What I don't get is Bernie and Warren have an agreement that one will support the other if either gets the nomination. So why is Professor Turdfarmer making a deal out of this...like associating Warren with HRC?
This is what I don't get about the Professor's dislike or hate of Warren. What is the motivation? Misogyny? Hates blondes?
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
Okay, so moneyed interests exist. I promise you those moneyed interests will throw their weight around no matter who the nominee is, and as a result you won't get everything you want.
I don't see why this is an argument against Warren specifically. At least she is being backed largely by small donors.
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
Okay, so moneyed interests exist. I promise you those moneyed interests will throw their weight around no matter who the nominee is, and as a result you won't get everything you want.
I don't see why this is an argument against Warren specifically. At least she is being backed largely by small donors.
Only to seem like she is like Sanders. She'll gladly be taking that corporate money once he's out of the way.
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
Okay, so moneyed interests exist. I promise you those moneyed interests will throw their weight around no matter who the nominee is, and as a result you won't get everything you want.
I don't see why this is an argument against Warren specifically. At least she is being backed largely by small donors.
Only to seem like she is like Sanders. She'll gladly be taking that corporate money once he's out of the way.
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
I am a big Hillary fan. Voted for her in 2008 over Obama and I think she would have been a better President than Obama, who I like, but his talk of reaching common ground with Republicans struck me as naive and a waste of time. I think my assessment has proven correct over time.
Warren is more liberal than Hillary. Policywise I always felt somewhere between Sanders and Hillary but I liked Hillary more than Sanders. If he had left the campaign earlier in 2016 and turned his supporters away from divisiveness I might like him more today. As it is, I like Warren quite a bit now that Biden has shown himself to be quite uninspiring on the campaign trail.
Professor, I think it's fine you prefer Sanders over Warren. I disagree. I as also remember the concept of school vouchers being very different in 2003. Back then, it didn't have to become the corrupted privatize and get rich scheme people like Betsy Devos have made it it today.
I would vote for Sanders over Trump. Will you vote for Warren over Trump?
Of course.
Then you and me. We are on the same team as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
Okay, so moneyed interests exist. I promise you those moneyed interests will throw their weight around no matter who the nominee is, and as a result you won't get everything you want.
I don't see why this is an argument against Warren specifically. At least she is being backed largely by small donors.
Only to seem like she is like Sanders. She'll gladly be taking that corporate money once he's out of the way.
And that is opinion more than fact.
No, that's a fact that she'll be taking corporate money in the general election. It's also ridiculously obvious that she's doing it to pander to progressives and appear "just like Sanders" in the primaries, but if it makes you feel better by pretending that's not the reason, go ahead.
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
I am a big Hillary fan. Voted for her in 2008 over Obama and I think she would have been a better President than Obama, who I like, but his talk of reaching common ground with Republicans struck me as naive and a waste of time. I think my assessment has proven correct over time.
Warren is more liberal than Hillary. Policywise I always felt somewhere between Sanders and Hillary but I liked Hillary more than Sanders. If he had left the campaign earlier in 2016 and turned his supporters away from divisiveness I might like him more today. As it is, I like Warren quite a bit now that Biden has shown himself to be quite uninspiring on the campaign trail.
Obama wasted our time trying to reach common ground with Republicans from 2009-2010. He should have just rammed as much legislation as he could down their throat when he had the opportunity. They openly stated that their number one priority was to make him unpopular and ineffective and he wouldn't play hardball with them like he needed to.
Sanders told his supporters to vote for Hillary. He also exposed the Democratic Party for trying to rig the primary for Hillary, which they did.
Professor, I think it's fine you prefer Sanders over Warren. I disagree. I as also remember the concept of school vouchers being very different in 2003. Back then, it didn't have to become the corrupted privatize and get rich scheme people like Betsy Devos have made it it today.
I would vote for Sanders over Trump. Will you vote for Warren over Trump?
Of course.
Then you and me. We are on the same team as far as I'm concerned.
