopefully you get the gist though
    Last edited by Ascended; January 30th, 2019 at 05:30 PM.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    The least of two evils is still not much of a choice. I prefer the least of three or more evils. I’m one of those shameful fools who is willing to throw my vote away on “alternative product”. Although I think we did get the lesser of the “two evils”. Her heinousness would have bathed the Earth in nuclear fire by now. Put lipstick on a psychopath...
    I doubt Bernie will run again. I suspect that him or his family are under threat. Not interested in seeing him run again. Last time he got blatantly rolled. And never really got up again. Doesn’t mean I don’t like him as a person. I believe that there are Bernie Bros’ like Obama was a secret Muslim. Both rumors are traceable to her heinousnesses power campaigns.
    If the economy and the lack of new wars, jobs and not less peace, keeps up like it has... Well then, maybe orange is the new blue?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Hey Travis, thanks for the welcome. Stirring the pot I've probably been watching too much TYT.

    I remember last time around with you telling me about Bernie and at the time not knowing much about him.
    You were right though, he would have been a much better candidate than Hillary.
    He would have been. Hillary has too much baggage from the near thirty yeas of witchhunting that the republicans have subjected her to. That's not to say I didn't vote for her in the general election.


    I still think he is the best candidate this time, if he decides to run that is. He just appears, to me at least, to be the most honest & sound on policies that will improve people's lives.
    There are a couple of candidates that come across really well and are easy to like i.e. Kamala Harris & Corey Booker, yet their records & corporate ties put me off.
    I can't see either of them being for ordinary people in the same way as a Bernie, Gabbard or Warren.
    I like Bernie, but I'm just not convinced he can bring enough people together to win in 2020, but that's still a ways away so time will tell. I also worry about his age. I find myself gravitating towards younger candidates overall. I agree with your assessment of Harris and Booker, however I think Harris will end up being one of the major contenders in 2020.

    I also wouldn't bet against Kirsten Gillibrand, she wouldn't be my first pick but I do think out of all the possibles she is the smartest. May have some iffy things in her record,
    however it's still better than most of the corporate Dems and she has at least shown a willingness to move to the left on the issues. I don't think she's a hopeless case.
    Really not a Biden fan, don't think he'd do anything for ordinary people and I think he get squashed by Trump in the general.
    I don't know much about Gillibrand. I liked Biden as VP but I don't think he would be good for Pres or have much of a chance in the general.

    Love Andrew Yang's policies, but I fear for him that America isn't ready yet to elect an Asian American President, I don't think it should make a difference, but it probably will.
    Seeing as how the US still doesn't even see the viability of Asians as leads for movies or shows, I don't feel like Yang has much of a chance. Which is a shame. Ethnicity shouldn't matter, it should be based on their platform.

    Beto, well, I wanted him to beat Cruz in Texas for the senate, but since then it's been shown on TYT he is taking money from big oil, got to wonder what he'd be like on the environment,
    that said, again he's far from the worst pick and about million times better than Trump.
    I too wanted him to beat Cruz. He would still most likely be better than a Republican for the environment. I think he has a strong chance in 2020, he's popular and seems to give off that Kennedy vibe that a lot of people resonate with. He also has that punk rock vibe that makes him popular with some. He's one that I see as a real contender.

    Personally, I'd love to see a Sanders / Gabbard ticket, I think they'd have a real shot in 2020.
    This said, I'd take any of my predictions with a big pinch of salt, I thought Rubio was going to win for the Republicans last time around!
    I'm abstaining from choosing any favorites right now, I want to give them all a chance to reveal themselves a bit more. And hey the polls thought Hillary had the win in the bag so predictions can be way off.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    276
    Are these supposed to represent the probability of winning the general election if they get the nomination? In that case, doesn't it make sense that the percentages add up to more than 100%?
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    I'm abstaining from choosing any favorites right now, I want to give them all a chance to reveal themselves a bit more. And hey the polls thought Hillary had the win in the bag so predictions can be way off.
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the polls actually did not say that. It was the media that misinterpreted the polls. Nate Silver looked at the polls properly and gave Trump a 35% chance of victory the day before the election. If you want to know when the polls were dead wrong, you should look at the 2016 primaries, not the 2016 general election. The polls were wildly off in Michigan in particular.
    "A 4 degree Celsius warmer world can, and must be, avoided"
    -Jim Young Kim (World Bank President)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:

