The 2020 Presidential campaign.

steveschneider wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict the Bernie movement wasn’t gonna be interested in hearing the moderate “voice” at the convention had he won.

To your point why are we supposed to bend towards the far left 'voice' when they got crushed in S Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, etc. Why won't they compromise? I suspect most of them are just going to vote for Jill Stein or Trump anyway. They just want to blow up the system.

Progressives are the future of the party unless jackasses with ideas like this drive them away.

And if you think the party is in the wilderness now, think about how successful the republicans were after Nixon. They found another douchebag icon and had the presidency for 16 of the next 20 years.

Rocinante wrote:And if you think the party is in the wilderness now, think about how successful the republicans were after Nixon. They found another douchebag icon and had the presidency for 16 of the next 20 years.

Then you’ll see a mass exodus of moderate Dems to the Republican Party.

Democrats by design have to be more inclusive. It’sa built in messaging advantage of the republicans. They can run on simple catch phrases and win. Democrats have to open up the tent or the republicans will find a way to appeal to Latinos and other non whites and will keep winning. So basically what I’m saying is get off your fucking high horse Steve and bob.

Rocinante wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

To your point why are we supposed to bend towards the far left 'voice' when they got crushed in S Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, etc. Why won't they compromise? I suspect most of them are just going to vote for Jill Stein or Trump anyway. They just want to blow up the system.

Progressives are the future of the party unless jackasses with ideas like this drive them away.

The party is already further to the left now than it was in 2016 so to an extent I agree but this extra delegates at the convention is just crazy talk. The primary is over.

Rocinante wrote:Democrats by design have to be more inclusive. It’sa built in messaging advantage of the republicans. They can run on simple catch phrases and win. Democrats have to open up the tent or the republicans will find a way to appeal to Latinos and other non whites and will keep winning. So basically what I’m saying is get off your fucking high horse Steve and bob.

At a certain point you gotta close shop (Bernie) and win the election. The candidate is Biden and we all need to accept that. If Trump wins -

All I’m saying is if “the future of the democrat party” sits this one out or votes in numbers that cost the party the White House, then fuck them. You’ll have nothing to be future of with the number of with respect to the Supreme Court and judicial appointees.

steveschneider wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict the Bernie movement wasn’t gonna be interested in hearing the moderate “voice” at the convention had he won.

To your point why are we supposed to bend towards the far left 'voice' when they got crushed in S Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, etc. Why won't they compromise? I suspect most of them are just going to vote for Jill Stein or Trump anyway. They just want to blow up the system.

You advocate offering them nothing and then pre-criticize them for not being enticed by that offer. Dipshits like you are the problem, steve.

kingstonlake wrote:All I’m saying is if “the future of the democrat party” sits this one out or votes in numbers that cost the party the White House, then fuck them. You’ll have nothing to be future of with the number of with respect to the Supreme Court and judicial appointees.

Lose this election and we'll see two conservative extremist judges fill the seats of RBG and Breyer. It will be the nail in the coffin not only for the DNC but the progressive movement as well. Click the pac man sound effect up above.

Cameron wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

To your point why are we supposed to bend towards the far left 'voice' when they got crushed in S Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, etc. Why won't they compromise? I suspect most of them are just going to vote for Jill Stein or Trump anyway. They just want to blow up the system.

You advocate offering them nothing and then pre-criticize them for not being enticed by that offer. Dipshits like you are the problem, steve.

$15 minimum wage, Warren's soc security plan, will strengthen ACA, rejoin the Paris Agreement, get the first woman VP, will handle the pandemic better, get to appoint two seats to the supreme court, will restore our credibility in the world...

steveschneider wrote:

Cameron wrote:

You advocate offering them nothing and then pre-criticize them for not being enticed by that offer. Dipshits like you are the problem, steve.

$15 minimum wage, Warren's soc security plan, will strengthen ACA, rejoin the Paris Agreement, get the first woman VP, will handle the pandemic better, get to appoint two seats to the supreme court, will restore our credibility in the world...

The stuff I've struck are all either things that literally any and every Democratic candidate would do, or things progressives don't care all that much about (bolstering ACA is just more non-M4A deck chair shuffling).

Support for $15 minimum wage is encouraging.

Joe Biden has earned no benefit of the doubt on social security. The man has a decades long public record, paying a little lip service is not sufficient assurance. I will need to see it to believe it.

