╌>

Democratic insiders: Bernie could win the nomination

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  5 years ago  •  271 comments

Democratic insiders: Bernie could win the nomination

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Suddenly, Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is being taken seriously.

For months, the Vermont senator was written off by Democratic Party insiders as a candidate with a committed but narrow base who was too far left to win the primary. Elizabeth Warren had skyrocketed in the polls and seemed to be leaving him behind in the race to be progressive voters’ standard-bearer in 2020.

But in the past few weeks, something has changed. In private conversations and on social media, Democratic officials, political operatives and pundits are reconsidering Sanders’ chances.

“It may have been inevitable that eventually you would have two candidates representing each side of the ideological divide in the party. A lot of smart people I’ve talked to lately think there’s a very good chance those two end up being Biden and Sanders,” said David Brock, a longtime Hillary Clinton ally who founded a pro-Clinton super PAC in the 2016 campaign. “They’ve both proven to be very resilient.”

Democratic insiders said they are rethinking Sanders’ bid for a few reasons: First, Warren has recently fallen in national and early state surveys. Second, Sanders has withstood the ups and downs of the primary, including a heart attack. At the same time, other candidates with once-high expectations, such as Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke, have dropped out or languished in single digits in the polls.

“I believe people should take him very seriously. He has a very good shot of winning Iowa, a very good shot of winning New Hampshire, and other than Joe Biden, the best shot of winning Nevada,” said Dan Pfeiffer, who served as an adviser to former President Barack Obama. “He could build a real head of steam heading into South Carolina and Super Tuesday.”

If Sanders’ candidacy continues to be taken seriously, he will eventually be subjected to the scrutiny that Warren and Biden have faced for prolonged stretches. That includes an examination of his electability. “That conversation has never worked well for anyone,” Pfeiffer said.

Former California Gov. Gray Davis stopped short of saying firm support for "Medicare for All" would be an impediment for Democrats in the primary but suggested the risk for the nominee is significant.

“Californians and Americans, in general, like options — not mandates,” he said.

Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager, said political insiders and pundits are rethinking his chances “not out of the goodness of their heart,” but because “it is harder and harder to ignore him when he’s rising in every average that you see.” And he welcomes a conversation about Sanders’ electability, he said

“We want that,” he said. “I’d love to be able to argue why he stands a better chance to beat Donald Trump than Joe Biden.”


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

Looking on from afar, I would say that (if he's still alive) Bernie could be the shoe-horn that would guarantee Trump to slip into re-election with ease.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    5 years ago

The sad thing is, should the likely outcome of Sanders getting the nomination result in Trump's reelection, no one on the left will understand why it happened. The left thinks it's all about who's the better person. They don't understand it's actually about policy. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1    5 years ago

In the match-up of Sanders vs. Trump I think you are correct.   Trump would win based on his policies.

In general, however, a strong economy and good supplier / consumer confidence for an incumbent president is an extremely enviable position to be in.   Displacing Trump under those conditions will be tough.    The only candidate that might pull that off is Bloomberg,  but he has quite a challenge to first secure the D nomination.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.1    5 years ago

Donald Trump has lied thousands of times. He is also immoral, a bully, and an idiot. If Trump is re-elected the American people will be in disgrace. You can't choose as a national leader someone who lies thousands of times and claim to be a good people. 

The economy will come and go.  We dont have a spare soul of the nation to throw away.  

The "never Trumpers" are the people who understand all this the best. They are willing to accept a Democratic president for four years as a tradeoff for getting rid of Trump and Trumpism. 

People who want to sit back and suggest that "policies" are the key are only adding to the disgrace. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    5 years ago

John, while I would prefer to not see Trump re-elected, there are certain historically evidenced dynamics that simply cannot be ignored.   

If the economy continues to be strong and the electorate is confident in the economy, do you think Trump will lose to Biden, Warren or Sanders?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    5 years ago
John, while I would prefer to not see Trump re-elected

Thats nice of you. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    5 years ago
If the economy continues to be strong and the electorate is confident in the economy, do you think Trump will lose to Biden, Warren or Sanders?

How many lies will Trump tell in the course of this re-election?  You dont seem to understand that our national character and national honor are on the line. The country is in a profound crisis. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.5    5 years ago

Answer my question.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.6    5 years ago

LOL. Trump should lose to any of them. No one should vote for Donald Trump. Whats so sad is that it is obvious. 

Rick Wilson , who is a Republican, and now heads The Lincoln Project, has said specifically, that none of the Democrats running could do as much damage to America in one term as Trump is sure to continue to do if he is re-elected. That is reality. 

It is unconscionable, to me, that people can think Trump and Trumps re-election are a commme ci comme ca proposition, in other words something that receives or merits indifference. . 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.7    5 years ago
Trump should lose to any of them.