    I do apologise if I have this wrong!
    Are you the individual who sent in a post, some time ago, stating immigration was not an important issue in recent US elections.
    According to Reuters it was, at least until very recently, the single most important issue in determining voting behaviour - even more important than the economy and health policy.
    Whether this is still the case I'm not certain but, regardless of personal opinion, expressing the view it is not an important issue seems to me to be linked more to wishful thinking than an accurate assessment of the facts.
    On policy I believe the Democrats should remain a centrist political party, and I remain doubtful about whether a shift to the left, as advocated by Sanders, would lead to electoral success.
    Living in the UK I'm not certain as to how the policies, advocated by Sanders, compare with the ideas of the left-wing UK Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, but it has been said, of Corbyn, he is concerned only with inequality, and so the distribution of wealth, paying little attention to the creation of wealth.












    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:

    I do apologise if I have this wrong!
    Are you the individual who sent in a post, some time ago, stating immigration was not an important issue in recent US elections.
    According to Reuters it was, at least until very recently, the single most important issue in determining voting behaviour - even more important than the economy and health policy.
    Whether this is still the case I'm not certain but, regardless of personal opinion, expressing the view it is not an important issue seems to me to be linked more to wishful thinking than an accurate assessment of the facts.
    On policy I believe the Democrats should remain a centrist political party, and I remain doubtful about whether a shift to the left, as advocated by Sanders, would lead to electoral success.
    Living in the UK I'm not certain as to how the policies, advocated by Sanders, compare with the ideas of the left-wing UK Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, but it has been said, of Corbyn, he is concerned only with inequality, and so the distribution of wealth, paying little attention to the creation of wealth.















    I can't say that I remember suggesting that immigration wasn't an important issue for the election, but this is not to say that I didn't. However, what I will say is that I didn't and still don't think immigration should have been a major election issue & certainly not for the Democrats.

    Whilst the immigration issue may have played well to the MAGA crowd I'm not so convinced it was everyone's top priority. It just appears to have been whipped up by the Republicans as an excuse to create, what are essentially policies designed to appeal to racist element of American society and secondly as a pre-tense to introduce more restrictive rules on voter eligibility, disproportionately impacting minority voters who overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats.

    This false narrative that the Republicans are against illegal immigration because it impacts the jobs of ordinary Americans isn't born out by their actions or the facts and relies on voters believing the obstacle of a border wall/fence on the Southern border would be more effective at preventing illegal immigration than actually prosecuting the employers & landlords etc. who profit from such immigrants. Claims of immigrant crime that isn't born out by the facts given that illegal immigrants face being deported if they get arrested.

    As to being a centrist party, if the political centre of America was one that actually supported ordinary people then I would agree with you, but given quite how far the Overton window has moved to the right I don't think this is actually now the case. Whilst many can so easily decry the level of decorum this current President has brought to American politics and perhaps yearn for those halcyon days of civility, I just feel the people themselves care far less about this and far more about populist issues that are impacting their daily lives. With the progressive Democrats on the left of the party far more in tune with the public mood.

    But let's put a little flesh on the bone here, how many ordinary Americans care more about policies such as environmental deregulation, tariff & trade wars, tax cuts for large corporations & the wealthy and a southern border wall to keep out immigrants, than having free college for their children, so they aren't saddled with a lifetime of non-dischargeable debt, single-payer healthcare, so they don't go bankrupt and can actually get treatment if they fall ill or a family member gets sick, have a minimum wage they can afford to actually pays their bills with and a clean & non-polluted environment.

    I think voters are responding positively towards progressive populist left policies because wealth inequality has now reached levels last seen during the Great Depression, with the top 0.1% of Americans now owning the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90%. Voters tried to get change by electing President Obama, they got a little, they wanted more, they tried to get change by electing President Trump, the country has just moved in the wrong direction, so I think this time they want authentic populist left politicians that will offer real change to improve their lives over the issues that really matter to them.

    As to this notion of not being concerned with wealth creation and only wealth distribution, I don't think you can separate the two, they are inextricably linked.

