Come back! Need discussion...2020 PresidentialFollow

what is the name of the crazy homeless person that writes all of gbaji's posts?





Edited, Apr 9th 2019 10:59am by stupidmonkey

Dave's not here.

George

I'm a Dave. But I also haven't read any other posts here on this thread where I guess there is some kind of debate, somehow.

Warren is LOL. Trump is the greatest Troll of all time and Warren spent a year gathering DNA just from one troll Pocahantas thing, and even with that made herself look stupid as shit. And didn't ask the actual 1/64 tribe she belonged to what they thought of it. And she's also being an easy troll mark with her recent impeachment stuff. She'd be the easiest loss on the ticket. Even easier than that shit-hole Joe Biden! Warren would be utterly amazing in any treasury/secretary/finance position.

If her vs. Trump though, Trump would win nine months prior with "Warren's tampon has green in it! Her vaa is full of mold!" and then Warren's focus would be on scientists who would ensure that she was too old to menstruate, and also that vaginas don't generally have mold, blah blah. That WILL HAPPEN

Bernie Sanders is the thing. Gabbard too except she's even more embattled by centrists. Centrists such as every member of Allakhazam website ever. I mean duh, anyone here not getting behind Mr. Bernard Sanders as the best candidate for the US is a CUNTBAG.

I guess those might also prefer a Buttigieg who rousts homeless from shelters and burns their pallets; and who promises to burn 1000 houses in 1000 days in order to set up a nice place to gentrify. Or prefer a Corey Booker, who thinks Canada drugs are too dangerous to ever be a deciding vote that would allow Americans to have cheaper drugs. And all the other fake a-holes.

And I guess my main failure as a commentator here is my old assumption that most others here were moral people who cared about others' suffering. It's clear they'd rather 20 million Yemenis be genocided than ever the Democratic Party be in tiny part blamed for such, via Obama. And etc. So no wonder this thread (which I haven't read, honestly) is shitting on Sanders. I assume.

And also probably/maybe acting like this is the most important election ever and Trump is worst ever even if he's killed less brown people and started less wars than anyone since LBJ. "Let's think about the 5% of humans who are Americans". "Let's put a no-fly zone over Syria", said one psychopathic candidate, last election. Jingoists here.

Edited, Apr 26th 2019 5:51am by Palpitus1

I'm no fan of Warren but the Pocahontas thing started years before Trump.

You so crazy I think I wanna have your baby.

Um---to the naysayers, or the realists, I think that Sanders will actually win the primary because it may be too hard to ***** him over with normal measures. I think he's going to be a Beast!!! Yay!!

I think the main anti-Sanders avenue will be:

Plan A: Run Bloomberg, or some other asshole so upset about say, "the lurch to the left of the party to have some socialist commie like Sanders" so he's only running to protect us from the collective wheat farming.

Plan B: I mean, Bernie Sanders will be killed. Between 11/2019 and 5/2020. Natural causes ideally of course, but in a pinch anything else would do.

Has to be enough time for someone to cry-lament-burden to take over. Biden has experience wailing about his ****** kids, one dead and another just as corrupt etc. So he'd be pretty good to oh-woefully step in to take the torch from Sanders. And media: "No Difference! They were already exactly the same on policy!" Voters: "12 hours at work, 6 hours sleep, 2 hours driving, 2 hours making food for kids, 2 hours eating....Biden, yeah I've heard that name. In the long long ago someone promised something. I'll just vote for him I guess."


Keep enjoying this drama though, Americans. Not like your family will starve to death in Yemen, or be exploded to bits in Iraq. It's all soooo theoretical.

Btw, the debate questions will be...

Round-robin generic as in: "What is the greatest threat this embattled naked vulnerable country faces" and "How would you secure our internets and democracy from the Soviets who want to destroy all of Western philosophy and existence since the time of Rus" and "what is up with middle class America how would you strengthen middle class America, yo"

and if time after that nonsense the individual questions will go: "Tulsi Gabbard, why did you belong in a cult and think homosexuals should die in Hell and why are you in love with your idol brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad?"

I mean I even gave Tulsi Gabbard $5 to get on that stage, due to her anti-imperialism and anti-warmongering but it's not like I expect for her to have more than 0.2 seconds to get it across to American voters.

Are you sure you're not talking about Obama? Or Clinton? Yeah. Definitely Clinton.

I get it. OMG I hate Trump! Must do something! Um... Exaggerating a bunch of claims and then trying to argue for Impeachment based on what is really incredibly flimsy stuff that more or less devolves into "we don't like him so let's impeach!" is a terribly bad idea. It points far more to bald faced partisanship than anything else. You could lay those claims at any politician and have just as much legitimacy (ie: not any at all).

When you list off a bunch of vague stuff like that you're not really laying out a case so much as speaking to the echo chamber. Everyone outside that chamber just kinda tunes you out though. It's not productive and will only hurt the Dem chances in this election cycle. Unfortunately, it seems like the Left has come to thrive in an environment of innuendo, speculation, and condemnation, with little or no facts to back any of it up.

Claims are cheap. You can always make them. Are there facts to go with them though? What exactly is "questionable travel practices and business deals"? Vague much? Unqualified appointees? You're kidding right? What are the qualifications? If only we had some process for approving said appointees. Oh wait! We do. Nepotism? Um... Have you looked at the folks that presidents appoint and/or surround themselves with? How many "Czars" did Obama appoint (ie: folks who hold advisory positions, but aren't "official" appointees and thus don't have to go through a Senate Confirmation process). Pot.... Met the Kettle.

