Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

I wouldn't say Bernie won the debate by any means but saying that Biden won is a complete stretch.  It was a case of people seeing what they wanted to see.  They liked the fact that he got angry. Other than saying he and Obama did this and that he had nothing to offer.  That's not flying with voters either.

Biden "won" the debate because he did better than anyone else in the opinion of many, many professionals who watched it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Biden "won" the debate because he did better than anyone else in the opinion of many, many professionals who watched it.

"Many, many people are saying..."

"Everyone says ..."

"People tell me ... sir ..."

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Gerson had another informative column:  An Election With Trump, Sanders would destroy our politics.

Basically, he is saying that the two most extreme elements in their parties have captured them.  Trumpist in the GOP and Sandersites in the Dem.  He does say that Trump and his supporters are the biggest danger to America simply because they are in power.

Both Trump and Sanders (and others like Sanders) do not want to work with others or to compromise or to find the middle ground.  They wish to inject their beliefs on everyone else  They are more concerned with presenting their ideas, being viral and performing as an activist.

IMO, Sanders is the Trump of the Democratic Party, but he will lose to Trump in the election.

https://www.thedestinlog.com/opinion/20200226/michael-gerson-trump-sanders-election-would-destroy-our-politics

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched bits of it when Perry Mason went to commercials. Joe seemed too strident and repeated the

I'm the only one who has done this, met this foreign leader, etc. thing. Nothing wrong with that, but he makes

it too obvious and repetitive. Bernie did the usual point the finger shtick. I like Bernie even if I don't agree with

all of his positions, plus he used to be my Congressman. Klobuchar seemed to be on quite often with long

litanies of her Senate doings. The way the candidates have to raise their hands to get noticed makes them look

like they are back in high school. Oh teach, pick on me. These debates are boring for the most part because after

you've seen a few they keep saying the same things. Say what you will about ol' Fidel, but he had more charisma than

all these folks put together. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

"Many, many people are saying..."

"Everyone says ..."

"People tell me ... sir ..."

:lol:

You just cannot accept that someone other than Sanders was considered winning the debate.  You did not seem to have this problem when Sanders or Warren were perceived as winning a debate.

The people were the ones for CNN, MSNBC and other networks that covered the debate and were on the news programs this morning.  In addition to the commentators and anchors of the news programs today.

You Biased?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheCid said:

You just cannot accept that someone other than Sanders was considered winning the debate.  You did not seem to have this problem when Sanders or Warren were perceived as winning a debate.

Biased?

Read my posts again.  You are mischaracterizing what I have said completely which is par for the course.  I didn't see Sanders winning it at all.  Today I heard more than one pundit say that he did win it but I didn't agree with that assessment.  But Joe just stamped his feet and that impressed a few doltish people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Read my posts again.  You are mischaracterizing what I have said completely which is par for the course.  I didn't see Sanders winning it at all.  Today I heard more than one pundit say that he did win it but I didn't agree with that assessment.  But Joe just stamped his feet and that impressed a few doltish people.

I re-read your posts.  My response is still valid.

You just cannot accept that someone other than Sanders was considered winning the debate.  You did not seem to have this problem when Sanders or Warren were perceived as winning a debate.

The people were the ones for CNN, MSNBC and other networks that covered the debate and were on the news programs this morning.  In addition to the commentators and anchors of the news programs today.

You Biased?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

I re-read your posts.  My response is still valid.

You just cannot accept that someone other than Sanders was considered winning the debate.  You did not seem to have this problem when Sanders or Warren were perceived as winning a debate.

The people were the ones for CNN, MSNBC and other networks that covered the debate and were on the news programs this morning.  In addition to the commentators and anchors of the news programs today.

You Biased?

Deleted:  (was about the town halls and NOT the SC Debate).

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TheCid said:

I re-read your posts.  My response is still valid.

You just cannot accept that someone other than Sanders was considered winning the debate.  You did not seem to have this problem when Sanders or Warren were perceived as winning a debate.

The people were the ones for CNN, MSNBC and other networks that covered the debate and were on the news programs this morning.  In addition to the commentators and anchors of the news programs today.

You Biased?

I did not say that Sanders won the debate.  Get that through your head!!!!!!!!

I agree with Lawrence.  The debate was a fiasco.  A free-for-all.  No one won.  

AGAIN!!! I saw several pundits say that Sanders won the debate and I DISAGREED with them.  Get it ???  Some pundits picked Mayor Pete as the winner.  

You are the one who refuses to believe anything that deviates from your own preconceived ideas.

Sanders would not be my choice as the nominee.  I have said that more than once but AGAIN you cannot seem to get that through your head!!!

I have defended Sanders in the past when I found the criticisms laid against him to be fantastical.  But for the sake of defeating Donald Trump I am hoping for a different nominee.  That said, IF the people choose Sanders as the nominee I have said that there is no other good choice but to then support him.  Bloomberg just said the same thing tonight.

I find your previous comments about it being terrible that Sanders' supporters abandoned Clinton in 2016 but that it would be okay for moderate supporters in 2020 to abandon Sanders to be hypocritical.  Sanders supporters thought (right or wrong) that Clinton was dangerous.  You use that same argument against him but refuse to see anyone else's point of view.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I watched bits of it when Perry Mason went to commercials. Joe seemed too strident and repeated the

I'm the only one who has done this, met this foreign leader, etc. thing. Nothing wrong with that, but he makes

it too obvious and repetitive. Bernie did the usual point the finger shtick. I like Bernie even if I don't agree with

all of his positions, plus he used to be my Congressman. Klobuchar seemed to be on quite often with long

litanies of her Senate doings. The way the candidates have to raise their hands to get noticed makes them look

like they are back in high school. Oh teach, pick on me. These debates are boring for the most part because after

you've seen a few they keep saying the same things. Say what you will about ol' Fidel, but he had more charisma than

all these folks put together. 

¡Viva Che!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched Morning Joe today and he and a contributor provided some anecdotal evidence.  People they know in FL and NY who would vote for a Democrat over Trump will NOT vote for Sanders.  I hear the same thing from other Dem. leaning voters I know.  Of course, in S.C., Trump will win anyway, but in other states it will matter.

The problem is that many people will NOT vote for a Socialist - and Sanders is a Socialist.  He can call himself a Democratic-Socialist, but socialist is the label people hear him claiming to be.

Incidentally, the Clemson University poll for S.C. Primary shows Biden-35%, Steyer-17% and Sanders-13%.  Others were in single digits.

Trump will be in S.C. Friday night and most likely encouraging GOPers to vote in Dem primary (they can) and to vote for Sanders as he is the weakest Dem candidate from Republicans' perspective.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

I find your previous comments about it being terrible that Sanders' supporters abandoned Clinton in 2016 but that it would be okay for moderate supporters in 2020 to abandon Sanders to be hypocritical.  Sanders supporters thought (right or wrong) that Clinton was dangerous.  You use that same argument against him but refuse to see anyone else's point of view.

 Bogie said: "Sanders supporters thought (right or wrong) that Clinton was dangerous."  Therefore they did not vote for Clinton in the election.

Clinton was NOT "dangerous."  There is lots of analysis from the election that showed that the Sanders supporters did not vote for Clinton because Sanders did not win the nomination.  In fact, many voted for Trump.  Their attitude was that if their guy did not win the nomination, they would pout like little children and not support any Democrat.

Totally different from people who say they cannot vote for a Socialist - and Sanders IS a Socialist.  Sanders is not a Democrat and even today is officially an Independent in the US Senate because he will not join the Democratic Party.  Sure, he said he was a Democrat in order to get into the primaries,

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TheCid said:

 Bogie said: "Sanders supporters thought (right or wrong) that Clinton was dangerous."  Therefore they did not vote for Clinton in the election.

Clinton was NOT "dangerous."  There is lots of analysis from the election that showed that the Sanders supporters did not vote for Clinton because Sanders did not win the nomination.  In fact, many voted for Trump.  Their attitude was that if their guy did not win the nomination, they would pout like little children and not support any Democrat.

Totally different from people who say they cannot vote for a Socialist - and Sanders IS a Socialist.  Sanders is not a Democrat and even today is officially an Independent in the US Senate because he will not join the Democratic Party.  Sure, he said he was a Democrat in order to get into the primaries,

It's NOT totally different.  They saw Clinton as being in bed with Wall Street which is the flip side of being a social democrat.  This was totally against what they were standing for.  This argument is stupid.  I didn't hold that view.  

At least you've given up accusing me of being a biased Bernie bro with no evidence.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

It's NOT totally different.  They saw Clinton as being in bed with Wall Street which is the flip side of being a social democrat.  This was totally against what they were standing for.  This argument is stupid.  I didn't hold that view.  

At least you've given up accusing me of being a biased Bernie bro with no evidence.

I give up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gershwin fan said:

If Sanders supporters voted for Trump it was because of the idea of Accelerationism, not genuine respect for the guy.

Sorry, but I have no idea what accelerationism is.  Only accelerationism I know about is when I press down the accelerator in my car and get a speeding ticket.

Definition please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw on the news where while the coronavirus is primarily responsible for stock market decline, another factor is Sanders' lead in Democratic primary.  Theory being that the bigger his lead, the more the market will decline.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Sorry, but I have no idea what accelerationism is.  Only accelerationism I know about is when I press down the accelerator in my car and get a speeding ticket.

Definition please.

looked it up.......

"In political and social theory, accelerationism is the idea that capitalism, or particular processes that historically characterised capitalism, should be accelerated instead of overcome in order to generate radical social change. "Accelerationism" may also refer more broadly, and usually pejoratively, to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse.[1][2].........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

🤨

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...