    The US economy currently, whilst having a bump from the massive corporate tax cut which allowed companies to buy back large quantities of their own stock, is essentially underpinned by high levels of borrowing & personal debt. The greater the wealth inequality the more the means of production are skewed towards servicing the needs of the wealthy who have an ever greater share of the spending power. This restricts the types of products & services available within the economy to generate wealth, because of a greater demand for luxury products, instead of a consistent demand for products & services catering to all wealth & income bands.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's mere conversational mention of a top marginal tax rate of 70% for multi-millionaires appears to have sparked abject fear amongst Republicans, yet the wealthiest period in American history, during the 1950s, saw top marginal tax brackets well into the high 90s. Republicans who regularly overturn ballot measures designed to raise the minimum wage for people struggling to survive, who at the same time don't think people earning millions should have to pay more in tax, or that somehow paying more tax would prevent or dissuade them from continuing to earn their millions, seriously.

    Wealth inequality has become a serious burden on the ability of economies to create wealth, and even when wealth is still being created, just who is it being created for, the top 0.1%?

    So whether it is Jeremy Corbyn in the UK or Bernie Sanders in the US, when they are advocating for policies that will improve the lives of the many, not just the few, I think eventually people will take notice.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,033
    Amy Klobuchar (Minn. Senator) has to be considered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    276
    I'll do a ranking of who I think would be most likely to beat Trump if gotten the nomination, and I'm excluding Andrew Yang because I don't know very much about him.
    1) Tulsi Gabbard
    2) Elizabeth Warren
    3) Bernie Sanders
    4) Joe Biden
    5) Kristen Gillibrand
    6) Beto O'Rourke
    7) Kamala Harris
    8) Corey Booker
    9) Hillary Clinton
    "A 4 degree Celsius warmer world can, and must be, avoided"
    -Jim Young Kim (World Bank President)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Amy Klobuchar (Minn. Senator) has to be considered.

    Although having seen Amy Klobuchar on television I know who you a referring to, I'm not au fait with her record or policy positions enough to make a fair assessment and trying to score her against the other candidates would be doing her an injustice. Please don't take this as a dismissal of her candidacy, which isn't my intention, just merely an admission of my ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by anticorncob28 View Post
    I'll do a ranking of who I think would be most likely to beat Trump if gotten the nomination, and I'm excluding Andrew Yang because I don't know very much about him.
    1) Tulsi Gabbard
    2) Elizabeth Warren
    3) Bernie Sanders
    4) Joe Biden
    5) Kristen Gillibrand
    6) Beto O'Rourke
    7) Kamala Harris
    8) Corey Booker
    9) Hillary Clinton
    The Joe Biden one puzzles me that he remains so popular, yes he served as Vice President to Barrack Obama, but never stepped up in 2016 to challenge Hillary Clinton, he's 76 years old, only a year younger than Bernie Sanders and he hardly has a reputation for championing truly progressive policies. I cannot fathom what would make him more likely to defeat Donald Trump in the general election, or serve as a better President than the other Democratic contenders. Though perhaps I'm missing something, considering how CNN have him as the frontrunner, even ahead of Senator Sanders.


    Pleased you've gone with my top 3, albeit not in the same order, given how the mainstream media would have people believing that the corporate Democrats can do no wrong or that progressives aren't true contenders, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that Gabbard, Warren & Sanders don't have a chance.


    Guess we can expect to see MSNBC & CNN raving over Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Kristen Gillibrand and Joe Biden in the coming days & months, but I still think ordinary people want a candidate who is actually going to shake things up with a commitment to progressive policies, (Kind of a shame really that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is only 29). Not some big money shill who only wants to maintain the status quo.


    It's not that likely too many people are aware that Andrew Yang is even running for President or having heard what his policy positions are. The media appears far more wary regarding giving airtime to candidates since Trump got elected from having what some of have suggested amounted to $5 billion worth of free coverage.
    If you wish to see what he is about, below is a link for one of his campaign adverts:

    https://youtu.be/grciW239bp0
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:


    1.) Bernie Sanders - 80%

    2.) Tulsi Gabbard - 55%

    3.) Elizabeth Warren - 40%

    4.) Andrew Yang - 30%

    5.) Kirsten Gillibrand - 25%

    6.) Beto O'Rourke - 20%

    7.) Corey Booker - 15%

    8.) Kamala Harris - 10%

    9.) Joe Biden - 2%

    10.) Hillary Clinton - 0%
    Strange way of scoring dude, however I cannot believe that you gave the darling of the Liberals zero chance, wake up, she is a Clinton.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:


    1.) Bernie Sanders - 80%

    2.) Tulsi Gabbard - 55%

    3.) Elizabeth Warren - 40%

    4.) Andrew Yang - 30%

    5.) Kirsten Gillibrand - 25%

    6.) Beto O'Rourke - 20%

    7.) Corey Booker - 15%

    8.) Kamala Harris - 10%

    9.) Joe Biden - 2%

    10.) Hillary Clinton - 0%
    Strange way of scoring dude, however I cannot believe that you gave the darling of the Liberals zero chance, wake up, she is a Clinton.
    Dude, you wouldn’t know a leftie if one bit you on the ass. Real lefties hate that corporofascist Berkshire Hunt clinton. Remember that the Kochtopus bros’ endorsed her heinousness. Anyhoo’ I myself am pretty over the left/right false paradigm Willy Lynch plantation control plan. I figured that the berning blue Jew would be the one to bring on the peace and jobs all yuge like. But instead the peace and jobs are coming from the yuge orange RINO with the tiny hands. I’d really hate to see any color of good guy get Kennedy’d, blue or orange. I don’t know, there seems to be an internal rule against that sort of thing nowadays. You know what Bernie, the Donald, and Tulsi have in common? Constant attacks from the FSM. Oh yeah, FSM is like MSM, several different F-words will fit in there.
    Populism is just house rules really. Viva la Gilets Jaunes!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:


    1.) Bernie Sanders - 80%

    2.) Tulsi Gabbard - 55%

    3.) Elizabeth Warren - 40%

    4.) Andrew Yang - 30%

    5.) Kirsten Gillibrand - 25%

    6.) Beto O'Rourke - 20%

    7.) Corey Booker - 15%

    8.) Kamala Harris - 10%

    9.) Joe Biden - 2%

    10.) Hillary Clinton - 0%
    Strange way of scoring dude, however I cannot believe that you gave the darling of the Liberals zero chance, wake up, she is a Clinton.
    Dude, you wouldn’t know a leftie if one bit you on the ass. Real lefties hate that corporofascist Berkshire Hunt clinton. Remember that the Kochtopus bros’ endorsed her heinousness. Anyhoo’ I myself am pretty over the left/right false paradigm Willy Lynch plantation control plan. I figured that the berning blue Jew would be the one to bring on the peace and jobs all yuge like. But instead the peace and jobs are coming from the yuge orange RINO with the tiny hands. I’d really hate to see any color of good guy get Kennedy’d, blue or orange. I don’t know, there seems to be an internal rule against that sort of thing nowadays. You know what Bernie, the Donald, and Tulsi have in common? Constant attacks from the FSM. Oh yeah, FSM is like MSM, several different F-words will fit in there.
    Populism is just house rules really. Viva la Gilets Jaunes!
    Effing brilliant post dude.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,033
    [QUOTE=Ascended;620738]
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Amy Klobuchar (Minn. Senator) has to be considered.

    Although having seen Amy Klobuchar on television I know who you a referring to, I'm not au fait with her record or policy positions enough to make a fair assessment and trying to score her against the other candidates would be doing her an injustice. Please don't take this as a dismissal of her candidacy, which isn't my intention, just merely an admission of my ignorance.
    [/QUOTE}
    She announced today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    [QUOTE=mathman;620921]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Amy Klobuchar (Minn. Senator) has to be considered.

    Although having seen Amy Klobuchar on television I know who you a referring to, I'm not au fait with her record or policy positions enough to make a fair assessment and trying to score her against the other candidates would be doing her an injustice. Please don't take this as a dismissal of her candidacy, which isn't my intention, just merely an admission of my ignorance.
    [/QUOTE}
    She announced today.
    Haven't really paid much attention to the news today. So you said she's announced her candidacy, what's the reaction been, is Amy Klobuchar being considered one of the frontrunners now?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    In the process of answering the question “Amy who?” I ran across the fact that she voted yes on the anti-BDS bill. All or most of the other 2020 Dem contenders voted no. However a person feels about BDS, an anti-BDS bill will never pass 1st Amendment muster. A candidate who doesn’t understand The Constitution... Yeah, crickets...
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    In the process of answering the question “Amy who?” I ran across the fact that she voted yes on the anti-BDS bill. All or most of the other 2020 Dem contenders voted no. However a person feels about BDS, an anti-BDS bill will never pass 1st Amendment muster. A candidate who doesn’t understand The Constitution... Yeah, crickets...