Rocinante wrote:Democrats by design have to be more inclusive. It’sa built in messaging advantage of the republicans. They can run on simple catch phrases and win. Democrats have to open up the tent or the republicans will find a way to appeal to Latinos and other non whites and will keep winning. So basically what I’m saying is get off your fucking high horse Steve and bob.

I'm just voting against an admitted rapist who mocks disabled people and plays golf as a pandemic creeps into the United States.

I didn't know that qualified me for 'high horse' status.

kingstonlake wrote:All I’m saying is if “the future of the democrat party” sits this one out or votes in numbers that cost the party the White House, then fuck them. You’ll have nothing to be future of with the number of with respect to the Supreme Court and judicial appointees.

yep - I have a hard time listening to people who refuse to vote whine about who wins an election.

of course it's their right.. but it's also my right to mock them.

Cameron wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

$15 minimum wage, Warren's soc security plan, will strengthen ACA, rejoin the Paris Agreement, get the first woman VP, will handle the pandemic better, get to appoint two seats to the supreme court, will restore our credibility in the world...

The stuff I've struck are all either things that literally any and every Democratic candidate would do, or things progressives don't care all that much about (bolstering ACA is just more non-M4A deck chair shuffling).

Support for $15 minimum wage is encouraging.

Joe Biden has earned no benefit of the doubt on social security. The man has a decades long public record, paying a little lip service is not sufficient assurance. I will need to see it to believe it.

The things you struck out are all good things, and you should be fighting for them. ACA was designed to be built upon and improved.

Medicare for all was wheeled out for the primary and was proven to be a loser this go around. You aren't going to see it in 2020. Is it really worth blowing up the system over an idea that was a loser and would cost the general election?

The fractures of the Dem party, as displayed in this discussion of the last couple of hours is the one thing that can carry Trump to victory. I think/hope the anti-Trump vote among neutrals and non-voters in 2016 is enough to overcome the short-sighted sissy slap fight among Dems, but it is giving him an opening that isn't necessary.

There are disagreements in the Republican party between the moderates and the far right, but I don't recall any significant numbers wanting to take their ball and go home and not vote for the Republican candidate.

MiamiSpartan wrote:The fractures of the Dem party, as displayed in this discussion of the last couple of hours is the one thing that can carry Trump to victory.  I think/hope the anti-Trump vote among neutrals and non-voters in 2016 is enough to overcome the short-sighted sissy slap fight among Dems, but it is giving him an opening that isn't necessary.

There are disagreements in the Republican party between the moderates and the far right, but I don't recall any significant numbers wanting to take their ball and go home and not vote for the Republican candidate.  

the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator will win.. I'd give it about a 99% certainty. I don't think it's a question of 'can'.

as I've always said, that's one thing I'll give the knuckle-draggers. They go to church and get misty-eyed when they hear of babies being aborted.. but they'll support someone who grabs women by the pussy. They're okay with children in cages, people washing up on the Rio Grand and nearly 60,000 Americans dead from a hoax.

they used to be more candid with their hypocrisy and immorality, but not any more. They're proud of it nowadays and, in fact, wear it like a badge of honor.

Belittling people who believe in something is a winning strategy if your a Republican with the electoral college and gerrymandering on your side. It doesn’t work for Democrats. You have to be willing to incorporate progressive ideas. Typical democrat voters don’t vote against stuff they vote for stuff. So you’re right bob, it’s your right to mock them. But your self righteous “I’m just voting against a racist bigoted sexual predator” bullshit is hopefully not reflected in the rest of the party that needs those progressive votes to come out and have something to vote for.

MiamiSpartan wrote:The fractures of the Dem party, as displayed in this discussion of the last couple of hours is the one thing that can carry Trump to victory. I think/hope the anti-Trump vote among neutrals and non-voters in 2016 is enough to overcome the short-sighted sissy slap fight among Dems, but it is giving him an opening that isn't necessary.

There are disagreements in the Republican party between the moderates and the far right, but I don't recall any significant numbers wanting to take their ball and go home and not vote for the Republican candidate.

Well, that’s just a failure of memory then.

Here’s a list of dozens of republican elected officials that said they wouldn’t vote for trump. Not random twitter bots that Steve cites. But elected officials.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:The fractures of the Dem party, as displayed in this discussion of the last couple of hours is the one thing that can carry Trump to victory. I think/hope the anti-Trump vote among neutrals and non-voters in 2016 is enough to overcome the short-sighted sissy slap fight among Dems, but it is giving him an opening that isn't necessary.

There are disagreements in the Republican party between the moderates and the far right, but I don't recall any significant numbers wanting to take their ball and go home and not vote for the Republican candidate.