On the subject of getting Trump out of office, either by impeachment (highly unlikely) or the ballot box (very likely).
Professor, I think it's fine you prefer Sanders over Warren. I disagree. I as also remember the concept of school vouchers being very different in 2003. Back then, it didn't have to become the corrupted privatize and get rich scheme people like Betsy Devos have made it it today.
I would vote for Sanders over Trump. Will you vote for Warren over Trump?
Of course.
Then you and me. We are on the same team as far as I'm concerned.
On the subject of getting Trump out of office, either by impeachment (highly unlikely) or the ballot box (very likely).
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
Okay, so moneyed interests exist. I promise you those moneyed interests will throw their weight around no matter who the nominee is, and as a result you won't get everything you want.
I don't see why this is an argument against Warren specifically. At least she is being backed largely by small donors.
Only to seem like she is like Sanders. She'll gladly be taking that corporate money once he's out of the way.
And that is opinion more than fact.
No, that's a fact that she'll be taking corporate money in the general election. It's also ridiculously obvious that she's doing it to pander to progressives and appear "just like Sanders" in the primaries, but if it makes you feel better by pretending that's not the reason, go ahead.
Can't really argue something that hasn't happened yet, so we'll see.
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
Okay, so moneyed interests exist. I promise you those moneyed interests will throw their weight around no matter who the nominee is, and as a result you won't get everything you want.
I don't see why this is an argument against Warren specifically. At least she is being backed largely by small donors.
Only to seem like she is like Sanders. She'll gladly be taking that corporate money once he's out of the way.
And that is opinion more than fact.
No, that's a fact that she'll be taking corporate money in the general election. It's also ridiculously obvious that she's doing it to pander to progressives and appear "just like Sanders" in the primaries, but if it makes you feel better by pretending that's not the reason, go ahead.
Can't really argue something that hasn't happened yet, so we'll see.
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
Okay, so moneyed interests exist. I promise you those moneyed interests will throw their weight around no matter who the nominee is, and as a result you won't get everything you want.
I don't see why this is an argument against Warren specifically. At least she is being backed largely by small donors.
Only to seem like she is like Sanders. She'll gladly be taking that corporate money once he's out of the way.
And that is opinion more than fact.
No, that's a fact that she'll be taking corporate money in the general election. It's also ridiculously obvious that she's doing it to pander to progressives and appear "just like Sanders" in the primaries, but if it makes you feel better by pretending that's not the reason, go ahead.
Can't really argue something that hasn't happened yet, so we'll see.
Very well. This is also where I say that I'm not super bothered by it even if she does take big donations. I don't like it, but it's how our system works.
I'm not sure why you assume anyone here is looking for a "replacement Hillary." AFAIK, no one here has talked about being a big Hillary Clinton fan. If anything, that's a talking point usually used by the more conservative types on this board, trying to troll the liberals about her loss.
Elizabeth Warren's platform is significantly more progressive than Hillary's, is it not? What makes you think she is the same?
It's not that she's the same. It's that there are significant moneyed interests that make large contributions to the Democratic Party and when the rubber meets the road, she wants them to know that she's not going mess with them. Similar to how Obama left the white collar criminals from the mortgage crisis alone - he ran on a platform full of hope and change, but other than Obamacare, he didn't push very hard for any other type of change.
Hillary didn't even bother pretending she was interested in a lot of change. Her message was "Vote for me cause I'm Hillary."
Okay, so moneyed interests exist. I promise you those moneyed interests will throw their weight around no matter who the nominee is, and as a result you won't get everything you want.
I don't see why this is an argument against Warren specifically. At least she is being backed largely by small donors.
Only to seem like she is like Sanders. She'll gladly be taking that corporate money once he's out of the way.
And that is opinion more than fact.
No, that's a fact that she'll be taking corporate money in the general election. It's also ridiculously obvious that she's doing it to pander to progressives and appear "just like Sanders" in the primaries, but if it makes you feel better by pretending that's not the reason, go ahead.
Can't really argue something that hasn't happened yet, so we'll see.
It's like you don't even read the news, you just cherrypick from February
Fatuous turds like yourself deserve only derision, not engagement, but occasionally your BS needs to be called out
LOL at how bad your butthurt is.
But it's not as if I don't read the news. I definitely don't read the news in the sense that one would read a newspaper (back when such things existed) or go to a website for news about what's happening in the world. I look up things when I'm interested in learning them. Shame on me for not knowing about this change four days ago. I promise to beat myself to death with a Buttigieg For President placard at my next opportunity.
It's like you don't even read the news, you just cherrypick from February
Fatuous turds like yourself deserve only derision, not engagement, but occasionally your BS needs to be called out
LOL at how bad your butthurt is.
But it's not as if I don't read the news. I definitely don't read the news in the sense that one would read a newspaper (back when such things existed) or go to a website for news about what's happening in the world. I look up things when I'm interested in learning them. Shame on me for not knowing about this change four days ago. I promise to beat myself to death with a Buttigieg For President placard at my next opportunity.
If I thought she was going to kneecap herself in the general, it would significantly reduce her chances of getting my vote. Though if it were between her and Biden, who I think is hopelessly out of touch, I would have to weigh whether a kneecapped Warren is a better candidate than a full Biden.
The thing is that this whole issue is stupid because it is all window dressing. Whether it is Warren or Sanders, the pledge is a hollow one. If the big money doesn't go to the campaign it will go to the DNC. The Republicans do the same thing. They strategize about what buckets the money will go into. It makes little difference. It just changes who controls the strategy with the money. Obama decided to take the hit on a one day news cycle for reneging on his promise and then everyone realized their option at that point was to vote Republican. If they think it strikes a populist tone with the masses who don't understand how it works, Sanders and Warren can let the money go to the DNC. If they get to that point and see a strategy problem, they will beg forgiveness and do what is best to beat Trump and everyone will get on board.
As for "doing" big dollar fundraisers - who cares? The DNC will send both Obama's around doing fundraisers and they'll make 5 times as much as either Warren or Sanders will. Or they go to a room full of rich guys with no obligation to contribute, they talk, they leave, a week later the rich guys donate. I bet you think PBS gives the money back if they don't meet their dollar for dollar match at their pledge drives.
If either Sanders or Warren want to pledge to stop the DNC from doing any of this, they will not get my vote. They won't do that. The fact that you think any of this means anything is cute.
If someone else posted the article I might read it. I'm specifically not reading it because I don't trust what you are posting. I have two reasons for this. 1. IMO, you have in the past posted articles as fact that were very questionably sourced.
Do you have an example?
Quote:
2. You have barely posted anything against somebody else or even FOR somebody else. You by and large post intensely negative articles about one candidate. When I see that on any issue I know I'm going to get at best half the story even if the person means well. I'm not going to engage you in the facts because what you are doing is a tactic. If I post a claim that you are a wife beater, even if you are defending yourself, the longer we talk about it, the more I win. I feel every one of your attacks have been unjustified. I think most people agree. And honestly you have virtually begged people to argue with you, again demonstrating what you want. So the response has been to let the argument whither and die.
OK. Take the Democratic race for example. Biden, Sanders, and Warren are the leaders. Plenty of Biden and Sanders bashing from the media and social media is out there. Not hard to find. Is there some reason I need to add to that pile?
As for being factual, you have mostly posted OPINION pieces. The piece by the musician is an opinion piece. The one you posted in this thread is an opinion piece. You are posting opinions and pawning them off as facts.
Ha! I'd completely forgotten about that article. I like that one. Quite a bit of opinion in that one, I will freely admit.
As for the rest of your points, you can try to obfuscate to your heart's content, but the facts are that Warren was a registered Republican until 1996, that she supported school vouchers, that the only time she has ever eschewed big money and corporate donations is for this year's Democratic primary (and that she will accept them if she wins the nomination) and most importantly that she has been working Democratic big monied interests to assure them that she's not looking to upset the apple cart the way that Sanders is even as she positions herself constantly as being just like him to appeal to progressive voters.
Essentially, she's telling the big money of the Democratic Party that she can be their Hillary when they need her to be. And I'm sure that's fine for all of you Hillary hoes who still blame her loss on Sanders supporters not voting for her rather than yourselves for supporting the wrong candidate. I voted for Hillary because much as I don't think she has ever cared one iota about the plight of the working class or minorities or anyone who doesn't have a lot of money to donate to her, she was never ever ever ever going to be even 5% of the destructive force that Trump is and that should have been obvious to every registered voter with two functioning brain cells to rub together. That so many people either talked themselves into believing he was the lesser of two evils or that she was ever capable of being evil anywhere on the scale that Trump is will always be a stain on them that they can never rub off. The only good thing about the whole mess that it's thrown this country in is that it once and for all finally put the nail in the coffin of Hillary's presidential aspirations and made it possible for people who actually want to make significant changes to this country to be considered for the presidency..
That so many people, including yourself, are still looking for your replacement Hillary amuses me. It's not at all like all the uninspiring establishment Republicans that tried to run for President four years ago and got soundly rejected by the Republican voter base. People have had enough. And if enough change doesn't come over the next four years, then someone even further from the middle will get their try. All the blood that could be squeezed from the turnip of the American middle and lower class has been squeezed and people are not going to stand for it anymore.
Warren is not remotely Hillary. I view you drawing this comparison as strong evidence that you ARE in fact a troll because trying to turn Warren into Hillary has been job 1 of the Republicans. It is strange to me that when you pull off all of the clich liberal speak, your points return again and again to points about Warren that Republicans are trying to make.
In total? No, she's not Hillary. Right now, my estimation of her is she's trying to be all things to all people. But do people out there want another Hillary? Oh yeah, a lot of bitter Hillary hoes are looking for their new and improved Hillary.
As for Republicans trying to turn her into Hillary, I don't think so. I think they are focused much more on bringing down Biden and haven't really focused much on Warren yet. To the extent that they have paid attention to her, I think they're just throwing a few things out there and seeing if anything sticks.
Quote:
Meanwhile you maintain a faade of having a love affair with a 78 year old candidate coming off a heart attack whose polls have stagnated for months. He has zero chance of winning the nomination.
I agree. Aside from the heart attack and the fact that his numbers have hardly changed at all in months, I think there are so many bitter Hillary hoes out there that would only vote for him if it was him or Trump that he has no chance of ever growing his support. There's a defined number of devoted Sanders supporters out there and many of the Warren supporters would probably come to him if for some reason she dropped out (which barring some unexpected scandal I can't see happening), but if for some reason Biden and Warren went away, I think those voters would simply find someone like Harris or Booker to support. They'll never flip to Sanders.
Quote:
Basically, right when it became clear that he had no prayer, you started using him as a liberal human shield to obsessively attack by far the most liberal candidate that has a chance of winning. You are stepping up your game now bringing in the insults and the nicknames "Hillary Hoes" - a nickname I have trouble seeing coming from a genuine liberal.
What in the world makes you think I am a genuine liberal? I never said I was one.
As for calling people Hillary hoes, when they stop using the stupid Bernie bro name, I'll stop calling them Hillary hoes.
Quote:
I think you are fraud, putting on a Bernie shirt and walking into another candidate's rally and throwing urine balloons hoping to start a fight between the two camps. And then turning to the moderate camp and insulting them too hoping to open up old wounds. It's bullshyte.
That's nice. But I'm not at all concerned about what you think of me.
Quote:
Bernie has made it clear he loves Warren. He'll endorse her the minute he gets out of the race.
Yes, he will. But he has enough money that he's not likely to leave it anytime soon, even if he stays consistently in third place or lower.
Quote:
Your "facts" are inconsequential and trumped up try and make them mean a million times more than they mean. Your conclusions deserve less than zero consideration or debate.
I'll use "facts" in a similar fashion.
Fact: Professor Turgeson Bear doesn't support Elizabeth Warren
Fact: David Duke doesn't support Elizabeth Warren
Conclusion: Today is the day Professor Turgeson Bear agreed with David Duke.
I wonder if this is the first day that has happened or just the latest in a string of thousands of days where that has happened.
LOL. I hate this word, but given that I've never seen you make so many typos and other errors in your writing, you seem pretty triggered.
I think it is rich that you think you can lecture on whether Elizabeth Warren is liberal enough. You can't even understand why using the term Hillary Hoes is not on par with Bernie Bros. Your first post on this board was to post a video of a homophobic rant making fun of a gay man's death with hilarious jokes like that gay people are skinny because who wants to eat after you've had d*icks in your mouth all day. Yeah, I'll admit that after being subjected to that bullshyte I haven't exactly had a positive disposition toward you and I'm highly suspicious of your posing. Whatever your economic beliefs are, your misogyny and homophobia are clear and probably do more to explain your posting than anything else.
If someone else posted the article I might read it. I'm specifically not reading it because I don't trust what you are posting. I have two reasons for this. 1. IMO, you have in the past posted articles as fact that were very questionably sourced.
Do you have an example?
Quote:
2. You have barely posted anything against somebody else or even FOR somebody else. You by and large post intensely negative articles about one candidate. When I see that on any issue I know I'm going to get at best half the story even if the person means well. I'm not going to engage you in the facts because what you are doing is a tactic. If I post a claim that you are a wife beater, even if you are defending yourself, the longer we talk about it, the more I win. I feel every one of your attacks have been unjustified. I think most people agree. And honestly you have virtually begged people to argue with you, again demonstrating what you want. So the response has been to let the argument whither and die.
OK. Take the Democratic race for example. Biden, Sanders, and Warren are the leaders. Plenty of Biden and Sanders bashing from the media and social media is out there. Not hard to find. Is there some reason I need to add to that pile?
As for being factual, you have mostly posted OPINION pieces. The piece by the musician is an opinion piece. The one you posted in this thread is an opinion piece. You are posting opinions and pawning them off as facts.
Ha! I'd completely forgotten about that article. I like that one. Quite a bit of opinion in that one, I will freely admit.
As for the rest of your points, you can try to obfuscate to your heart's content, but the facts are that Warren was a registered Republican until 1996, that she supported school vouchers, that the only time she has ever eschewed big money and corporate donations is for this year's Democratic primary (and that she will accept them if she wins the nomination) and most importantly that she has been working Democratic big monied interests to assure them that she's not looking to upset the apple cart the way that Sanders is even as she positions herself constantly as being just like him to appeal to progressive voters.
Essentially, she's telling the big money of the Democratic Party that she can be their Hillary when they need her to be. And I'm sure that's fine for all of you Hillary hoes who still blame her loss on Sanders supporters not voting for her rather than yourselves for supporting the wrong candidate. I voted for Hillary because much as I don't think she has ever cared one iota about the plight of the working class or minorities or anyone who doesn't have a lot of money to donate to her, she was never ever ever ever going to be even 5% of the destructive force that Trump is and that should have been obvious to every registered voter with two functioning brain cells to rub together. That so many people either talked themselves into believing he was the lesser of two evils or that she was ever capable of being evil anywhere on the scale that Trump is will always be a stain on them that they can never rub off. The only good thing about the whole mess that it's thrown this country in is that it once and for all finally put the nail in the coffin of Hillary's presidential aspirations and made it possible for people who actually want to make significant changes to this country to be considered for the presidency..
That so many people, including yourself, are still looking for your replacement Hillary amuses me. It's not at all like all the uninspiring establishment Republicans that tried to run for President four years ago and got soundly rejected by the Republican voter base. People have had enough. And if enough change doesn't come over the next four years, then someone even further from the middle will get their try. All the blood that could be squeezed from the turnip of the American middle and lower class has been squeezed and people are not going to stand for it anymore.
Warren is not remotely Hillary. I view you drawing this comparison as strong evidence that you ARE in fact a troll because trying to turn Warren into Hillary has been job 1 of the Republicans. It is strange to me that when you pull off all of the clich liberal speak, your points return again and again to points about Warren that Republicans are trying to make.
In total? No, she's not Hillary. Right now, my estimation of her is she's trying to be all things to all people. But do people out there want another Hillary? Oh yeah, a lot of bitter Hillary hoes are looking for their new and improved Hillary.
As for Republicans trying to turn her into Hillary, I don't think so. I think they are focused much more on bringing down Biden and haven't really focused much on Warren yet. To the extent that they have paid attention to her, I think they're just throwing a few things out there and seeing if anything sticks.
Quote:
Meanwhile you maintain a faade of having a love affair with a 78 year old candidate coming off a heart attack whose polls have stagnated for months. He has zero chance of winning the nomination.
I agree. Aside from the heart attack and the fact that his numbers have hardly changed at all in months, I think there are so many bitter Hillary hoes out there that would only vote for him if it was him or Trump that he has no chance of ever growing his support. There's a defined number of devoted Sanders supporters out there and many of the Warren supporters would probably come to him if for some reason she dropped out (which barring some unexpected scandal I can't see happening), but if for some reason Biden and Warren went away, I think those voters would simply find someone like Harris or Booker to support. They'll never flip to Sanders.
Quote:
Basically, right when it became clear that he had no prayer, you started using him as a liberal human shield to obsessively attack by far the most liberal candidate that has a chance of winning. You are stepping up your game now bringing in the insults and the nicknames "Hillary Hoes" - a nickname I have trouble seeing coming from a genuine liberal.
What in the world makes you think I am a genuine liberal? I never said I was one.
As for calling people Hillary hoes, when they stop using the stupid Bernie bro name, I'll stop calling them Hillary hoes.
Quote:
I think you are fraud, putting on a Bernie shirt and walking into another candidate's rally and throwing urine balloons hoping to start a fight between the two camps. And then turning to the moderate camp and insulting them too hoping to open up old wounds. It's bullshyte.
That's nice. But I'm not at all concerned about what you think of me.
Quote:
Bernie has made it clear he loves Warren. He'll endorse her the minute he gets out of the race.
Yes, he will. But he has enough money that he's not likely to leave it anytime soon, even if he stays consistently in third place or lower.
Quote:
Your "facts" are inconsequential and trumped up try and make them mean a million times more than they mean. Your conclusions deserve less than zero consideration or debate.
I'll use "facts" in a similar fashion.
Fact: Professor Turgeson Bear doesn't support Elizabeth Warren
Fact: David Duke doesn't support Elizabeth Warren
Conclusion: Today is the day Professor Turgeson Bear agreed with David Duke.
I wonder if this is the first day that has happened or just the latest in a string of thousands of days where that has happened.
LOL. I hate this word, but given that I've never seen you make so many typos and other errors in your writing, you seem pretty triggered.
I think it is rich that you think you can lecture on whether Elizabeth Warren is liberal enough. You can't even understand why using the term Hillary Hoes is not on par with Bernie Bros. Your first post on this board was to post a video of a homophobic rant making fun of a gay man's death with hilarious jokes like that gay people are skinny because who wants to eat after you've had d*icks in your mouth all day. Yeah, I'll admit that after being subjected to that bullshyte I haven't exactly had a positive disposition toward you and I'm highly suspicious of your posing. Whatever your economic beliefs are, your misogyny and homophobia are clear and probably do more to explain your posting than anything else.
Oh brother. Yeah, I don't think you understand at all why I made that post to that particular poster.
If someone else posted the article I might read it. I'm specifically not reading it because I don't trust what you are posting. I have two reasons for this. 1. IMO, you have in the past posted articles as fact that were very questionably sourced.
Do you have an example?
Quote:
2. You have barely posted anything against somebody else or even FOR somebody else. You by and large post intensely negative articles about one candidate. When I see that on any issue I know I'm going to get at best half the story even if the person means well. I'm not going to engage you in the facts because what you are doing is a tactic. If I post a claim that you are a wife beater, even if you are defending yourself, the longer we talk about it, the more I win. I feel every one of your attacks have been unjustified. I think most people agree. And honestly you have virtually begged people to argue with you, again demonstrating what you want. So the response has been to let the argument whither and die.
OK. Take the Democratic race for example. Biden, Sanders, and Warren are the leaders. Plenty of Biden and Sanders bashing from the media and social media is out there. Not hard to find. Is there some reason I need to add to that pile?
As for being factual, you have mostly posted OPINION pieces. The piece by the musician is an opinion piece. The one you posted in this thread is an opinion piece. You are posting opinions and pawning them off as facts.
Ha! I'd completely forgotten about that article. I like that one. Quite a bit of opinion in that one, I will freely admit.
As for the rest of your points, you can try to obfuscate to your heart's content, but the facts are that Warren was a registered Republican until 1996, that she supported school vouchers, that the only time she has ever eschewed big money and corporate donations is for this year's Democratic primary (and that she will accept them if she wins the nomination) and most importantly that she has been working Democratic big monied interests to assure them that she's not looking to upset the apple cart the way that Sanders is even as she positions herself constantly as being just like him to appeal to progressive voters.
Essentially, she's telling the big money of the Democratic Party that she can be their Hillary when they need her to be. And I'm sure that's fine for all of you Hillary hoes who still blame her loss on Sanders supporters not voting for her rather than yourselves for supporting the wrong candidate. I voted for Hillary because much as I don't think she has ever cared one iota about the plight of the working class or minorities or anyone who doesn't have a lot of money to donate to her, she was never ever ever ever going to be even 5% of the destructive force that Trump is and that should have been obvious to every registered voter with two functioning brain cells to rub together. That so many people either talked themselves into believing he was the lesser of two evils or that she was ever capable of being evil anywhere on the scale that Trump is will always be a stain on them that they can never rub off. The only good thing about the whole mess that it's thrown this country in is that it once and for all finally put the nail in the coffin of Hillary's presidential aspirations and made it possible for people who actually want to make significant changes to this country to be considered for the presidency..
That so many people, including yourself, are still looking for your replacement Hillary amuses me. It's not at all like all the uninspiring establishment Republicans that tried to run for President four years ago and got soundly rejected by the Republican voter base. People have had enough. And if enough change doesn't come over the next four years, then someone even further from the middle will get their try. All the blood that could be squeezed from the turnip of the American middle and lower class has been squeezed and people are not going to stand for it anymore.
Warren is not remotely Hillary. I view you drawing this comparison as strong evidence that you ARE in fact a troll because trying to turn Warren into Hillary has been job 1 of the Republicans. It is strange to me that when you pull off all of the clich liberal speak, your points return again and again to points about Warren that Republicans are trying to make.
In total? No, she's not Hillary. Right now, my estimation of her is she's trying to be all things to all people. But do people out there want another Hillary? Oh yeah, a lot of bitter Hillary hoes are looking for their new and improved Hillary.
As for Republicans trying to turn her into Hillary, I don't think so. I think they are focused much more on bringing down Biden and haven't really focused much on Warren yet. To the extent that they have paid attention to her, I think they're just throwing a few things out there and seeing if anything sticks.
Quote:
Meanwhile you maintain a faade of having a love affair with a 78 year old candidate coming off a heart attack whose polls have stagnated for months. He has zero chance of winning the nomination.
I agree. Aside from the heart attack and the fact that his numbers have hardly changed at all in months, I think there are so many bitter Hillary hoes out there that would only vote for him if it was him or Trump that he has no chance of ever growing his support. There's a defined number of devoted Sanders supporters out there and many of the Warren supporters would probably come to him if for some reason she dropped out (which barring some unexpected scandal I can't see happening), but if for some reason Biden and Warren went away, I think those voters would simply find someone like Harris or Booker to support. They'll never flip to Sanders.
Quote:
Basically, right when it became clear that he had no prayer, you started using him as a liberal human shield to obsessively attack by far the most liberal candidate that has a chance of winning. You are stepping up your game now bringing in the insults and the nicknames "Hillary Hoes" - a nickname I have trouble seeing coming from a genuine liberal.
What in the world makes you think I am a genuine liberal? I never said I was one.
As for calling people Hillary hoes, when they stop using the stupid Bernie bro name, I'll stop calling them Hillary hoes.
Quote:
I think you are fraud, putting on a Bernie shirt and walking into another candidate's rally and throwing urine balloons hoping to start a fight between the two camps. And then turning to the moderate camp and insulting them too hoping to open up old wounds. It's bullshyte.
That's nice. But I'm not at all concerned about what you think of me.
Quote:
Bernie has made it clear he loves Warren. He'll endorse her the minute he gets out of the race.
Yes, he will. But he has enough money that he's not likely to leave it anytime soon, even if he stays consistently in third place or lower.
Quote:
Your "facts" are inconsequential and trumped up try and make them mean a million times more than they mean. Your conclusions deserve less than zero consideration or debate.
I'll use "facts" in a similar fashion.
Fact: Professor Turgeson Bear doesn't support Elizabeth Warren
Fact: David Duke doesn't support Elizabeth Warren
Conclusion: Today is the day Professor Turgeson Bear agreed with David Duke.
I wonder if this is the first day that has happened or just the latest in a string of thousands of days where that has happened.
LOL. I hate this word, but given that I've never seen you make so many typos and other errors in your writing, you seem pretty triggered.
I think it is rich that you think you can lecture on whether Elizabeth Warren is liberal enough. You can't even understand why using the term Hillary Hoes is not on par with Bernie Bros. Your first post on this board was to post a video of a homophobic rant making fun of a gay man's death with hilarious jokes like that gay people are skinny because who wants to eat after you've had d*icks in your mouth all day. Yeah, I'll admit that after being subjected to that bullshyte I haven't exactly had a positive disposition toward you and I'm highly suspicious of your posing. Whatever your economic beliefs are, your misogyny and homophobia are clear and probably do more to explain your posting than anything else.
Oh brother. Yeah, I don't think you understand at all why I made that post to that particular poster.
Please explain what context makes that appropriate
I think it is rich that you think you can lecture on whether Elizabeth Warren is liberal enough. You can't even understand why using the term Hillary Hoes is not on par with Bernie Bros. Your first post on this board was to post a video of a homophobic rant making fun of a gay man's death with hilarious jokes like that gay people are skinny because who wants to eat after you've had d*icks in your mouth all day. Yeah, I'll admit that after being subjected to that bullshyte I haven't exactly had a positive disposition toward you and I'm highly suspicious of your posing. Whatever your economic beliefs are, your misogyny and homophobia are clear and probably do more to explain your posting than anything else.
Oh brother. Yeah, I don't think you understand at all why I made that post to that particular poster.
Please explain what context makes that appropriate
I was hoping to make a RWNJ with some pretty reprehensible views go ape**** with the notion that he was a self-hating homosexual. I didn't think the account would last past that one post. Turned out all he cared about was pissing liberals off. As he hasn't posted anything since late September, he may be done with this board.
Been quite a few people complaining ever since the Washington State game even was announced.
For the record, I have no moral or any other issues with homosexuals, nor women. I think nothing scares the Republican Party more than a popular minority female politician, which is why they put so much effort into demonizing Ocasio-Cortez. I'm frankly surprised that the female candidates for president don't have more overwhelming support than they do from the female vote.