    I tried to find out a little more about what she actually stands for and the type of candidate she will be. Seems you were spot on regarding the anti-BDS bill.

    The most informative clip I could find with details of her policy positions comes from a Secular Talk piece, (linked below), it highlights her stance on the major issues and gives a good insight to her background and the type of President she could become is she gets elected.




    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    There’s a Joe Rogan with Kyle, about a month ago. Kyles presentation has been getting better since his early days. Yeah, I think he’s got it right here. Especially with the CIA and his call on it being an age of populism. Although Jimmy is my goto underground provressive guy. I still see no point to participating in the wholly corrupt DNC controlled UnDemocratic primary.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,182
    Ahh, yes. Paranoia at its finest, "I won't go!!!" Followed by "Wahhh, I didnt get what i wanted, and its your fault since i dixnt participate!"

    Please stop with the annoying "everyone i dont like is corrupt" line.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Ahh, yes. Paranoia at its finest, "I won't go!!!" Followed by "Wahhh, I didnt get what i wanted, and its your fault since i dixnt participate!"

    Please stop with the annoying "everyone i dont like is corrupt" line.
    Fuck no I won’t stop it, and you can’t make me. I view the DNC as corrupt. I am an American, I owe no party my participation. I voted for Jill Stein in the last one, might throw down for Trump in the next one. Hard to argue against jobs and peace.
    You really need to stop trying to tell everyone here what they can and can’t say there Paleo. It’s a little authoritarian.
    Quite frankly, you’re missing an opportunity here. Obviously I’m in a state of ideological flux. If someone were to provide a logical argument, with references, for adopting their view of a matter...
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    My own view is that if you live in a democracy then you have a responsibility to vote for who believe is the best candidate, but when there is no best candidate what are voters to do?

    Should we just vote for someone we don't believe represents us or shares our views on the issues just because they are the lesser of two evils? Nope, sorry but no.

    Politicians should always have to earn votes, no politician is just entitled to our votes. Once you go down that road then voters will never get the representation they deserve or have representatives who prioritise their interests.

    I can understand the frustration, but I still just don't accept we are entitled to force others into what to think, no matter how well meaning the intention or reason.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Sorry Ascended, you haven’t convinced me of anything new. I believe I have agreed with everything you’ve said above pretty much my whole life!

    But, there is the consideration that elections do have consequences. Consequences that can be on par with a game of Russian roulette. I can see where people get “excited”.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    Hey GiantEvil, no probs, I don't believe for one second I could convince the folks here, including yourself, of anything. It would be a fools errand to try, people make their own minds up.

    However, I do enjoy discussing opinions and exchanging & sharing information. Learning from others helps me stay more informed and make better decisions & choices, hopefully they feel the same.

    The only thing that really frustrates me is the Brexiteers who won't accept facts, I'm under no illusions regarding ever changing their opinions but I don't much enjoy being made to feel a fool or liar for at least informing them of the reality.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Sorry Ascended, you haven’t convinced me of anything new. I believe I have agreed with everything you’ve said above pretty much my whole life!

    But, there is the consideration that elections do have consequences. Consequences that can be on par with a game of Russian roulette. I can see where people get “excited”.
    GE, we've known each other on here for the better part of a decade, and we've mostly agreed but since the 2016 elections I've found myself disagreeing with you increasingly more often. You seem to want a nearly perfect candidate. But I don't think perfect candidates exist, or nearly perfect ones for that matter.

    I prioritize my beliefs, what issues are most important for a candidate to support for me to support them? Then if that candidate drops out, loses in the primaries or what have you, I look at the field and support the next candidate that checks more boxes than the others. One of the most important issues for me other than the environment is LGBT rights, I rank that over peace. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-war, it's just that ending our conflicts around the world is less important to me than ensuring that LGBT and all minorities are being treated fairly and equally here at home. I have too many friends and family that belong to that community for me to say to them "Well I'm sorry that our President is attacking your rights, but I just feel like ending our war on terror is more important than your rights." That issue alone is pretty much enough to ensure that I will never vote for a mainstream Republican. I'm not saying that LGBT Republicans don't exist, but by and large the party platform is very anti-LGBT, especially anti-trans.