Then I think you are kidding yourself.    No matter how unconscionable you hold this to be, the electorate will decide in spite of your position.   Something might happen between now and election day, but it is a shame that you refuse to recognize the fundamental strength of an incumbent with a good economy and confident suppliers/consumers.   

If Bloomberg somehow gets the D nomination I am not going to deny the challenge he faces against these mega factors favoring Trump.   It is what it is, regardless of desire.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
2.1.9  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    5 years ago

24/7/365 - gads John - you've really got it bad.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.8    5 years ago

You are indifferent to Trump. Thats your problem and your shame, not mine.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.9    5 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    5 years ago

This is of course my biggest complaint with how you deal with Trump.   You take what could be an objective analysis and turn it personal.    

Even if I was as emotionally charged as you seem to be regarding Trump, I like to think that I could see through that and not deny macro historical trends.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.12    5 years ago

The president has lied 15000 times (they have a list) and you want to talk about macro historical trends. 

It is nauseating. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.11    5 years ago

John,

Let me remind you of this phrase:

It's the economy, stupid

And I know you know who said that. But for all the other readers, it was James Carville and he used that to put Bill Clinton in the White House. 

Voters are erratic at best and that is what Tig is trying to say to you. Even people who find Trump distasteful might vote for him because of their wallet, ethics be damned. 

So while you might find that incredible and disgusting, it is still a big possibility. 

And that doesn't make Tig indifferent to Trump. He isn't. He is just laying out the facts as they are.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.13    5 years ago

Are you attempting to put forth some reasoning now?    Okay, so you posit that Trump's 15,000 lies will counteract the factors of an incumbent with a good economy and confident suppliers/consumers?

What factual evidence can you put forward that those 15,000 lies will counteract the local, personal factors (the impact of a good economy) that drive most voters?   In my view, most everyone knows that Trump is a pathological liar.   I think many (if not most) knew that before he was elected.

See, if Bloomberg/Biden gets the D nomination (???) I would like some comfort that he could prevail.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.14    5 years ago
what other election has had a candidate who lied 15000 times since he took office?
of course that should take precedence
the idea that this election will be a choice between two equally valid people and one of them has the economy on his side is ABSURD. 
One of them is a pathological lying, diseased narcissist who embarrasses America every day he is in office.  Every day. 
Newstalkers is becoming an alternate reality where a group of nutcases on the right pretend all this is normality, and even a good thing. 
And then there is the fake news and the lying and the bamboozling. When are you going to speak out against all that?  
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.16    5 years ago
what other election has had a candidate who lied 15000 times since he took office?

We are in new territory.   But, again, Trump was elected as a known liar, bully, cheat and asshole.   

the idea that this election will be a choice between two equally valid people and one of them has the economy on his side is ABSURD. 

Slimy strawman.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.16    5 years ago
Newstalkers is becoming an alternate reality where a group of nutcases on the right pretend all this is normality, and even a good thing.
What are you talking about? That there are members who support Trump here. Sure there are. We are a non-partisan site. There are also plenty of members who don't want Trump for another 4 years and some who are still making their minds' up. 
And then there is the fake news and the lying and the bamboozling. When are you going to speak out against all that?  
There are rules about what is and is not allowed on the site. After the New Year, we will be doing an update of the CoC. You have a complaint, log it then. 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    5 years ago

You are the king of logic.  So why do you fall for the bs that the economy is at some unknown of plateau and Trump is the reason? 

I heard a news bit a day or two ago. 70% of the new jobs created under Trump pay 30,000 dollars or less annual salary.  Do those sound like "good jobs"?  Pay raises people have received are roughly in line with what happened the last year of Obama's term. Much of consumer spending is being paid for by people incurring personal debt. 

Rising cost of housing, food ,and transportation , and education, is eating up all of the "gains" in the Trump economy. 

In other words, things are ok, but not "the greatest ever". 

Not worth tolerating a pathological liar who is destroying the national character of our people. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.19    5 years ago
You are the king of logic.  So why do you fall for the bs that the economy is at some unknown of plateau and Trump is the reason? 

Where do I suggest to you that I believe Trump is the reason for the economy?    Stop with the slimy strawman crap and engage in a reasoned discussion.

It does not matter what Trump did.   All that matters are the factors that cause people to vote a certain way.    Perception.   Perrie's reminder of 'it is the economy stupid' points out the simplistic calculus of the electorate.   

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    5 years ago
What factual evidence can you put forward that those 15,000 lies will counteract the local, personal factors (the impact of a good economy) that drive most voters?

Just as we debate the quality of the economy, we should look at the quality of Trump's lies (I know JR won't do this. He's a man of principle).

For the rest of us, as you say,

most everyone knows that Trump is a pathological liar

And I think that's true. But look at what he lies about. He lies about crowd size. He lies about his personal relationships with politicians or other famous people. He lies about where he had lunch and who was there. He lies about his golf score. He lies about his mistresses. In short, he mainly lies about shit no one cares about.

