I do.dajo9 said:sycasey said:Reagan was really successful at defining "economic conservative" as something other than what conservatives actually did.dajo9 said:
Not really.
We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.
True. I refuse to accept the lies. Concordtom should see it for what it is.
woah, buddy! Those are fighting words.Unit2Sucks said:
Harris at the top of the ticket could work. I'm not sure how she would do at governing either but I would have more faith in her than Bernie.
Of course, if voters could get over the fact that she dated Willie Brown because apparently having dated a black guy is disqualifying for people like ConcordTom.
concordtom said:It's not financially conservative to run trillion dollar surpluses.dajo9 said:
Not really.
We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.
They call themselves conservative, but they are not.
Don't you also call them conservatives! They are fiscally irresponsible!
concordtom said:woah, buddy! Those are fighting words.Unit2Sucks said:
Harris at the top of the ticket could work. I'm not sure how she would do at governing either but I would have more faith in her than Bernie.
Of course, if voters could get over the fact that she dated Willie Brown because apparently having dated a black guy is disqualifying for people like ConcordTom.
Even with as much as I share about myself here, you have little understanding of who I am and what my journey has been. And the pertinent part about it here, I am not going to share with you, because that is none of your business.
The next time you choose to throw out racists bs like that, be prepared to receive a sock in the face!
No, seriously, you are WAY out of bounds with that comment and need to rethink yourself!
My problem with Harris and Brown has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the age difference and the power-disparity between them. My impression of Willie Brown was not a favorable one. Yet, he found some nice young attractive gal, and she accepted him into her life. Now, I don't know what their relationship was like, but I do not respect folks that sleep around as a matter of convenience.
Shame on you for throwing around the racist lie. Go see my comments above about Obama.
I don't want Biden. I like him personally and as VP. As POTUS, his ability to gaff and put his foot in his mouth will be attacked. Mostly however he's been an insider for a very, long time. Some admirable things but also some weird crap, like the Clarence Thomas confirmation and how he questioned Anita Hill. Yes that was a long time ago but it's on tape. To use a FB analogy, this is like signing a 42 y.o. journeyman QB to run a title contender when there's better talent out there.Yogi Bear said:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.htmldajo9 said:
Bernie Sanders looks like the clear front runner to me. His energized base would clean Biden's clock in early primaries. Those two are getting double the polling of others.
I think a Sanders / Harris ticket would be pretty formidable.
As a person, I agree. As a president, compared to Trump he would be a breath of fresh air. But I want someone who is energized about making big changes. He would be a business as usual president and that's not enough for what we need.Another Bear said:I don't want Biden. I like him personally and as VP.Yogi Bear said:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.htmldajo9 said:
Bernie Sanders looks like the clear front runner to me. His energized base would clean Biden's clock in early primaries. Those two are getting double the polling of others.
I think a Sanders / Harris ticket would be pretty formidable.
Well anyone compared to Trump looks better or GREAT. Agree Biden would be business as usual and we can't afford that, not with the transition and the GOP being illogical and just nuts. Need someone who can clapback and punch hard, and new ideas.Yogi Bear said:As a person, I agree. As a president, compared to Trump he would be a breath of fresh air. But I want someone who is energized about making big changes. He would be a business as usual president and that's not enough for what we need.Another Bear said:I don't want Biden. I like him personally and as VP.Yogi Bear said:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.htmldajo9 said:
Bernie Sanders looks like the clear front runner to me. His energized base would clean Biden's clock in early primaries. Those two are getting double the polling of others.
I think a Sanders / Harris ticket would be pretty formidable.
It's worth noting that whenever Biden has tried to actually run for President he's done poorly. I'm not sure he'd actually be good on the stump. His polling right now is good, but also a lot of it is name recognition.Another Bear said:I don't want Biden. I like him personally and as VP. As POTUS, his ability to gaff and put his foot in his mouth will be attacked. Mostly however he's been an insider for a very, long time. Some admirable things but also some weird crap, like the Clarence Thomas confirmation and how he questioned Anita Hill. Yes that was a long time ago but it's on tape. To use a FB analogy, this is like signing a 42 y.o. journeyman QB to run a title contender when there's better talent out there.Yogi Bear said:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.htmldajo9 said:
Bernie Sanders looks like the clear front runner to me. His energized base would clean Biden's clock in early primaries. Those two are getting double the polling of others.
I think a Sanders / Harris ticket would be pretty formidable.
Fiscal conservative doesn't mean wanting balanced budgets. Social liberals want balanced budgets, too. Fiscal conservative means wanting low taxes and limited government. You can't be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal because the things that social liberals want require major government involvement and higher taxes.concordtom said:It's not financially conservative to run trillion dollar surpluses.dajo9 said:
Not really.
We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.
They call themselves conservative, but they are not.
Don't you also call them conservatives! They are fiscally irresponsible!
B.A. Bearacus said:He's a complete unknown to me, and I haven't watched this townhall (yet), but David Axelrod agrees with you.BearsWiin said:
As an aside, Mayor Pete killed it on the CNN Town Hall this evening. Hope more than a dozen people nationwide were watching
You have deflated my faith in the ability of intelligent BI'ers to have sage discussion, because that's a bunch of gobblygook that you just wrote. Do you want me to break down why? Or maybe don't even bother.BearsWiin said:Fiscal conservative doesn't mean wanting balanced budgets. Social liberals want balanced budgets, too. Fiscal conservative means wanting low taxes and limited government. You can't be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal because the things that social liberals want require major government involvement and higher taxes.concordtom said:It's not financially conservative to run trillion dollar surpluses.dajo9 said:
Not really.
We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.
They call themselves conservative, but they are not.
Don't you also call them conservatives! They are fiscally irresponsible!
As an aside, Mayor Pete killed it on the CNN Town Hall this evening. Hope more than a dozen people nationwide were watching
I didn't say she was powerless. Clearly (it seems to me in my shallow understanding of their relationship) they used each other, and that bothers me.Anarchistbear said:
Sexual relations don't have to be defined in terms of victims or "power" and " powerless"- this is pretty disparaging of women who can enter into sex for their own purposes and have their own power. She was an ambitious woman who f$cked an older man. So what? I suspect she got out of the relationship what she put into it. So did Willie. I'm not a Kamala Harris fan but this is trivial in the scheme of things.
If you don't think I'm basing my judgment here on race, then don't be the right wing Pravda and make the case that I am.Unit2Sucks said:
CT - I actually have a pretty good sense that you aren't bringing up the Willie Brown thing out of racism but look at how it reads and how it will be used by right wing Pravda.
Trump nails porn stars while his wife is pregnant and it didn't stop him from becoming president. Why would the fact thst Harris dated an older gentleman 20+ years ago have any relevance to her ascendancy?
In your response above you are essentially attacking Brown for the relationship yet you continue to bring it up as a red flag on Harris. You might think you have the right motivations but you are amplifying Faux News when you do so.
Might want to rethink that one or continue to come off as out of touch.
Look, I get it, you want balanced budgets and the government to stay out of your metaphorical bedroom. Who doesn't? I used to say that same thing of myself until I realized how meaningless the characterization really was.concordtom said:You have deflated my faith in the ability of intelligent BI'ers to have sage discussion, because that's a bunch of gobblygook that you just wrote. Do you want me to break down why? Or maybe don't even bother.BearsWiin said:Fiscal conservative doesn't mean wanting balanced budgets. Social liberals want balanced budgets, too. Fiscal conservative means wanting low taxes and limited government. You can't be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal because the things that social liberals want require major government involvement and higher taxes.concordtom said:It's not financially conservative to run trillion dollar surpluses.dajo9 said:
Not really.
We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.
They call themselves conservative, but they are not.
Don't you also call them conservatives! They are fiscally irresponsible!
As an aside, Mayor Pete killed it on the CNN Town Hall this evening. Hope more than a dozen people nationwide were watching
Yes, I remember. He's good at schmoozing the average person, very charming but under fire...he gaffs. He might be better "reacting" to people than stumping.sycasey said:It's worth noting that whenever Biden has tried to actually run for President he's done poorly. I'm not sure he'd actually be good on the stump. His polling right now is good, but also a lot of it is name recognition.Another Bear said:I don't want Biden. I like him personally and as VP. As POTUS, his ability to gaff and put his foot in his mouth will be attacked. Mostly however he's been an insider for a very, long time. Some admirable things but also some weird crap, like the Clarence Thomas confirmation and how he questioned Anita Hill. Yes that was a long time ago but it's on tape. To use a FB analogy, this is like signing a 42 y.o. journeyman QB to run a title contender when there's better talent out there.Yogi Bear said:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.htmldajo9 said:
Bernie Sanders looks like the clear front runner to me. His energized base would clean Biden's clock in early primaries. Those two are getting double the polling of others.
I think a Sanders / Harris ticket would be pretty formidable.
I am all in on Butt!BearsWiin said:B.A. Bearacus said:BearsWiin said:
As an aside, Mayor Pete killed it on the CNN Town Hall this evening.
Do yourself a favor and take a look at his performance on CNN tonight.
Quote:
Defeating Trump isn't the same thing as defeating Trumpism
Articles goes on about how Biden was once at the cutting edge of change...in 1972 but he was also fence sitting a bit. He was against forced desegregation and busing in Delaware and it made sense then (to him, his constituents). Today, he's more establishment and that might not cut it with generational and demographic shifts.Quote:
As they begin their search for a nominee, most Democrats more than half, according to a February poll from Monmouth University prize electability above all else. They want a sure thing, someone who will beat President Trump.
But beating Trump isn't the same as beating Trumpism. Unseating the president won't automatically undermine the white resentment and racial chauvinism that drive his movement. That will depend on the nature of the campaign against him and whether it challenges the assumptions of his ideology or affirms them in the name of electoral pragmatism.
The possibility of defeating Trump without defeating Trumpism looms over Joe Biden's possible run for the 2020 Democratic nomination. The former vice president's not-yet-candidacy centers on his appeal to the white, blue-collar workers who rejected Hillary Clinton in favor of Donald Trump. He believes he could have won them in 2016, and he thinks he can win them now. This isn't just about Biden's working-class affect. As a senator from Delaware, Biden understood himself as a staunch defender of Middle American interests.
Boot-edge-edge.blungld said:
I am all in on Butt!
Politicians and major donors want Biden because they want someone that won't upset the apple cart. They want to win because of what it will enable them to do. Very few congressmen and senators want sweeping change. They want to take their turn at the trough.Another Bear said:
This editorial makes sense to me. People want a ringer who can beat (no destroy Trump) but there might be unintended consequences. To beat the new fascism and authoritarianism...need a hard reset. Not a retread.
The Trouble With BidenQuote:
Defeating Trump isn't the same thing as defeating TrumpismArticles goes on about how Biden was once at the cutting edge of change...in 1972 but he was also fence sitting a bit. He was against forced desegregation and busing in Delaware and it made sense then (to him, his constituents). Today, he's more establishment and that might not cut it with generational and demographic shifts.Quote:
As they begin their search for a nominee, most Democrats more than half, according to a February poll from Monmouth University prize electability above all else. They want a sure thing, someone who will beat President Trump.
But beating Trump isn't the same as beating Trumpism. Unseating the president won't automatically undermine the white resentment and racial chauvinism that drive his movement. That will depend on the nature of the campaign against him and whether it challenges the assumptions of his ideology or affirms them in the name of electoral pragmatism.
The possibility of defeating Trump without defeating Trumpism looms over Joe Biden's possible run for the 2020 Democratic nomination. The former vice president's not-yet-candidacy centers on his appeal to the white, blue-collar workers who rejected Hillary Clinton in favor of Donald Trump. He believes he could have won them in 2016, and he thinks he can win them now. This isn't just about Biden's working-class affect. As a senator from Delaware, Biden understood himself as a staunch defender of Middle American interests.
Anarchistbear said:
Cutting edge in 1972
Yogi Bear said:Politicians and major donors want Biden because they want someone that won't upset the apple cart. They want to win because of what it will enable them to do. Very few congressmen and senators want sweeping change. They want to take their turn at the trough.Another Bear said:
This editorial makes sense to me. People want a ringer who can beat (no destroy Trump) but there might be unintended consequences. To beat the new fascism and authoritarianism...need a hard reset. Not a retread.
The Trouble With BidenQuote:
Defeating Trump isn't the same thing as defeating TrumpismArticles goes on about how Biden was once at the cutting edge of change...in 1972 but he was also fence sitting a bit. He was against forced desegregation and busing in Delaware and it made sense then (to him, his constituents). Today, he's more establishment and that might not cut it with generational and demographic shifts.Quote:
As they begin their search for a nominee, most Democrats more than half, according to a February poll from Monmouth University prize electability above all else. They want a sure thing, someone who will beat President Trump.
But beating Trump isn't the same as beating Trumpism. Unseating the president won't automatically undermine the white resentment and racial chauvinism that drive his movement. That will depend on the nature of the campaign against him and whether it challenges the assumptions of his ideology or affirms them in the name of electoral pragmatism.
The possibility of defeating Trump without defeating Trumpism looms over Joe Biden's possible run for the 2020 Democratic nomination. The former vice president's not-yet-candidacy centers on his appeal to the white, blue-collar workers who rejected Hillary Clinton in favor of Donald Trump. He believes he could have won them in 2016, and he thinks he can win them now. This isn't just about Biden's working-class affect. As a senator from Delaware, Biden understood himself as a staunch defender of Middle American interests.
Defeating Trumpism is folly. This country has had racist views as long as it's existed. If those people can no longer find other idiots who intentionally chose Trump over Hillary because they stupidly thought he'd be better, they'll go back to pushing their agendas under the radar like they did before Obama. But they won't be defeated. They're always going to be around, waiting for a time where they can come out from the dark and push their white nationalist crap in the open.
I'll never understand why his career didn't end at Mayor. Dude is a slime.concordtom said:
This dude is gonna run one day!
Wow.
From today:
What makes you say so?Yogi Bear said:I'll never understand why his career didn't end at Mayor. Dude is a slime.concordtom said:
This dude is gonna run one day!
Wow.
From today:
Honestly, I don't know him.Yogi Bear said:
I'll never understand why his career didn't end at Mayor. Dude is a slime.
Ha. I saw her yell that it was time to finally break up the tech giants.Anarchistbear said:
Facebook removed several Elizabeth Warren ads on its site that called for the break up of tech. Later, after the story went public they relented and allowed them.
concordtom said:Honestly, I don't know him.Yogi Bear said:
I'll never understand why his career didn't end at Mayor. Dude is a slime.
Why do you say that?
I just liked the interview.
I didn't know about the wife affair.Anarchistbear said:concordtom said:Honestly, I don't know him.Yogi Bear said:
I'll never understand why his career didn't end at Mayor. Dude is a slime.
Why do you say that?
I just liked the interview.
It may be time for more moral disillusionment for you. Newsome had a scandalous affair with his campaign manager's wife plus his ex wife Kimberly Guilfoyle is a Fox News babe and Donald Trump Jr's girlfriend. So he and Trump Jr have shared the same foxhole.
Also for someone who claims to be well informed you seem universally uninformed. Why is that?