    I don't think I need to breakdown my whole list of issues and their priority, I'm sure you get my point. And I know my system isn't perfect, that sometimes you reach a point where it seems like there's not point voting because both candidates are so repulsive to your beliefs. I get that. I live in a very Republican county with lots of ass backwards bible thumping Christians, so I find myself sending in protest votes in many of our smaller elections. (Although Dem candidate Lisa Brown came a lot closer to knocking Cathy McMorris-Rodgers out than I would have thought, if only she had) But at the presidential level or even the Congress and Senate levels, I find I would rather vote for a shitty Democrat that might be able to win than a Republican or a candidate that will get less than ten percent of the vote.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    1,005
    Double post
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Well, Brexit is your side of the pond. I don’t have any dogs in that fight, nor is it immediate to my culture bubble. Also it’s in the other thread and a little bit of a derailment here. Although I will note that policies that can be generally considered Globalist do seem to favor multinational corporations and the wealthy. If one considers that the zeitgeist as opposed to individuals more greatly influences the arch of history. And one considers that populism is the current zeitgeist, then that leaves the EU as “unfashionable”.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,182
    So you feel that Trump givinga giant fuck you nearly 70 years of global diplomacy is more important then all of the rights Trump is removing right now in the USA. And all because you supported someone that didnt go far in 2016. You realize just how much you are shooting yourself and everyone else in the foot right?

    Also im not being authoritarian twlling you to cut the bs rhetoric regarding the people you dislike.

    If you feel your correct the Cite Your Reliable second hand Source that the DNC is an evil corporate shill.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    On topic; I posted this also at the AI-Jobs thread, as that is this guys main impetus. But he is also a Dem. contender!



    I don't feel as if the racial temperature of America is such that Mr. Yang being of Asian descent is a significant factor in his candidate viability. We did elect a black man.
    Starting at 1:46:40 is a bit where Mr. Yang goes into some foreign policy. I felt he was a little over zealously sabre rattly toward a nuclear armed world superpower over alleged internet troll farms. Well, that's still not less perfect than other people who attempt to extrapolate another persons position on things neither explicated nor implied. If I had regularly communicated with Mr. Yang over some form of social media, I certainly wouldn't unfriend him over this "imperfection". I also doubt that 70 years of MAD based restraint from nuclear exchange will crumble because "internet troll farms". Or if Mr. Yang should be elected, it shouldn't crumble because of just one thing the POTUS said.
    At 1:30:10 Mr. Yang addresses the issue of DNC corruption. He also says "They've changed". I suppose that's possible, we'll see.
    Just so there's some more reference for DNC corruption, here is a Google search for "dnc corruption"; https://www.google.com/search?q=dnc+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

    If Mr. Yang should appear on the general ballot, I might vote for him.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Starting at 1:46:40 is a bit where Mr. Yang goes into some foreign policy. I felt he was a little over zealously sabre rattly toward a nuclear armed world superpower over alleged internet troll farms. Well, that's still not less perfect than other people who attempt to extrapolate another persons position on things neither explicated nor implied. If I had regularly communicated with Mr. Yang over some form of social media, I certainly wouldn't unfriend him over this "imperfection". I also doubt that 70 years of MAD based restraint from nuclear exchange will crumble because "internet troll farms". Or if Mr. Yang should be elected, it shouldn't crumble because of just one thing the POTUS said.
    I agree 100%.
    That settles that; I'm not voting for Andrew Yang in the primaries or in the general election*. I don't like his attitude towards Russia at all. What kind of consequences is he talking about that "we're gonna come down on you like a ton of bricks" and "you will not like it one bit"? We've already implemented a ton of sanctions on Russia over the past few years, and tensions are about as high as they were during the official cold war.

    *Only because I live in Nebraska, which is guaranteed to go to Trump again. If I lived in a swing state, I'd vote for almost any Democrat over Trump in the general election.
    "A 4 degree Celsius warmer world can, and must be, avoided"
    -Jim Young Kim (World Bank President)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280


    Here is my favorite so far, Tulsi Gabbard. Military Veteran and very anti-interventionist. At 1:04 UBI is brought up, and I think she has the best answer ever. That she is in the process of studying it, wants to understand it before making a judgement.
    At about 0:53 is a bit that addresses super delegates. While super delegates are not illegal or specifically corruption, they are a disenfranchisement to individual primary voters. Especially since they didn't vote proportionally to state outcomes in 2016.
    One of my considerations for a candidate is who their enemies are. Tulsi has already been smeared by the warwhore FSM.
    Here is a generic "tulsi smears" Google search; https://www.google.com/search?q=tuls...hrome&ie=UTF-8

