Besides this what has she done? I ask honestly I don’t follow that closely, this was a big story. The nastiest thing I had seen thus far was Harris quite unfairly painting Biden as some racist for a vote 35 years ago.
2020 Democrat hopefuls
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
Besides this what has she done? I ask honestly I don’t follow that closely, this was a big story. The nastiest thing I had seen thus far was Harris quite unfairly painting Biden as some racist for a vote 35 years ago.
I really don’t think Warren’s a socialist. I think she’s assuming whatever positions will get her elected.
If she isn't a socialist then she has to be a fascist because nothing she espouses is remotely close to conservativism, liberalism, or libertarianism. Nothing in her platform or history suggests a tendency towards individual liberty. She is simply a more educated version of Lenin; making promises of freedom and financial success but knows that it's just a lie that can help her gain power. I fear her more than I fear bernie, who is so completely incompetent that he could never accomplish any of his goals.
Democrats care more about Iranian terrorists and their leaders, than anything that remotely has Trump’s signature on. If that isn’t TDS, then what is?
She's stirring up a lot of infighting. She drummed up the Pete Buttigieg private fundraiser attacks (meanwhile, she has done them herself and said she would in the primary).
Kind of depends on how you categorize races. Iranians can be considered indo-European like white americans, but can also be considered a completely separate race, Persian.
The name of the country is a derivative of Aryan, so it seems like pretty much consider themselves white.
Bloomberg ran a ton of ads during the NFL Playoff games for a guy who is not even on the debate stage or polling above 10% nationally.
That's still better than Warren at this point though. She's tanked.
https://www.newsweek.com/mike-bloom...e-biden-bernie-sanders-lead-poll-says-1480364
That's still better than Warren at this point though. She's tanked.
https://www.newsweek.com/mike-bloom...e-biden-bernie-sanders-lead-poll-says-1480364
warren has been one of the nasitest this cycle for sure, but there was plenty of mud thrown around.
i think it comes down to biden and sanders with sanders getting the final nod.
either way, they both end up losing to trump.
The Wapo and NYT are today running competing takes on Woman Can't Win-gate, with the WaPo claiming that Warren literally made this up and is dropping lies just ahead of the debate to run the "sexist!" card, and the NYT claiming that multiple sources confirmed that Sanders actually did say this. Warren issued a statement saying he said it too.
Either way, fun. One of them is lying about it, and they're now going to piss and moan about it to no end. Truthfully if I had to take a side, I'd say the woman who pathologically lied about being a Native American to get herself ahead at elite universities, at the expense of other, actual minorities, is probably the one lying. And nasty.
Sanders probably said something about white men not voting for a woman, but there's no way he said that a woman can't win. Warren used this as a political opportunity and will follow up tonight with "I know bernie isn't a sexist, let's talk about the issues that matter" as a way of seeming above the fray.
warren has fallen behind in the polls as sanders is surging. she is trying to take him down and boost herself.
This is just like when the clinton campaign started the birther movement, except sanders actually does have a history of demeaning women.
Wow, it's so refreshing to have a political election "scandal" about if someone said a woman can't win the presidency or not.
I'm old enough to remember when our scandals were only a candidate mocking someone with a disability or attacking gold star families or bragging about grabbing pussies without asking. It was a different time back then.
Well I sure hope we get to the bottom of this super serious scandal. I mean, this is BIG. They'll probably talk about it for weeks. It's not like those boring Trump scandals like when his son met with a litterall Russian spy at Trump tower to get some juicy dirt on Hillary Clinton. This is the real deal and someone's campaign is likely over because of it.
I'm old enough to remember when our scandals were only a candidate mocking someone with a disability or attacking gold star families or bragging about grabbing pussies without asking. It was a different time back then.
Well I sure hope we get to the bottom of this super serious scandal. I mean, this is BIG. They'll probably talk about it for weeks. It's not like those boring Trump scandals like when his son met with a litterall Russian spy at Trump tower to get some juicy dirt on Hillary Clinton. This is the real deal and someone's campaign is likely over because of it.
I know you're being facetious, but this probably will be the end for one of them. It'll depend on who's story is more believable. Warren has a history of lying so Bernie could exploit that. Bernie has a history of saying women fantasize about being raped so Warren could exploit that. They might both do Pete and Biden a pretty big favor.
You're living in 2012. This is 2020, y'all got rid of accountability. I know you haven't seen this happen because it's been your guy doing it and you've turned a blind eye but literally nothing will happen. Warren will say her side and Bernie will say his side and voters will choose what reality they like and they'll pick the one that best suits their candidate because it makes them feel good.
There is a canyon-wide difference between things that come out in the general election and during the primaries. People have several choices that are all on their spectrum right now so a small thing can be huge at the polls. Once somebody comes up against Trump the backlash will be much smaller.
The people making this a big deal are Elizabeth Warren and your favorite stooges in the media.
Jesus you're dumb and cry a lot.
Democrats will yell amongst themselves on the debate stage and hurl accusations at each other, and Shook Chicken will run to this board to cry that conservatives are trying to make this a big deal and unleash hilarious Whataboutism.
I was commenting on the media dumbass.
The media holds democrats to a different level of accountability. Did you know that Hillary Clinton actually had MORE negative press during the 2016 election than Trump? Trump would do something dumb and they'd just move on because he's just being Trump. Hillary would day something and they'd dissect it for days.
There are no actually human beings who care about this but there's 24 hours of content to fill on TV and they gotta talk about something.
She was under FBI investigation for destroying evidence under subpoena and called half the county "deplorable". Not shocking at all.
Bernie is the only potential Dem Nominee that would go under 50% in Dade county and get wiped out in Florida. Every other one left would be within the usual almost 50-50 margin and the State of Florida is probably decided by less that 50K votes. Portland Progressives not doing their research, when Jorge Ramos doesn't even like you.. you are F'd
I think we expand the definition of the terms way to far. Would Warren (or Bernie) attempt to push our system further towards Socialism than it is today? Yes. Does that make one a socialist? Absolutely not. We do not have a market economy - we have a mixed economy. A pure free market economy would have zero publicly provided goods or services. A purely socialist economy would have zero private goods or services provided. We could turn into one of Bernie's Scandinavian examples tomorrow, and we'd still be a "mixed" economy - just with a different mix.
Pretending Bernie/Warren are Socialists might make for good scare-tactic politics, but it's intellectually dishonest or just downright ignorant of economics in general (which I know you're not).
Bernie and warren would have an even steeper slope in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin than Florida.
So let me get this straight- Sanders calls himself a socialist, calls for the nationalization of the entire health care delivery and insurance industries, but we're not allowed to call him a socialist?
Do you not take Bernies word for it that he's a socialist? That's not the kind of thing someone claims to be for the sake of public perception, particularly not in the 80s, 90s, or 2000s.
You Cant make this stuff upSo let me get this straight- Sanders calls himself a socialist, calls for the nationalization of the entire health care delivery and insurance industries, but we're not allowed to call him a socialist?
So let me get this straight- Sanders calls himself a socialist, calls for the nationalization of the entire health care delivery and insurance industries, but we're not allowed to call him a socialist?
It doesnt end with healthcare. Education as well. Warren is even further on the scale with proposals of wealth confiscation. Keep in mind this is exactly the plan put forth by Lenin: first control healthcare, then control education, then the sky's the limit.
With Warren, I can believe at some level that she at least believes in some level of open markets.
Sanders only limits his proposals for nationalization and mass taxation because he knows anything further would turn off even lefties. He'd nationalize everything if he could, assess 70% wealth taxes, install wage controls, and basically replace the bulk of private industry jobs with government jobs. This is a guy who grew up idolizing communist regimes and now self identifies as a socialist. He's the real deal, which is why this jackass can never be put in a position of actual power.
hasnt he called for the nationalization of the energy companies? he would need to in order to curb global warming.So let me get this straight- Sanders calls himself a socialist, calls for the nationalization of the entire health care delivery and insurance industries, but we're not allowed to call him a socialist?
Ok so pretend I left Bernie out and only mentioned Warren since that's who your comment was directed to. Do you disagree that our current economy is "mixed"?