None of this comes remotely close to the level required for impeachment. Well. Legitimate impeachment. Obviously, Congress can vote to impeach any time for any reason. But if they do this for purely political reasons (which is what this would be), it tends to hurt the party that does it. Every single time. It's a bad idea. It's an obviously bad idea. That so many vocal voices on the Left are demanding this really only reeks of desperation. It says "we don't think we can win by actually appealing to the voters, so we'll find some loophole to get what we want instead". That's not a great way to do things. Not in a system that is supposed to be about following a democratic process.

You want to get Trump out of office. Freaking run candidates who can beat him. Run on issues the voters care about. Protip. That's not impeachment. It's not climate change. It's not identity politics. It's not transgender bathrooms, or trigger warnings, or any of the other nonsense stuff the far left is screaming about. False claims of hate speech, fear mongering, etc, will only backfire. Stick to actual issues people actually care about. Especially the voters that will be the determinants in the election. Those are working to low middle class workers. Folks who aren't on welfare, but still struggle to pay their rent or mortgage. Folks who want more than just a subsistence life, and who would like to be able to save something for their future, to make their lives and the lives of their children better. Folks who want to earn that living, not have it handed to them. Folks who want to be able to hold their heads up high and, yes, say "I did build that" when looking at their lives accomplishments.

Far too often, the Left's rhetoric runs exactly counter to what that group of voters care about. And unfortunately, the Democrats basically have the tiger by the tail on this one. They've spent the last several decades building up a block of young, energetic, and angry voting base, convinced (indoctrinated, some might say) into viewing the entire world through the lens of the oh so important social justice causes they have become so invested in. But they are (or have been) so young and such a small group that it didn't matter. Free votes for the Dems, right? But now they've got a generation of voters who are old enough and big enough as a block to affect the Dems in terms of primary decisions, but not yet old enough or experienced enough with the real world to know how incredibly unrealistic and largely unimportant those "causes" really are. But they are pushing the Dems so far to the left, it's going to be very hard for any candidate to thread the needle. And I don't think they can get away with the whole "anointed candidate" BS they did last time around. Too many angry Berni-bros for that.


And that's before addressing the 800lb gorilla in the room. The economy. The same economy that every single liberal pundit, politician, and prominent (Nobel prize winning even!) liberal economist assured us would struggle, fail, and probably even collapse entirely if Trump got his grubby hands on it. Ooops! It's super hard to argue for socialist change when the evil capitalist agenda of Trump has resulted in the lowest unemployment in like forever, greater upward mobility than we've seen since the post ww2 era. High GDP growth. And, shockingly for those who shout "trickle down doesn't work" at the drop of a hat, the fact that not only are wages rising, but they are rising relatively faster for the working class than the wealthy. Hard to keep arguing "tax cuts for the rich", when that is what's really going on.

I almost laughed out loud watching Biden's rally last week. At one point he was trying to mock the economic results, and said something like "did you get any tax cut" to the audience, and they're all shouting "no way" (or something like that). Um... It's not like it was hard to look at your pay check prior and after the freaking tax cut. Everyone got more money into their pockets. Every one (well, everyone who worked and paid any taxes at all). So either his entire audience was made up of the unemployed, or very low paid workers (like minimum wage part time folks), or a whole bunch of people were just shouting something that they all knew wasn't true, but were I guess just hoping the rest of us wouldn't notice or something.

It's hard to run a campaign when you have to basically ignore reality and make stuff up in order to make any sort of point in your favor. Again, that might fly with the loyal followers in the crowd, but it totally turns off everyone else. At a certain point, it just becomes like "Holy cow, is there any lie they wont all adopt as truth just to show support for their side"? It's crazy. Again, that might help win a primary, but it's going to be hard to get those voters in the middle to take you seriously when you deny simple facts like yes, the tax cuts did actually help working and middle class folks, and yes, Trumps trade deals and regulation removal has helped businesses grow, and increase employment and wages for workers, and yes, China is actually a threat to be taken seriously. You know. Basic stuff that shows you are even remotely in touch with what is actually happening in the country and the world.

The more that Dem primary contenders feel they have to throw away that reality in order to win points with the increasingly nutty Left, the harder they make it for themselves in Fall of next year. We'll see what happens, but it's not looking good so far.

Edited, May 8th 2019 4:54pm by gbaji

Yeah, he keeps posting, thinking anyone is reading that bullshit

Uh ya, Are you sure you really meant to say that out loud. I forgot to add that he apparently sucks as a business man. And as trump businesses go, so goes the USA.

Why all the hate?- trump sucks as president simply because he's an ignorant egotist not because any particular person claims to hate him.

trump's actions and decisions have had disastrous effects. And he is an extremely immoral, unethical person.

What actions and decisions. What effects (results) were "disastrous"? Be freaking specific. Tell me an action he took, the result of that action, and how/why you consider that result disastrous in some way. Again, be specific. Who was affected? How were they effected? Was that resulting effect positive or negative?

It's easy to just declare something to be "bad", but if you can't actually elaborate with specifics, then it's an empty statement.



Same thing here. Be specific. What has he done that you consider "immoral" or "unethical". Again. Be freaking specific. The second you veer into vague claims and can't provide a single specific example to back it up, you lose all credibility.

If he's really been such a horrible president, it should not be hard to detail specific examples of all the horrible things he's done. Right? And if you find yourself having a hard time actually doing so, then you might want to consider that you're just repeating someone else's rhetoric and never bothered to verify it yourself. It's like critical thinking skills have just disappeared from the face of the Earth or something.

Oh..and the whole "make fun of a handicapped guy by flapping your arms around and going 'doi-dur-duh'" was super classy.