    @anticorncob28; I understand you personal interest in not agitating nuclear powers. I'm under the impression that the airbase near Omaha is a primary Warsaw target.
    Now are you sure that Nebraska won't be a swing state next election? The CW on politics has been increasingly inaccurate as of late. Also why not just vote how you want to? i would find it maddening to try and manage the probability space of how others may or may not vote.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post

    Here is my favorite so far, Tulsi Gabbard. Military Veteran and very anti-interventionist. At 1:04 UBI is brought up, and I think she has the best answer ever. That she is in the process of studying it, wants to understand it before making a judgement.
    At about 0:53 is a bit that addresses super delegates. While super delegates are not illegal or specifically corruption, they are a disenfranchisement to individual primary voters. Especially since they didn't vote proportionally to state outcomes in 2016.
    One of my considerations for a candidate is who their enemies are. Tulsi has already been smeared by the warwhore FSM.
    I like her, I'm just trying to abstain from picking any favorites until we get closer and campaigning gets a little more serious. Tulsi is definitely in my top hopefuls right now though.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    @anticorncob28; I understand you personal interest in not agitating nuclear powers. I'm under the impression that the airbase near Omaha is a primary Warsaw target.
    Now are you sure that Nebraska won't be a swing state next election? The CW on politics has been increasingly inaccurate as of late. Also why not just vote how you want to? i would find it maddening to try and manage the probability space of how others may or may not vote.
    It's not entirely true that Nebraska is a safe state. It is one of two states that splits its electoral college votes into congressional districts (the other is Maine). The 2nd district (which includes Omaha) is somewhat swingy as it went to Obama in 2008, but there is no conceivable circumstance in which *my* district does not vote for Trump.
    Now I don't trust conventional wisdom at all, and you can tell by the way I ranked the 2020 Democrats (see post #14). But I do recognize, without having to listen to strategists, that in many states and congressional districts, the outcome is predetermined.

    btw, I'm glad you linked the Tulsi Gabbard video. I didn't know she was on Joe Rogan, and I'm excited to see that video. I ranked her #1 in most likely to beat Trump.
    I think she has the best policies, and I think she will best know how to attack Trump in the general. This is what worries me about Elizabeth Warren; she doesn't know how to deal with the insults and personal attacks, and will let Trump drag her into the gutter with her. That DNA test was a mistake. But Gabbard knows how to handle it. And for some reason, Republicans don't seem to hate her that much.
    "A 4 degree Celsius warmer world can, and must be, avoided"
    -Jim Young Kim (World Bank President)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    My scores for potential Democratic Presidential nominees for the 2020 election:


    1.) Bernie Sanders - 80%

    2.) Tulsi Gabbard - 55%

    3.) Elizabeth Warren - 40%

    4.) Andrew Yang - 30%

    5.) Kirsten Gillibrand - 25%

    6.) Beto O'Rourke - 20%

    7.) Corey Booker - 15%

    8.) Kamala Harris - 10%

    9.) Joe Biden - 2%

    10.) Hillary Clinton - 0%
    Well, it looks like your zero rating for the darling of the Liberal Elite is correct, as she says that she is not running.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hil...-new-interview
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    That’s “neo-liberal elite”, Dave. They’re basically neo-cons with blue ties. Real lefties are peace, bongs, and she’s not with us.

    Anyhow, anybody see the clip where Tulsi is on Tucker Carlson? More importantly, is to read the comments. Tulsi appears to have wide political approval and appeal!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Had a look at a clip of Tulsi Gabbard talking to Tucker Carlson on Fox News. The lady speaks very well, she is a war vet and more importantly, very good looking.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    everytime mrs clinton or mr soros says something like tax the rich or no more wars , the polls for all democrat candidates collectively drop 5% across the board ..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,182
    Cite your source, or retract your statement.

    Ps Hilary is irrelevant in this round of elections, and soros is as well.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    i think globalism is over for a while until we could properly diagnose how come everything went wrong with globalism and how to prevent globalism and its ensuing human extinction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Cite your source, or retract your statement.

    Ps Hilary is irrelevant in this round of elections, and soros is as well.
    how come they are irrelevant ? they are the poster girl and boy why white liberal women are unelectable and antisemitism is having a third rebound and why the entire globalist movement look so untrustworthy..