Well, that’s just a failure of memory then.

Here’s a list of dozens of republican elected officials that said they wouldn’t vote for trump. Not random twitter bots that Steve cites. But elected officials.

You don't even understand what Ronan Farrow has done so no use in trying to explain to you what a blue check mark means on Twitter.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Well, that’s just a failure of memory then.

Here’s a list of dozens of republican elected officials that said they wouldn’t vote for trump. Not random twitter bots that Steve cites. But elected officials.

You don't even understand what Ronan Farrow has done so no use in trying to explain to you what a blue check mark means on Twitter.

Steve shut the fuck up no one was talking to you

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

You don't even understand what Ronan Farrow has done so no use in trying to explain to you what a blue check mark means on Twitter.

Steve shut the fuck up no one was talking to you

Well you mentioned me so don't get mad when I respond.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Steve shut the fuck up no one was talking to you

Well you mentioned me so don't get mad when I respond.

Thank you Steve I’ll be sure to check in for the next update on what some Bernie person said that was mean to you on Twitter I can’t wait.

MiamiSpartan wrote:The fractures of the Dem party, as displayed in this discussion of the last couple of hours is the one thing that can carry Trump to victory. I think/hope the anti-Trump vote among neutrals and non-voters in 2016 is enough to overcome the short-sighted sissy slap fight among Dems, but it is giving him an opening that isn't necessary.

There are disagreements in the Republican party between the moderates and the far right, but I don't recall any significant numbers wanting to take their ball and go home and not vote for the Republican candidate.

I think it's actually just a very small and vocal minority. I saw a poll recently that Biden is doing well with the young voters.

Rocinante wrote:Belittling people who believe in something is a winning strategy if your a Republican with the electoral college and gerrymandering on your side. It doesn’t work for Democrats. You have to be willing to incorporate progressive ideas. Typical democrat voters don’t vote against stuff they vote for stuff. So you’re right bob, it’s your right to mock them. But your self righteous “I’m just voting against a racist bigoted sexual predator” bullshit is hopefully not reflected in the rest of the party that needs those progressive votes to come out and have something to vote for.

you'd have to ask them.

if they choose to stay home because their candidate is less than perfect, that says a lot about them and their level of basic human decency.

steveschneider wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:The fractures of the Dem party, as displayed in this discussion of the last couple of hours is the one thing that can carry Trump to victory.  I think/hope the anti-Trump vote among neutrals and non-voters in 2016 is enough to overcome the short-sighted sissy slap fight among Dems, but it is giving him an opening that isn't necessary.

There are disagreements in the Republican party between the moderates and the far right, but I don't recall any significant numbers wanting to take their ball and go home and not vote for the Republican candidate.  

I think it's actually just a very small and vocal minority. I saw a poll recently that Biden is doing well with the young voters.

wait until the mainstream media machine kicks in, along with the Russian bots, Russia itself, etc - let's check back in, say, September.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Well you mentioned me so don't get mad when I respond.

Thank you Steve I’ll be sure to check in for the next update on what some Bernie person said that was mean to you on Twitter I can’t wait.

Cool, and I look forward to your future strawman arguments and random attacks.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Thank you Steve I’ll be sure to check in for the next update on what some Bernie person said that was mean to you on Twitter I can’t wait.

Cool, and I look forward to your future strawman arguments and random attacks.

Almost positive that you don’t know what that means

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Cool, and I look forward to your future strawman arguments and random attacks.

Almost positive that you don’t know what that means

And you'd be wrong but knowing you it won't stop you from believing that.

steveschneider wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Almost positive that you don’t know what that means

And you'd be wrong but knowing you it won't stop you from believing that.

Tell me the straw man argument I made steve. Then explain what you think that is.


Just kidding you really don’t have to waste your time just honestly if you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s probably for the best to just sit out for a bit.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

And you'd be wrong but knowing you it won't stop you from believing that.

Tell me the straw man argument I made steve. Then explain what you think that is.


Just kidding you really don’t have to waste your time just honestly if you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s probably for the best to just sit out for a bit.

What is clear is you don't know what they are and don't understand when you use them.

steveschneider wrote:

Cameron wrote:

The stuff I've struck are all either things that literally any and every Democratic candidate would do, or things progressives don't care all that much about (bolstering ACA is just more non-M4A deck chair shuffling).

Support for $15 minimum wage is encouraging.

Joe Biden has earned no benefit of the doubt on social security. The man has a decades long public record, paying a little lip service is not sufficient assurance. I will need to see it to believe it.

The things you struck out are all good things, and you should be fighting for them. ACA was designed to be built upon and improved.

Medicare for all was wheeled out for the primary and was proven to be a loser this go around. You aren't going to see it in 2020. Is it really worth blowing up the system over an idea that was a loser and would cost the general election?

Generic democrat X offers all of those same things, without Biden's considerable baggage. Acting like rejoining the Paris agreement is some olive branch to progressives is laughable.

Just because Bernie didn't win doesn't mean M4A is a loser. I'm fairly confident that polling indicates its strong favorability with the voting public. How many more years, how many thousands of preventable deaths, how many more bankruptcies due to medical bills before it's okay to vigorously advocate for universal healthcare, in your estimation? How many terms of centrist, corporatist incrementalism before it stops being beyond the pale to withhold support from candidates who advance unacceptable proposals?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

You don't even understand what Ronan Farrow has done so no use in trying to explain to you what a blue check mark means on Twitter.

Steve shut the fuck up no one was talking to you

Fucking steve...

Cameron wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

The things you struck out are all good things, and you should be fighting for them. ACA was designed to be built upon and improved.

Medicare for all was wheeled out for the primary and was proven to be a loser this go around. You aren't going to see it in 2020. Is it really worth blowing up the system over an idea that was a loser and would cost the general election?

Generic democrat X offers all of those same things, without Biden's considerable baggage. Acting like rejoining the Paris agreement is some olive branch to progressives is laughable.

Just because Bernie didn't win doesn't mean M4A is a loser. I'm fairly confident that polling indicates its strong favorability with the voting public. How many more years, how many thousands of preventable deaths, how many more bankruptcies due to medical bills before it's okay to vigorously advocate for universal healthcare, in your estimation? How many terms of centrist, corporatist incrementalism before it stops being beyond the pale to withhold support from candidates who advance unacceptable proposals?

If M4A polls so strongly where were all the voters for it? How come he didn't mop the floor with Biden then? The conservative party is smart, they are a reliable voting block and they value elections. The far left is ready to just piss them away and blow up the system. If you can't bend or compromise your movement just dies on the vine.

Cameron wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Steve shut the fuck up no one was talking to you

Fucking steve...

You two will get along just fine. Actually Travis I think you could learn a thing or two from Cameron his arguments aren't as lazy or as half baked as yours.

steveschneider wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Generic democrat X offers all of those same things, without Biden's considerable baggage. Acting like rejoining the Paris agreement is some olive branch to progressives is laughable.

Just because Bernie didn't win doesn't mean M4A is a loser. I'm fairly confident that polling indicates its strong favorability with the voting public. How many more years, how many thousands of preventable deaths, how many more bankruptcies due to medical bills before it's okay to vigorously advocate for universal healthcare, in your estimation? How many terms of centrist, corporatist incrementalism before it stops being beyond the pale to withhold support from candidates who advance unacceptable proposals?

If M4A polls so strongly where were all the voters for it? How come he didn't mop the floor with Biden then? The conservative party is smart, they are a reliable voting block and they value elections. The far left is ready to just piss them away and blow up the system. If you can't bend or compromise your movement just dies on the vine.

The voters considered issues other than healthcare when making their ultimate voting decision in the primary, obviously. I think polling indicates that most democratic primary voters scored their most important issue as the ability to beat Donald Trump. For various reasons, Biden won that category. Doesn't mean M4A isn't popular.

Cameron wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

If M4A polls so strongly where were all the voters for it? How come he didn't mop the floor with Biden then? The conservative party is smart, they are a reliable voting block and they value elections. The far left is ready to just piss them away and blow up the system. If you can't bend or compromise your movement just dies on the vine.

The voters considered issues other than healthcare when making their ultimate voting decision in the primary, obviously. I think polling indicates that most democratic primary voters scored their most important issue as the ability to beat Donald Trump. For various reasons, Biden won that category. Doesn't mean M4A isn't popular.

I kind of agree with this, but I think most people view Biden as being capable of actually improving health care and people are voting for incremental change. Regarding M4A if we ever want it at this juncture Biden is our best bet to get there. If we don't Trump will probably completely rat fuck ACA and leave us with a terrible system.

Are republicans and the mainstream media still upset about whatever Hunter Biden did?

or was that just another silly manufactured outrage..?

[tw]1255234731467313154?s=21[/tw]

There's always a quid pro quo with Trump, right?

Who's Biden gonna pick for VP? I don't think it will be Gretchen.