It's like teenagers lying about all the sex they're having. Is it morally wrong? Sure. Does it matter to anyone in their actual lives? Not really.

Now, compare that to the unemployment rate, the steady economy, the lack of new wars, the death of Al-Baghdadi, and other things Trump will point to. If all the Democrats bring to the conversation is "Trump is a terrible person" he'll get reelected.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.21    5 years ago
Just as we debate the quality of the economy, we should look at the quality of Trump's lies (I know JR won't do this. He's a man of principle).

That is certainly an approach one can take, but I am looking at this from a macro electorate perspective.   My question is:  what are the dominant factors that will elect the next PotUS?  I have answered this question as I see things.

Trump, regardless of his character, ethics, history, etc. has three historically powerful factors on his side:

  1. incumbency
  2. good economy
  3. suppler and consumer confidence

This translates into:  the electorate is content with what matters most to them — the short-term well-being of their immediate circle of family and friends.

If Warren or Sanders is the D nominee, then Trump has the additional factor of running against a candidate who cannot win in today's political environment.   If Biden or Bloomberg is the D nominee then there will be a race.   I do not think Biden brings enough to the table to displace Trump's factors.   Being a respected (and respectable) elder statesman and a grandfatherly kind soul is not likely going to do it.   Bloomberg might, but it would require convincing the electorate that their economic situation will continue in full force with him as PotUS.   Bloomberg could make such an argument, Biden not so much.

In short, the only chance that I see for having someone else as PotUS in 2021 is Bloomberg and he has a long way to go before he is a viable candidate for the D nomination.   The likely match-up right now is Trump vs. Biden and short of something major happening, we are going to have Trump for four more years.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.30  TᵢG  replied to    5 years ago

You are referring to 'who' you think will determine the winner.   I was speaking more of the 'what'.    The 'who' analysis seems to me would be more complex so I am not sure at this early stage.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.32  TᵢG  replied to    5 years ago

So you think Trump will win because he will get supporters out to vote?    The obvious question then is why do they support him?   That gets into the 'what'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.34  TᵢG  replied to    5 years ago

I think that is the main reason why Trump won in 2016.   It probably will be a major factor in 2020 too.   In my view it is not as fundamental as the three I mentioned, but it is no doubt a factor.    It might be lessened due to Trump's inability to build a wall on Mexico's peso (proving that he will make truly absurd claims with no hope of fulfilling to get elected) but that will probably be rationalized away.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.36  Tacos!  replied to    5 years ago
My dominate factor is all the rural white people that normally don't vote that Trump has targeted.

That might be especially so if the impeachment is still in the news come November. If the popular perception of Democrats is that they will continue to fuck around with investigations and bullshit impeachments rather than help move the country forward, those people will not only get out and vote for Trump, they'll put Republicans in charge of the House again.

I think that's why Pelosi was in a such a big hurry to approve the USMCA (ne NAFTA) and it may be the real reason she's holding back the impeachment from the Senate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.38  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @2.1.25    5 years ago
Donald Trump retweeted a tweet that was complimentary of him. The tweet was from someone named 4 Laura Loomer.

Laura Loomer is a far right nut case who is promoted on Infowars. Loomer is well known for saying mass shootings are hoaxes or false flags.  Loomer said the Parkland school shooting was a hoax. 

And the fucking president of the United States is approvingly putting this nutjobs name on his twitter page.  Because she is nice to him. 

Wake the hell up, all of you. 

Trump is tweeting from Q Anon people. Conspiracies, idiocies, nonsense. All intended to bamboozle Americans.  Reading a lot of the comments on this site , and on this thread, it appears to be working for him.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.41  TᵢG  replied to    5 years ago

True but that was not my point.   My point was that Trump is clearly capable of making outrageous claims (lies) and those who believed him might not be so frigging gullible this time.    That is, he might have disappointed some of his 2016 supporters.   My example of an outrageous claim (one of many) was to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.43  TᵢG  replied to    5 years ago
The only people i saw that believed that claim was the left,

Your individual sampling is interesting but does not really matter.   To understand what the electorate actually thought we would need a poll with a statistically valid sample size and methods.   Short of that, we are largely using intuition.

My point, however, still stands (even though it seems to be routinely missed).   Being very candid:   Trump is happy to make outrageous public claims.   Now, almost in 2020, people can compare his outrageous claims to what he actually did and now have proof that he was full of shit.   (Although I do wonder how anyone could have believed him in the first place.)

I do not know what percentage of his supporters are disillusioned at this point, but as I stated @2.1.34:

TiG@2.1.34 -  It might be lessened due to Trump's inability to build a wall on Mexico's peso (proving that he will make truly absurd claims with no hope of fulfilling to get elected) but that will probably be rationalized away.

It might be lessened but, at I noted, it will probably be rationalized away.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.44  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.7    5 years ago

No matter what Trump's faults, not everybody has the unbridled and rabid hatred of him that you and others do. I'm not all that fond of Trump myself, but I find the choices by the left to be unable to reasonably challenge him in his reelection bid.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.45  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.5    5 years ago

Actually, it isn’t.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.46  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    5 years ago

My question is whether the electorate can be influenced by $100,000,000 worth of advertising. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.47  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.44    5 years ago

Ed if you wouldnt accept Joe Biden, Bloomberg , or Amy Kloubachar over Trump in a heartbeat, you've got "issues". 

Of course the right thing to do is vote Trump out no matter who the Democratic nominee is.  There is zero chance that Bernie Sanders could install a socialist government in the United States. Zero. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.47    5 years ago
There is zero chance that Bernie Sanders could install a socialist government in the United States. Zero. 

... and that is not what Sanders has ever sought.   His policies are all capitalist.   The difference between him and, say, Biden is that he wants waaaaay more statism.   He wants much bigger 'benevolent' government and wants to aggressively redistribute wealth.    No change of our economic system away from capitalism, rather an increase of government size and power.    Sanders has no chance of getting elected with such a view.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.49  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.47    5 years ago

Anybody who wants those you mentioned got way more issues than I do! I just do not like progressive liberal leftist policies and never have so to you anybody that do not share your progressive and/or leftist libersl views are the hated enemy even when you don't even know them. That is really very sad.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
2.1.50  katrix  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.46    5 years ago
My question is whether the electorate can be influenced by $100,000,000 worth of advertising. 

I think it absolutely can. Name recognition is huge with many voters. One reason Trump won the GOP primary, IMO, was because of all the media exposure he got.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
2.1.51  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.21    5 years ago
But look at what he lies about. He lies about crowd size. He lies about his personal relationships with politicians or other famous people.

He lies about a lot more important stuff than that.

Then there are all the illegal activities. His fraudulent charity .. his supporters certainly screech enough about Hillary's charity, even though it is legit, and they don't care at all that his charity was a total fraud. His fraud with Trump University ... how he's ripped off all those small businesses ... the list goes on and on.

I find it really sad that so many Americans just don't give a shit about his utter inability to tell the truth, the laws he breaks with impunity, and his utter lack of ethics or common decency. But as has been pointed out, voters are perverse creatures

And I find it even sadder that with such a clearly flawed incumbent, the Dems can't even manage to come up with decent candidates. I really don't see any of them beating Trump, and I don't want another four years of him spitting on our Constitution and our system of government, and our military, our intelligence community, etc. I find it unpatriotic for people not to give a shit about those things, but that's just the way most voters apparently are.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.52  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @2.1.51    5 years ago
His fraudulent charity . . . His fraud with Trump University ... how he's ripped off all those small businesses ... the list goes on and on

No one cares. Seriously, no one does. Maybe they should, but these things do not impact the lives of most Americans, so they will not figure in the voting calculus. Just like no one actually gave a shit about Whitewater or anything else the Clintons have ever been accused of.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.53  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @2.1.51    5 years ago
And I find it even sadder that with such a clearly flawed incumbent, the Dems can't even manage to come up with decent candidates.

ANY Democrat should be supported against Trump. Any of them. At worst they could be a caretaker until a more sane election comes along. But it is likely the Democratic president would be far better than that. 

People need to get over this idea that there is some threshold Democrat candidates need to surpass before they are more worthy than Trump. They all are. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.54  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.52    5 years ago
Maybe they should, but these things do not impact the lives of most Americans, so they will not figure in the voting calculus. 

If this is actually true than America is a far lesser country than we imagine it to be. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.55  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.54    5 years ago

I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

But how many Americans were genuinely, in their hearts, so worried about Whitewater that they thought it needed investigating? It doesn't matter if the Clintons actually did anything wrong. We're talking about the president. If we are genuinely that concerned about the morality and legal behavior of our leaders, that should have been a national emergency. It wasn't.

Neither were all of Bill's mistresses. The consensus in America is that it's perfectly reasonable and understandable that the president would lie about cheating on his wife. Even in the wake of that scandal and impeachment, he commands a quarter of a million dollars for speaking engagements and gets standing ovations at the Democratic National Conventions. No one cares.

You desire to see a moral standard of judgment in the American people with regard to Trump that they have never had for other leaders. It's who we are.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.56  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  katrix @2.1.50    5 years ago

I believe that many people saw him as "the boss" on the Apprentice TV series, so he had a kind of celebrity image of a person in control.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 years ago

According to Real Clear Politics, Biden is up over Sanders consistently.

512

And show a shift in the top 5 players 

512

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4  Tacos!    5 years ago

In my late night fantasies (c'mon you wanna know!), the old-timer front runners in this thing (Biden, Warren, and Sanders) finally wear down the voters with their ancient out-of-touch politicking and get kicked to the curb. This allows the younger ones who stick it out to rise to the top. Then, we might have something interesting to talk about in this election.

Sadly, there's still a ton of devoted Democrats who will vote simply based on whoever they think can win. In fact, I would guess it might even be a majority of such voters. These loyal Democrats really aren't that picky. They just want to beat Trump. And in a reelection campaign like this one, they might be the bulk of the turnout.

Unfortunately, it's the DNC and the news media who are the ones doing the deciding. So, people like Booker, Klobuchar, Yang, and Gabbard, who get excluded from the debates - and, more importantly, the news coverage - aren't even on their radar.

Buttigieg - I predict - will burn out quickly. He might do well in Iowa and even New Hampshire, but there just aren't that many delegates in those states. He could start out in front, but as soon as the primaries move on to bigger states, the big three will catch him and leave him behind.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @4    5 years ago
In my late night fantasies (c'mon you wanna know!), the old-timer front runners in this thing (Biden, Warren, and Sanders) finally wear down the voters with their ancient out-of-touch politicking and get kicked to the curb.

You have to be kidding. Biden and Bernie are contemporaries of Trump and Warren is younger.

Sadly, there's still a ton of devoted Democrats who will vote simply based on whoever they think can win.

How is that different from loyal Republicans who forgive Trump for anything that comes out of his mouth daily? And yes, they do want to beat Trump. Hasn't that always been the game for both parties? It's why I am not a party member. 

So, people like Booker, Klobuchar, Yang, and Gabbard, who get excluded from the debates - and, more importantly, thenews coverage- aren't even on their radar.

That is true.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.1.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    5 years ago
How is that different from loyal Republicans who forgive Trump for anything that comes out of his mouth daily?

because words are just words.... actions speak louder than that.

trump has done more for OUR country than the last three presidents combined.

oh no... trump said more words... LOL 

and just like that, the doj is on it

hint: they already were :)

the hunters are now the hunted.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago

Loki,

Here are the ages of everyone (I am not sure what your numbers represent).

Trump:  73 

Biden: 76

Sanders: 77

Warren:  70

These people are all contemporaries by any definition. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    5 years ago

Donald Trump retweeted a tweet that was complimentary of him. The tweet was from someone named 4 Laura Loomer.

Laura Loomer is a far right nut case who is promoted on Infowars. Loomer is well known for saying mass shootings are hoaxes or false flags.  Loomer said the Parkland school shooting was a hoax. 

And the fucking president of the United States is approvingly putting this nutjobs name on his twitter page.  Because she is nice to him. 

Wake the hell up, all of you. 

Trump is tweeting from Q Anon people. Conspiracies, idiocies, nonsense. All intended to bamboozle Americans.  Reading a lot of the comments on this site , and on this thread, it appears to be working for him. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    5 years ago
Biden and Bernie are contemporaries of Trump and Warren is younger.

I hate to be mean, but let's be real: They're all old. Warren is 70. All four of those people have a 7 in front of their age. They are all contemporaries of each other. Everyone else I mentioned is 50 or younger, except Klobuchar, who is only 59.

How is that different from loyal Republicans who forgive Trump for anything that comes out of his mouth daily?

Trump is the incumbent president, running unchallenged. It's not like Republican primary voters are being given a big choice. In this cycle, at least, my analysis just doesn't apply to them. That's typical when a president is running for reelection.

In contrast, Democratic voters have some very interesting choices, but they will shy away from the bold, exciting choices and go with what they are being told is the safe choice. I really think some of the other candidates could beat Trump if only they had a shot at the nomination.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.1    5 years ago
trump has done more for OUR country than the last three presidents combined.

The only thing that I can see that Trump has done for this country is the Economy and even that has come at a cost. He has added trillions to our national debt and this will come back to bite us. His conduct as President has been a total embarrassment. He is petty and small-minded. He is nothing more than a "Cult of Personality".

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago
What you wrote:

                "Biden and Bernie are contemporaries of Trump and Warren is younger."

So now they are all contemporaries? 

Are you kidding me? The facts are there in front of your face. They are all in their 70's. That makes them contemporaries. It's this kind of nonsense that makes having a discussion impossible. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.5    5 years ago
I hate to be mean, but let's be real: They're all old. Warren is 70. All four of those people have a 7 in front of their age. They are all contemporaries of each other. Everyone else I mentioned is 50 or younger, except Klobuchar, who is only 59.

Now I agree with you. 

How is that different from loyal Republicans who forgive Trump for anything that comes out of his mouth daily? Trump is the incumbent president, running unchallenged. It's not like Republican primary voters are being given a big choice. In this cycle, at least, my analysis just doesn't apply to them. That's typical when a president is running for reelection.

You are talking specifics and I am talking about behavior. 

In contrast, Democratic voters have some very interesting choices, but they will shy away from the bold, exciting choices and go with what they are being told is the safe choice. I really think some of the other candidates could beat Trump if only they had a shot at the nomination.

We agree again. Personally I like Klobuchar but she is lost in the crowd. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    5 years ago
Trump is tweeting from Q Anon people. Conspiracies, idiocies, nonsense. All intended to bamboozle Americans.  Reading a lot of the comments on this site , and on this thread, it appears to be working for him. 

John, I don't disagree. But that is not what this article is about.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.1.12  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.7    5 years ago
The only thing that I can see that Trump has done for this country is the Economy

look harder. besides the economy setting 50yr records...

  • tpp =dead
  • paris agrement = dead
  • ICC = dead
  • WTO = dead
  • supreme court = rightwing majority
  • military funded and growing a new branch (space force)
  • border being secured

the next act?

  • leftwing and neo con corruption being removed  next summer via durham, adm rogers, and barr

no president has done as much as for OUR country and the globalists are freekin pissed off... LOL

is all good fun :)

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago
The debt is perpetuated by spending with a budget nowhere in site it has been like this for 16 years before he took office.

Wrong. He has actually added to the debt. 

512

And remember he has one more year to spend. Obama did his spending in 8 years and Trump has almost done the same in 3 years. 

I am a fiscal conservative, and I am sorry, the national debt shows he is not.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.10    5 years ago

You dont disagree with what? That it is working for him? Maybe we should worry less about who is best suited to beat him and instead just worry about getting him the hell out. 

ANY Democrat is preferable to Trump. ANY of them , and you know it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.12    5 years ago

Go back to posting disproven conspiracy theories. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.1.17  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.16    5 years ago
Go back to posting disproven conspiracy theories.

the ones being proven are much more fun.

go back to posting I hate trump screeds... that is where your base is.

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.1.19  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.13    5 years ago
Obama did his spending in 8 years and Trump has almost done the same in 3 years.

bush 1, clinton, bush 2, obama,   

they all played the same game.  selling out our country

shocker: it all started with the 11th director of the CIA

who could have guessed... ya cant just make this stuff up.

fbi, cia, fisa, our entire intelligence apparatus have to be re-structured.

maybe the CIA whistleblower trump outed has some ideas?  LOL


we all knew undoing generations of political bs was going to be expensive.

and worth every penny :)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.20  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.12    5 years ago
look harder.
  • tpp =dead
  • paris agrement = dead
  • ICC = dead
  • WTO = dead
  • supreme court = rightwing majority
  • border being secured

This goes to how I view his policies. 

  • supreme court = rightwing majority. Horrible. The court is not supposed to be political. 
  • supreme court = rightwing majority Terrible. He is over spending and adding to our National Debt. 
  • Has given industry free reign over how they dump their waste
  • Added trillions to the National Debt
  • Removed bans on animals and wild life that are endangered
  • Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to developmental disabilities in children.
  • Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals like dry-cleaning solvents.
  • And please take note, I didn't disagree with your first three. He has not done anything yet with the WTO and that would be a huge mistake if he did, so that item is false. 
  • His tariffs on China is a mixed bag. Tariffs in economics terms are a "value added tax" or VAT to consumers and prices have gone up across the board. But on the other hand, China has been abusing us. I think things could have been handled better and done in increments if China didn't play well. But then again, he could use the tariffs to further himself, placing them in effect to look tough, and then taking them away right in time for the election to boost the economy. 

I am expecting a proper response to these items.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.23  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.19    5 years ago
bush 1, clinton, bush 2, obama,    they all played the same game.  selling out our country

Do you not read what is in front of your face or just deflect?

we all knew undoing generations of political bs was going to be expensive. and worth every penny

First, getting out of all this national debt that he is doing will take generations.

Second, he is not spending to undo generations of political bs. What are you talking about? He is spending on tax cuts, which is a bill that will have to be paid down the line. It is a false boost to the economy.

Furthermore, one of his promises was to eliminate the national debt, or have you forgotten that?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.24  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago
I want to put a caveat on my post, Presidents can't technically spend a single dollar that Congress doesn't give him.

That is correct. Obama had a congress that was Republican and wouldn't work with him. Trump has one that will work with him. Both the President and the Congress are to blame. There, I fixed my comment, too.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.1.25  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.20    5 years ago
supreme court = rightwing majority. Horrible. The court is not supposed to be political. 

non political court? in a perfect world. I agree. but that train sailed before we were even born... I mean seriously... LOL 

had hillary won and appointed two more leftwing justices the left would have then used the court to destroy this country with their progressive socialist BS and we would have been powerless to stop them short of civil war

now the left is fuked for 20-30yrs - period - full stop.

  and that is a solid win for our country

as trump upset their apple cart civil war is avoided. that has to be a good thing also. I should have put it on my list of accomplishments.

I am expecting a proper response to these items.

I am a very busy person. my time is mine to use as I see fit.

I don't jump thru hoops for anyone... it is an unbreakable rule.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.26  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago
Agreed, you posted one thing, when you got called out in it, you changed what you said, that is the simple fact.

What are you talking about?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.13    5 years ago
I am a fiscal conservative, and I am sorry, the national debt shows he is not.

As am I and Trump is not even close.   Worse, sadly, both major parties are fiscally irresponsible — saddling future generations that are not even born with our irresponsible debt.   It is disgusting.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.25    5 years ago
had hillary won and appointed two more leftwing justices the left would have then used the court to destroy this country with their progressive socialist BS and we would have been powerless to stop them short of civil war

That's funny. The court does not determine policy, but law. And again, talk of civil war. I find this very troubling. 

I am a very busy person. my time is mine to use as I see fit. I don't jump thru hoops for anyone... it is an unbreakable rule.

Let me translate that for you. Which means you have no answer for the things I said. Either have a proper discussion or your here for shits and giggles. Please let me know which, so I don't waste my time, which is valuable to me. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.29  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.27    5 years ago
As am I and Trump is not even close.   Worse, sadly, both major parties are fiscally irresponsible — saddling future generations that are not even born with our irresponsible debt.   It is disgusting.

I totally agree with you Tig. At least Clinton understood fiscal conservatism. I don't know what the rest of the clowns are doing.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.30  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago

You are correct. It was hard to read. It is still not what he promised and way, which was to do away with the national debt and barely underspending Obama is no achievement in my books.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.32  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.24    5 years ago

Not sure what dimension you are living in but in mine the house has had NO desire to work with Trump since he became POTUS.    Many of whom are very vocal about it so it’s no secret really.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.1.34  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.1.25    5 years ago
I am a very busy person. my time is mine to use as I see fit.

I don't jump thru hoops for anyone... it is an unbreakable rule.

cheers

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!  Oh, shit...you were serious?  There are plenty of exits around here.  Feel free to use one de tout suite, m'dear.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.35  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.32    5 years ago

Sparty,

First of all why get so snarky with me from the get go?

Second, the Senate is in his pocket... so much so that they said they will do the President's bidding. So it really doesn't matter what Congress wants. They are being overridden, otherwise, none of this could have passed. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.36  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago
Are you just a poor communicator? 

Did you have to make that personal? Don't freat I won't flag... but really?

You have to be kidding. Biden and Bernie are contemporaries of Trumpand Warren is younger. Exactly what was the point of this if you weren't trying to separate Warren as"younger"?

OMG, Loki, really? I was just stating a fact about the ages of the top 4 candidates. Please start at the top of the thread where somehow only Biden and Bernie were old and not Trump. They are all getting up there. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.39  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago

You discredit anything you say, by being nasty. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.40  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago
He never said that, again this is why we can't have communication, isn't that what you claimed? 

No it wasn't. He called the dems all old, and I pointed out to him that Trump was old, too. My point was he was trying to make age an issue while ignoring the age of his guy. 

Democrats are historically younger and minorities, thus the point of his comment, you read something that wasn't there. 

You would have to show me a stat on that. Most of our latest Presidents were somewhere in their 50's with the exception of Obama. And no that was not the point. Now you are reading something you want to be in there. 

Let's review his comment:

I hate to be mean, but let's be real: They're all old. Warren is70. All four of those people have a 7 in front of their age. They are all contemporaries of each other. Everyone else I mentioned is 50 or younger, except Klobuchar, who is only 59.

Yet he seemed not to notice the 7 in front of Trump's age.. but I hate to be mean.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.43  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago
Sigh, again, you are allowing your feelings to color what you think i am saying, If you feel my comment is personal and not an accurate representation. FLAG IT!!!!!!

I know the game you are playing which is trying to make me flip out. It won't work. I am hardly emotional, and my comment about flagging was your rude comment to me, not the content of the discussion. I don't flag anyone since I don't feel it's a fair being the lead mod.

He never said that, again this is why we can't have communication, isn't that what you claimed?   He was talking about the democrats, never did he even hint that trump wasn't old,  this was your projection based on hate for trump.

I am quite aware of the fact that he never said ANYTHING about Trump's age. That was my point. So answer me this. Why does it matter then what the 4 leading Dems age is? Why would he even mention it, if his point wasn't to make them all seem like old folks and yet somehow missed that he supports a man in his 70's. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.44  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago

I don't even know what you are talking about other than a bunch of deflections that have nada to do with this subject. 

Seriously, let it go, or flag away, at this point it may be kinder to put me out of your misery.

Seriously, I have a lot of other things in my life to make me miserable. You are not one of them.

But on a nicer note, my other twin daughter just got engaged! 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.50  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    5 years ago

Congrats to you and your wife on your daughter's wedding! Dad's and their daughters. Pretty much the same thing in our home. They are daddy's girls. I have one twin marrying in June and the other one says about in a year. 

it it truly a glorious thing to watch them start their new life.

You sound like a very sweet dad. What a lovely way of expressing this life transition. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.51  TᵢG  replied to    5 years ago
That was my point remember it was Obama told us running up the debt is anti american.

I certainly agree with the opinion that Congress, regardless of party, has been irresponsibly borrowing and spending for decades.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.52  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.35    5 years ago

Well, I just thought it was a pretty outrageous comment coming from you.    Used to that from others here but not from you.    Prolly over snarked it but it just took me by surprise.

That said, it was a forgone conclusion that the senate wasn’t going to impeach him.  They didn’t have a real case for impeachment   Just like with Clinton but party inverted.

Both were partisan hack jobs IMO.

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.53  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.52    5 years ago

First of all, I didn't say anything outrageous and my comment wasn't to you.

Here is my comment:

That is correct. Obama had a congress that was Republican and wouldn't work with him. Trump has one that will work with him. Both the President and the Congress are to blame. There, I fixed my comment, too.

So I don't even get where this is coming from:

That said, it was a forgone conclusion that the senate wasn’t going to impeach him.  They didn’t have a real case for impeachment   Just like with Clinton but party inverted. Both were partisan hack jobs IMO.

We were not talking about impeachment. We were talking about budgets. Had you been following the discussion, you would have not jumped to that conclusion.

But I will respond to that comment. I was not for impeaching Trump. I was not for 4 years of Whitewater either. They are partisan in nature. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.54  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.53    5 years ago

Testy testy .... talk about me.

Just one question to clarify what you meant.    Trump has one of what that will work with him?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1.55  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.54    5 years ago

Well, I wouldn't have been testy had you not jumped on me. Call it even. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.56  XXJefferson51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.10    5 years ago

Well we get to use all kinds of sites when we get to quote the President saying something to or about them.  I think it funny that so many groups that the SPLC wrongly libels as a hate group have never had so much power in our federal government.  I’ll take arguing cases before the Supreme Court, having members appointed as judges, having Members or leaders in key administration spots, on congressional staffs, haves members testifying before Congress, having them write content for other outlets, their actions publicized in the msm, etc. A variety of conservative and evangelical Christian groups covering a wide spectrum of issues have never been more powerful thanks to the SPLC.  Let’s see, what would be more important, being in the good graces a of secular progressive terrorist inspiring hate group or actually being a part of and or directly influencing the government.  I’m proud of them all. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.57  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.55    5 years ago

Fair enough.   Really didn't mean to come off as insulting if i did.  

I just think any supposition inferring this House has willingly worked with Trump is outrageous and am surprised we apparently disagree on that.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8  Split Personality    4 years ago

Locked for all of the off topic, personal nonsense

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @8    4 years ago

So you unlocked it?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
8.1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1    4 years ago

Instead of giving his buddy aljizzor a ticket 2 months ago he locked the seed. Since the seeder isn't here to monitor his seed I don't see how it can be unlocked. But i'm sure you know by now that certain people do as they please on NT. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @8.1.1    4 years ago

That is ridiculous. Neither BF or Al have been here in 2 months. I'll make you happy and give Al his ticket. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
8.1.3  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.2    4 years ago

Totally missed the point. 

SP locked the seed two months ago. He actually just erased his comment at 8 maybe a hour ago. I couldn't care about aljizzor, don't be petty Perrie

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
8.1.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.2    4 years ago

Oh and my comment at is meta and shouldn't it have been deleted?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @8.1.3    4 years ago

I'm not missing the point. There is no reason for any of this to have happened. Why would this article just appear from nowhere? I'll check the log to see if I can find the missing comment and any glitches. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
8.1.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.5    4 years ago

Well SP locked it two months ago a day after fish left and SP made the 1st comment today, I'm sure you can figure it out.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @8.1.6    4 years ago

I checked the logs. First of all, an event from two months ago wouldn't be in there, so I have no idea who locked the article or even if it was locked. I looked through today's logs, and there is nothing showing that anyone unlocked this article. Third, the system does eat comments (people think that the comment has taken and it didn't) from time to time. The fact that there is nothing there (you can't delete the word delete), kind of tells me this was some sort of system error.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
8.1.8  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.7    4 years ago
so I have no idea who locked the article or even if it was locked.

So you are saying I am a liar that SP said at 8 he was locking the article and his comment was still there after the seed was reopened. Gotcha.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @8.1.8    4 years ago

I'm not saying anything of the sort. All I am saying is what I am seeing and I can't go on memories of the event. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
11  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 years ago

While Sanders may get the nomination, I have to question whether he would survive a term as President.  Look at how it aged Bush, Clinton and Obama.  

He already looks (and sometimes acts) like the disheveled old geezer we all had in our neighborhoods rambling incoherently.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @11    4 years ago

I have to agree with you there. He is a bit frazzled now, but he is all spit and vinegar, so who knows? 

 
 

Who is online










91 visitors