    I will vote overseas in europe ..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,182
    Again with this assertion you have not supported.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,182
    Really? Per whom?

    Antisemitism is on the rise directly due to the hate speech being presented by the current president.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    they are not self aware what they look like in others eyes.. its not 2004 or 1989 anymore.. this is 2019 and no one trusts them anymore.. they might win a few things like money or wars but will ultimately lose out because they lost peoples heart around the world. Everythibg is not going away just because of a few sp called wins or things like that. Im speaking of [neo]liberalism .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    its likely lagarde will be the one that finally everyone will lose trust in in the broad [neo]liberal scheme tbh.. america we will see..
    Last edited by ninuno888; July 2nd, 2019 at 03:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    besides none of these ppl are really important in human history .. jfk, reagan, nixon, carter.. , who are they??? Thats like recounting the kings of all french republics , starting with .. whoo ??? im just kidding . im nothing and i dont really care about it that much.. i only know jfk reagan nixon carter ruined america, but neither them nor i nor america nor the world is that important. ashes to ashes .
    Last edited by ninuno888; July 2nd, 2019 at 03:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    "You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are just another snowflake along with the other seven billion snowflakes falling from the graceful sky .. into the DeepSnow [ that K is about to trample upon] . "

    Allo.. deez iz .. Tiefen Schnee ..
    Last edited by ninuno888; July 2nd, 2019 at 03:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,220
    Learn to think before hitting post. A series of short semi-coherent replies to yourself is irritating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    ok
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    did u guys know pence was a democrat .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    the main components of the globalist [neo-]liberalism movement, from the exploiteers to the white urban liberal women to the jews to the white gays to the oriental liberals to the black lives matter to the ... all possess some respective kind of innate serious character and personality flaws that they may never be fit enough to rule this world.. and judging from the tragic sight of the shamble right now , you can already see the future will not be that bright. But they prefer to shelve it like they shelve every important issue like playing pass the parcel until it ends with human extinction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,220
    You are still doing it... Stop it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    U see america uk israel..these economies are not doing very well. And american baizuo are somewhat all suffering from some kind of mental psychosis and jews are never that farsighted for their ownsake .. .. what can u do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    how to delete
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    41
    how to delete
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,220
    Pillock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,695
    3 days off. It'll give you chance to learn how to compose a post.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1
    Im afraid to have to say , the aipac lack a long term vision for the future for their own or for the world because the jews are very often too much headstrongly preoccupied with short term gains . why is the ethnicity wired in such a way is beyond fascination. 9/11 was the turning point why america began to be going downhill and why israel will likely to be isolated on the global stage in the future (the merchant of venice scenario. ). some kind of innate physiological tendencies seems to prevent themselves from gaining or being held back by any nuanced introspection, because of the sense of that chosenness being distorted and amplified further under long term suppression, or either because of the sense of vigilance at any present moment or because of that it is always so urgent - the lack of it in long terms. in a way speaking of headstrongness, zionism and islamism mirror each other . whatever their stances are, lillian pinkus, benjamin netanyahu, george soros and bernie sanders all sound equally .. crazy. which was the mood for the past two decades.


    the anglo economy and the israel economy .. not very prospective in the long term future. just because ann coulter is held back by the white guilt self torture, or feels like offending mossad, not.. someone has to point out, especially kids nowadays are all walking deads, thanks to bernanke and yellen et al. see, they dont worry about the future, they only opportunize the present , like they always were.



    before the eve of the comeback of communism , let's hope they will, for the sake of at least themselves, finally reach closer to the state of nuance like kissinger on a slightly more peaceful day a/o chomsky on a slightly more peaceful day..

    Last edited by tjjt; July 2nd, 2019 at 10:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. US Presidential Election Betting 2016
    By Bad Robot in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 27th, 2014, 07:04 PM
  2. Presidential Pardon Loophole
    By ArezList in forum Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 12th, 2014, 03:30 PM
  3. Driverless cars available by 2020 says Nissan
    By cosmictraveler in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: September 6th, 2013, 01:14 AM
  4. Who is your nominee for wise person?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 30th, 2007, 02:43 PM
  5. WOULDN'T THIS BE AN AWESOME PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH?
    By Mathwiz8390 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 11th, 2005, 08:27 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •