Democrat Debates

[Deranged Rhino]

49 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Piss poor point, considering you're wrong.

 

Running a campaign purely on spite won't win. It won't drive people to the polls in the needed numbers, not when Trump has grown his base, not shrunk it. To get the people out during the general, there needs to be a candidate for the younger progressives to get excited about. It's not Joe. 

 

It's not Bernie (anymore). 

 

It's likely not Warren. 

 

There's no one on stage who represents what that group wants to see: a non white male who's not a product of the system. Kamala Harris is a system/establishment candidate. Warren is too. Joe certainly is. 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Running a campaign purely on spite won't win. It won't drive people to the polls in the needed numbers, not when Trump has grown his base, not shrunk it. To get the people out during the general, there needs to be a candidate for the younger progressives to get excited about. It's not Joe. 

 

It's not Bernie (anymore). 

 

It's likely not Warren. 

 

There's no one on stage who represents what that group wants to see: a non white male who's not a product of the system. Kamala Harris is a system/establishment candidate. Warren is too. Joe certainly is. 

 

 

No.

 

Progressives hate Trump.

 

That will get them out to vote no matter who the candidate is.

 

The real reason Trump won 2016 had more to do with who didn't show up to the polls or voted 3rd party because of the widely publicized "gimme" Hilary had in that election than it did some widespread seismic shift in our country.

 

Trump getting elected woke a lot of people the hell up.

 

Your view is clearly that Trump's election was THE indicator of a massive idelogical shift in our country, I believe it's the result of widespread complacency that just won't happen again.

[Teddy KGB]

9 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Not letting Donald Trump win a 2nd term drives the excitement.

 

Orangemanbad 2020 ! 

 

I thought it was about putting people in cages and black folks working two jobs to drive up employment numbers 

[Chef Jim]

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Your view is clearly that Trump's election was THE indicator of a massive idelogical shift in our country, I believe it's the result of widespread complacency that just won't happen again.

 

You do realize there were more votes cast in 2016 than 2012 and about the exact same amount as in 2008 right?  

[RochesterRob]

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Running a campaign purely on spite won't win. It won't drive people to the polls in the needed numbers, not when Trump has grown his base, not shrunk it. To get the people out during the general, there needs to be a candidate for the younger progressives to get excited about. It's not Joe. 

 

It's not Bernie (anymore). 

 

It's likely not Warren. 

 

There's no one on stage who represents what that group wants to see: a non white male who's not a product of the system. Kamala Harris is a system/establishment candidate. Warren is too. Joe certainly is. 

 

   There is a real fear on the left that Trump will win re-election in 2020.  The denial demonstrated via framing the 2020 election as the same as the 2016 election is very evident by our lefty posters.  I said it yesterday here and will say it again is the stock market has performed, unemployment is down in most areas, and no new wars will be issues that a Democratic candidate can't ignore in terms of giving Trump his due.  You're right in that no young progressive voter is salivating over Biden.  I still think that they are willing to let 2020 go in order to begin a reshaping of the party.  Sometimes when the woods is choked with deadwood it is best to take a match to it in order for the new growth to emerge.  That is the mindset of the young progressive Democrat.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't want to buy another flag.

I laughed when Bernie had to tell Biden by whispering in his ear what the idiot at the end of the stage said about his health care plan.  Bernie's been 45 his whole life.  The trouble with Biden is he's never been a coherent speaker so it's tough to differentiate whether he's going senile or it's just being himself.

Sure.  Use your imagination.  At minimum North and South Dakota though.  Maybe attach Delaware to Maryland.

I agree only if 45 is the new 80. We agree on Biden. He's a 2x× nomination loser for a reason, and coherence is part of that because at times he seems very likable. 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

No.

 

Progressives hate Trump.

 

That will get them out to vote no matter who the candidate is.

 

 

Incorrect. 

 

Running an old white man who’s blood type is DC will NOT get the progressives out en mass. That’s the point. They hate Joe as much as they hate Trump because of his gender and race. College kids won’t come out for him, young 20s won’t come out for him, and none of the loudest social media voices in the prog left would help him even if he was drowning. 

 

Joe has zero chance. 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. 

 

Running an old white man who’s blood type is DC will NOT get the progressives out en mass. That’s the point. They hate Joe as much as they hate Trump because of his gender and race. College kids won’t come out for him, young 20s won’t come out for him, and none of the loudest social media voices in the prog left would help him even if he was drowning. 

 

Joe has zero chance. 

 

And just as the left hatred for Trump will get the progressives out en masse the absolute wackiness of whomever the left nominates will get the conservatives out in a likely bigger mass.  Giving ***** away and open borders are the two issues that fry conservatives nuts the most. 

[Deranged Rhino]

21 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

And just as the left hatred for Trump will get the progressives out en masse the absolute wackiness of whomever the left nominates will get the conservatives out in a likely bigger mass.  Giving ***** away and open borders are the two issues that fry conservatives nuts the most. 

 

Also correct. 

 

And, Transplant, just so you realize what's happening, this has been making the rounds -- using this link because it has more information and the clip for full context, and while this site IS a right leaning one, I've gotten this video snippet forwarded to me from nothing but progressive/liberal/dnc friends and supporters: 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2019/09/14/msnbc-contributor-biden-subtle-racist-who-has-drop-out

 

Joe's not a racist. 

 

But facts don't matter to the progressive left who do not want a white man to be president, and will not support one even to "beat Trump". 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

28 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Also correct. 

 

And, Transplant, just so you realize what's happening, this has been making the rounds -- using this link because it has more information and the clip for full context, and while this site IS a right leaning one, I've gotten this video snippet forwarded to me from nothing but progressive/liberal/dnc friends and supporters: 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2019/09/14/msnbc-contributor-biden-subtle-racist-who-has-drop-out

 

Joe's not a racist. 

 

But facts don't matter to the progressive left who do not want a white man to be president, and will not support one even to "beat Trump". 

 

 

 

According to the left all white males are racist. Especially us old farts. 

[jrober38]

11 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. 

 

Running an old white man who’s blood type is DC will NOT get the progressives out en mass. That’s the point. They hate Joe as much as they hate Trump because of his gender and race. College kids won’t come out for him, young 20s won’t come out for him, and none of the loudest social media voices in the prog left would help him even if he was drowning. 

 

Joe has zero chance. 

 

Neither candidate wins a general election by getting their base out. They win by winning over independents. 

 

Joe Biden is well ahead in every poll against Trump because he's safe, which resonates with independent voters who will decide the election. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

Neither candidate wins a general election by getting their base out. They win by winning over independents. 

 

Joe Biden is well ahead in every poll against Trump because he's safe, which resonates with independent voters who will decide the election. 

 

The independents who swung the election for Trump in key states aren't going back to Joe. The reason they didn't go for Hillary is because she was more of the same/establishment. Joe is every bit the establishment puppet Hillary was/is. 

 

Joe can't win.

[3rdnlng]

All you guys that believe those polls, keep believing them. I'm sure they're accurate.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

All you guys that believe those polls, keep believing them. I'm sure they're accurate.

 

Especially over a year out from the actual election. 

 

Some people just did not learn a thing from 2016... or the ensuing 3 years.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

Neither candidate wins a general election by getting their base out. They win by winning over independents. 

 

Joe Biden is well ahead in every poll against Trump because he's safe, which resonates with independent voters who will decide the election. 

That’s what they thought in 2016. The left has been so militant that Trump voters simply aren’t responding to pollsters. If the election was this month The President would win easily.

[Deranged Rhino]

(NO SHOT TO WIN)

 

 

[Greybeard]

18 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

No.

 

Progressives hate Trump.

 

That will get them out to vote no matter who the candidate is.

 

The real reason Trump won 2016 had more to do with who didn't show up to the polls or voted 3rd party because of the widely publicized "gimme" Hilary had in that election than it did some widespread seismic shift in our country.

 

Trump getting elected woke a lot of people the hell up.

 

Your view is clearly that Trump's election was THE indicator of a massive idelogical shift in our country, I believe it's the result of widespread complacency that just won't happen again.

        I agree with this.   Trump is becoming the Republican version of Hillary.   On top of that he barely edged her out on those last 3 states.   I doubt he takes them again.

[Cinga]

11 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

According to the left all white males are racist. Especially us old farts. 

I know, I know... I'm an old fart that probably just deleted that memo cause I never knew I was supposed to be raysist... Could you forward it to me please?\ so I can get my act together?

 

THANKS!!!!!

[transplantbillsfan]

@Deranged Rhino you keep repeating Joe has no shot to win in almost every post as though the more times you say it, the more true it is.

 

That's not how it works, just to let you know.

 

But just so I'm crystal clear, are you saying Joe has no shot to win the general election OR the primary as you'd been saying for months or are you finally conceding he can win the primary but stands no chance in the general?

 

And please don't try saying you never said Joe had no shot at the primary, we all know that's not true.

 

But once we get that part finally straightened out, what I believe you really like to do here, from what I've seen, is engage in rhetorical arguments. It seems that's what many of you like to do. Any time I see a poster comment on a poster like me choosing not to engage because their scared or weak or whatever, it's clear you want nothing more than to argue rhetoric.

 

Rhetoric and politics are undeniably linked, so it makes sense.

 

The problem is that you cherry pick what are often comparatively miniscule things in comparison with the big picture constantly while simultaneously denying the big picture itself.

 

Trump won the 2016 election. Obviously.

 

I think he loses the next election because of a lot of the reasons I've already laid out for you that you simply say are not true.

 

Fine, I disagree with you. I think my reasons are true, thus, I think Trump loses. 

 

And it'll probably help that I don't think we're going to have 7.5 million people in our country throw away their votes on someone other than the top 2 candidates, which is what happened in 2016 and it was by far the biggest number of votes cast by at least 4 million since the 2000 election, and I'm betting history, but I won't go back to every single presidential election to figure that out.

 

And if people aren't throwing votes away like last time and Trump won thanks to just under 80,000 votes that swung the electoral map in his favor in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania... well... you get what I'm saying, even though I can already anticipate what you'll say.

 

And I disagree.

 

And round and round we go.

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

@Deranged Rhino you keep repeating Joe has no shot to win in almost every post as though the more times you say it, the more true it is.

 

That's not how it works, just to let you know.

 

But just so I'm crystal clear, are you saying Joe has no shot to win the general election OR the primary

 

The general. 

 

The DNC has proven to be crooked in terms of manipulating the primary results, so I won't ever say never to a rigged system (from which Joe came). I find it highly unlikely that he'll win the primary. I expect he'll be gone after SC. 

 

7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

But once we get that part finally straightened out, what I believe you really like to do here, from what I've seen, is engage in rhetorical arguments. It seems that's what many of you like to do. Any time I see a poster comment on a poster like me choosing not to engage because their scared or weak or whatever, it's clear you want nothing more than to argue rhetoric.

 

Rhetoric and politics are undeniably linked, so it makes sense.

 

Incorrect. I am here to share information and learn from others with different perspectives and experiences. 

 

8 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

The problem is that you cherry pick what are often comparatively miniscule things in comparison with the big picture constantly while simultaneously denying the big picture itself.

 

 

An attempted coup of a legitimate president undertaken by elements within the FBI, DOJ, White House, the CIA/Western IC, and several of our "allies" like England, Canada, New Zealand, and France is not a minuscule thing. 

 

It puts into context the past 48+ months -- and why you're wrong about Joe (and the DNC in general). Joe was a part of the above. There's evidence to prove it -- as well his own corruption in the Ukraine and China both. He's not a good guy. He's not "better" than Trump. He's a cancer on the system who completely lacks the ability to think, govern, or act for himself. He's a puppet of bad people who are right now fighting for their very lives/freedom. 

 

That's where this started for me in 2016. It has nothing to do with Trump or political parties/partisanship. It has everything to do with not wanting to live in the mirage of a democratic republic, but an actual democratic republic. One not ruled by the intelligence agencies. 

 

13 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Trump won the 2016 election. Obviously.

 

I think he loses the next election because of a lot of the reasons I've already laid out for you that you simply say are not true.

 

Fine, I disagree with you. I think my reasons are true, thus, I think Trump loses. 

 

 

My thesis for three years has been we are in a disinformation war. You have been lied to, over and over the past three years by Joe among others. You're welcome to disagree with that premise -- I'm all about discussion and always open to being wrong. But in this case the facts are on my side, not yours. The only question left is what will be done about it. Trump and Barr right now hold the power in their hands to completely destroy the DNC and GOP establishment in DC. 

 

The risk in doing so is sparking something ugly in the form of the establishment response (read: civil unrest/war). 

 

How much can they expose/will they expose without unraveling the entire republic -- which would only serve the goal of the enemy. 

 

We're about to find out. 

 

17 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

And it'll probably help that I don't think we're going to have 7.5 million people in our country throw away their votes on someone other than the top 2 candidates, which is what happened in 2016 and it was by far the biggest number of votes cast by at least 4 million since the 2000 election, and I'm betting history, but I won't go back to every single presidential election to figure that out.

 

And if people aren't throwing votes away like last time and Trump won thanks to just under 80,000 votes that swung the electoral map in his favor in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania... well... you get what I'm saying, even though I can already anticipate what you'll say.

 

And I disagree.

 

And round and round we go.

 

This isn't, at all, what happened in 2016. 

 

No one threw away their vote. This sums it up best -- and he made it before the election: 

 

 

You're still thinking it was a fluke. It wasn't. 

 

Nor was Brexit. 

 

This is a global movement that hasn't even begun to show itself in full.