Skip to main content

thistlintom posted:
bman posted:
mimik posted:
winetarelli posted:

We are 46 days into the year:

Trump has been impeached and acquitted. And is fully using the Justice Department to re-write history and exact revenge on his “enemies”.

The Democrats, in response, are poised to nominate a (declared on video) Soviet-loving, conscientious objector, 78 year old, self-described Socialist. 

Something something Nigerian “sock puppet” something Buttigieg disproven conspiracy theory Lis Smith something.

Coronavirus, the worst flu season in a decade.

Richard Dawkins is trending because he thinks what we should all be talking about right now is eugenics (and how it would totes for real work).

... 

Bernie Saunders is considered a whatever socialist or communist in America only. In the rest of the western world he’d be center left given the ideas he espouses. And given that he is not a corporate shill like most of the favourites the democratic machinery is forcing on voters, he is the only one who can appeal to the masses of angry Trump voters who unfortunately will decide the next election.

Gotta disagree with some of this, Mim. Bernie has no chance against Trump, if only because doubling the debt that Trump is already growing by leaps and bounds disqualifies him. Not that Congress would let him do much of his program. Including most Democrats, mercifully.  And he calls himself a socialist. 

He honeymooned in the Soviet Union and has supported Castro and Venezuela.  

That too. The Republicans would have a field day with that and everything else. 

billhike posted:

Personally I’d like to see a joint ticket of Pete and Amy. Don’t care who has which role; they both seem to be the closest choices to rational human beings. 

Pete really doesn't resonate with people outside a specific demographic and does even worse than Warren in some head-to-head match-up polls with Trump.  But, overall, taking everything into account, of the people running: if I could snap my fingers and one would be President and the other VP, it would probably be Amy (President) and Pete (VP).  Biden has bigger positives than either, but also bigger negatives.  Bloomberg has the very biggest positives, but definitely the biggest negative of the four sane candidates running.  Overall, my choice is Biden for electability in the General without sacrificing any major principles I have.

(Warren and Sanders are both infinitely better than Trump, and I would actively volunteer for either in the GE, but both are also lightyears from the other four in my preference hierarchy.)

Last edited by winetarelli

For those who say that the country won't vote for a gay guy (Pete), let's remember this: There are alot of people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate.  All the Dems are that.  There is a lot of overlap in people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate and people who won't vote for a gay guy.  So, I don't think he really loses many votes over his sexual orientation.

 

irwin posted:

For those who say that the country won't vote for a gay guy (Pete), let's remember this: There are alot of people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate.  All the Dems are that.  There is a lot of overlap in people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate and people who won't vote for a gay guy.  So, I don't think he really loses many votes over his sexual orientation.

 

I tend to agree with this.  But, for whatever reason, Pete does very poorly (relative to others in the field) in head-to-head matchups with Trump.  My guess is it has more to do with his age and ethos than his sexuality, but I don't know.

winetarelli posted:
irwin posted:

For those who say that the country won't vote for a gay guy (Pete), let's remember this: There are alot of people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate.  All the Dems are that.  There is a lot of overlap in people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate and people who won't vote for a gay guy.  So, I don't think he really loses many votes over his sexual orientation.

 

I tend to agree with this.  But, for whatever reason, Pete does very poorly (relative to others in the field) in head-to-head matchups with Trump.  My guess is it has more to do with his age and ethos than his sexuality, but I don't know.

I think it is mostly age. People think that with age comes wisdom.  However, with age comes senility too.  While Bernie, Warren and Bloomberg do not seem senile (today), Biden seems like he is losing it a bit, and Trump....well, he's mentally incompetent, but it doesn't seem like he is worse now than a few years back.

irwin posted:
winetarelli posted:
irwin posted:

For those who say that the country won't vote for a gay guy (Pete), let's remember this: There are alot of people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate.  All the Dems are that.  There is a lot of overlap in people who won't vote for a pro-choice candidate and people who won't vote for a gay guy.  So, I don't think he really loses many votes over his sexual orientation.

 

I tend to agree with this.  But, for whatever reason, Pete does very poorly (relative to others in the field) in head-to-head matchups with Trump.  My guess is it has more to do with his age and ethos than his sexuality, but I don't know.

I think it is mostly age. People think that with age comes wisdom.  However, with age comes senility too.  While Bernie, Warren and Bloomberg do not seem senile (today), Biden seems like he is losing it a bit, and Trump....well, he's mentally incompetent, but it doesn't seem like he is worse now than a few years back.

Pete still has more political experience and has won more elections than the current President when he was elected. Also, he's not a soulless racist malevolent narcissist. But all that can be said about every other candidate. 

billhike posted:

Personally I’d like to see a joint ticket of Pete and Amy. Don’t care who has which role; they both seem to be the closest choices to rational human beings. 

Biden for stability, knowledge, and ease of election.

Amy as VP to provide youth, and a female.  Would be able to step in, in case the old guy doesn't make it

Amy needs to be on ticket with somebody.

Warren, Sanders, are too far left, and Mike has a lot of baggage.  Pete, need a bit more "maturity" and get to obtain more support

Klobuchar is the ideal VP.  Female, midwestern, moderate, intelligent, good background as a prosecutor, very electable.  She turns 60 later this year, so is youthful (relatively speaking). Actually, she wouldn't be so bad to be a Presidential nominee either, for the same reason.

Kamala Harris dropped out early because she didn't click with the electorate.  California will go for the Democrats with or without her.  I suppose she might help with the Black, Indian and biracial vote. 

If a woman of color is chosen Stacy Abrams would be a far better choice than Kamala, imo.  Kamala brings nothing and went hard on identity politics in the primary, which ultimately soured even many D primary voters against her.  Abrams, by contrast, has shown an ability to appeal far beyond her expected demographic.  I still think the strongest and best ticket, all things considered, would be Biden/Klobuchar.

bman posted:

I'm thinking that if a white centrist wins the nomination then Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams might be a better choice than another centrist.  The fact that the latter almost won the governorship of Georgia would make her especially attractive methinks.  

Picking a VP based on color (any)  is just plain stupid and is exactly what is wrong with liberal thinking.  

napacat posted:
bman posted:

I'm thinking that if a white centrist wins the nomination then Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams might be a better choice than another centrist.  The fact that the latter almost won the governorship of Georgia would make her especially attractive methinks.  

Picking a VP based on color (any)  is just plain stupid and is exactly what is wrong with liberal thinking.  

The VP pick is almost always based on balancing the ticket with someone different from the nominee, especially in terms of geography.  So if the latter is a white centrist then a VP pick from somewhere else in the country who is at least a little to the left of the nominee is a no-brainer.  If they happen to be someone of colour, all the better.  Given that the leading candidates are from Delaware, New England, NYC, small town Indiana and Minnesota it just makes sense to pick someone from far away, i.e. California or the deep South.

Besides, Trump did that with his VP pick:  he's a man with no beliefs in anyone or anything but himself who screws anyone he can and so he picked a VP who is deeply religious and is afraid to be with a woman other than his wife! 

Used to be that geographical balance was more important.  But bush had Cheney and both were from mountain time zone ( I think).   

Now, I don’t think the vp choice is terribly important unless you pick someone with lots of negatives (palin). 

I think mccain would have won if he picked someone from Florida and I think the same is true with al gore. 

 

irwin posted:

Used to be that geographical balance was more important.  But bush had Cheney and both were from mountain time zone ( I think).   

Now, I don’t think the vp choice is terribly important unless you pick someone with lots of negatives (palin). 

I think mccain would have won if he picked someone from Florida and I think the same is true with al gore. 

 

I think McCain was persuaded to have that clown on his ticket. I could have voted for him if I didn’t worry that dumb-dumb would have regular access to the a White House. Of course, we now have a catatonic sock puppet lapdog in that position, so...

irwin posted:

Used to be that geographical balance was more important.  But bush had Cheney and both were from mountain time zone ( I think).   

Now, I don’t think the vp choice is terribly important unless you pick someone with lots of negatives (palin). 

I think mccain would have won if he picked someone from Florida and I think the same is true with al gore. 

 

Texas is Central Time Zone.

I agree that VP pick is not very important, though Palin might have impacted the election.

Today, El Presidente Naranja (hereafter "EPN") has pardoned Edward DeBartolo, who plead guilty to a felony bribery charge some time ago and commuted the sentence of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who tried to sell an appointment to fill the seat left vacant when Senator Obama became President Obama and tried to squeeze a hospital for some money.

Second guessing the judiciary again, EPN found the sentence for Blagojevich to be excessively harsh.  Blagojevich had been a contestant on "The Apprentice" back in the day.

 

Last edited by irwin
bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:

I'm thinking that if a white centrist wins the nomination then Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams might be a better choice than another centrist.  The fact that the latter almost won the governorship of Georgia would make her especially attractive methinks.  

Picking a VP based on color (any)  is just plain stupid and is exactly what is wrong with liberal thinking.  

The VP pick is almost always based on balancing the ticket with someone different from the nominee, especially in terms of geography.  So if the latter is a white centrist then a VP pick from somewhere else in the country who is at least a little to the left of the nominee is a no-brainer.  If they happen to be someone of colour, all the better.  Given that the leading candidates are from Delaware, New England, NYC, small town Indiana and Minnesota it just makes sense to pick someone from far away, i.e. California or the deep South.

Besides, Trump did that with his VP pick:  he's a man with no beliefs in anyone or anything but himself who screws anyone he can and so he picked a VP who is deeply religious and is afraid to be with a woman other than his wife! 

Besides, Trump did that with his VP pick:  he's a man with no beliefs in anyone or anything but himself who screws anyone he can and so he picked a VP who is deeply religious and is afraid to be with a woman other than his wife! 

 

Ok...that was funny!

irwin posted:

And also Michael Milken convicted of racketeering and securities fraud.  And also former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.  He pleaded guilty in 2009 to felony tax fraud and lying to the government.

You see, lying and fraud are not so bad, according to EPN. 
Arghh.

 

Because, you know, he's a great corruption fighter. 

csm posted:
The Old Man posted:

He pardons old white men who tried to game the system for their benefit. Just like himself.

Yeah, Trump is the only president ever to do something like that 

Examples of others?  Especially others who pardoned as many and/or for crimes as bad as those pardoned by Trump?  

napacat posted:
bman posted:
csm posted:
The Old Man posted:

He pardons old white men who tried to game the system for their benefit. Just like himself.

Yeah, Trump is the only president ever to do something like that 

Examples of others?  Especially others who pardoned as many and/or for crimes as bad as those pardoned by Trump?  

Mark Rich 

And that's the best you've got. The demagogue not only beats that by a mile but also pardons war criminals. Try as you might you will never be able to come up with a president who has used his pardon power in a worst way then the filth that occupies the WH. Here, read this, I know it comes from a "fake news" source, but perhaps you can learn a thing or two instead of showing us your ignorance every time you post. One thing Nappy does for us is show us the shallow thinking of supporters of the pussy-grabber in chief.

Last edited by The Old Man
bman posted:
csm posted:
The Old Man posted:

He pardons old white men who tried to game the system for their benefit. Just like himself.

Yeah, Trump is the only president ever to do something like that 

Examples of others?  Especially others who pardoned as many and/or for crimes as bad as those pardoned by Trump?  

William Jefferson Clinton pardoned/commuted the sentence of 140 people on his final day in office.  Overall he pardoned more than 150 people and commuted the sentences of 42 more. 

Here's a sampling:

Peter MacDonald  - 14 years sentence for fraud, extortion, inciting riots, bribery, and corruption was commuted.

Carlos Vignali 15 year sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted.

Almon Braswell pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions (something Willie knew about well I suppose).  Also paid $200k, along with Vignali, for Hugh Rodham to represent their cases for clemency.  Funds returned when the public learned of the payments. Wonder if that had anything to do with the pardons.

Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg of the Weather Underground had weapons and explosives charges commuted after serving less than half their sentences. 

Marc Rich, after Denise Eisenberg Rich made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Hilary's senate campaign, pardoned of tax evasion and allowed to return to the US.

Susan McDougal, pardoned of contempt conviction stemming from refusal to testify about Clinton's role in Whitewater.  

Willie's brother Roger pardoned of drug charges.  

Democratic congressman, child abuser and fraud, among other things, Mel Reynolds, had his sentence commuted on bank fraud after serving his entire sentence for 12 counts of child sexual assault and solicitation of child pornography.  

Maybe my favourite, Harvey Weining, sentence for facilitating an extortion-kidnapping scheme and helping launder at least $19 million for the Cali Cartel was commuted.

Last edited by csm
csm posted:
bman posted:
csm posted:
The Old Man posted:

He pardons old white men who tried to game the system for their benefit. Just like himself.

Yeah, Trump is the only president ever to do something like that 

Examples of others?  Especially others who pardoned as many and/or for crimes as bad as those pardoned by Trump?  

William Jefferson Clinton pardoned/commuted the sentence of 140 people on his final day in office.  Overall he pardoned more than 150 people and commuted the sentences of 42 more. 

Here's a sampling:

Peter MacDonald  - 14 years sentence for fraud, extortion, inciting riots, bribery, and corruption was commuted.

Carlos Vignali 15 year sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted.

Almon Braswell pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions (something Willie knew about well I suppose).  Also paid $200k, along with Vignali, for Hugh Rodham to represent their cases for clemency.  Funds returned when the public learned of the payments. Wonder if that had anything to do with the pardons.

Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg of the Weather Underground had weapons and explosives charges commuted after serving less than half their sentences. 

Marc Rich, after Denise Eisenberg Rich made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Hilary's senate campaign, pardoned of tax evasion and allowed to return to the US.

Susan McDougal, pardoned of contempt conviction stemming from refusal to testify about Clinton's role in Whitewater.  

Willie's brother Roger pardoned of drug charges.  

Democratic congressman, child abuser and fraud, among other things, Mel Reynolds, had his sentence commuted on bank fraud after serving his entire sentence for 12 counts of child sexual assault and solicitation of child pornography.  

Maybe my favourite, Harvey Weining, sentence for facilitating an extortion-kidnapping scheme and helping launder at least $19 million for the Cali Cartel was commuted.

So Clinton was worse than Trump in terms of volume and as bad in terms of the crimes he pardoned and commuted.  Fair enough.  I'll do some googling next time!

That said, I'm not sure Clinton's apparent abuse of the power makes OK what Trump is doing.  And if he pardons anyone who ends up in jail because they refused to provide evidence against him or lied to protect him, then in many ways that is worse than what Clinton did, in that it further undermines the rule of law and institutions key to the healthy functioning of a democracy.

 

csm posted:
bman posted:
csm posted:
The Old Man posted:

He pardons old white men who tried to game the system for their benefit. Just like himself.

Yeah, Trump is the only president ever to do something like that 

Examples of others?  Especially others who pardoned as many and/or for crimes as bad as those pardoned by Trump?  

William Jefferson Clinton pardoned/commuted the sentence of 140 people on his final day in office.  Overall he pardoned more than 150 people and commuted the sentences of 42 more. 

Here's a sampling:

Peter MacDonald  - 14 years sentence for fraud, extortion, inciting riots, bribery, and corruption was commuted.

Carlos Vignali 15 year sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted.

Almon Braswell pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions (something Willie knew about well I suppose).  Also paid $200k, along with Vignali, for Hugh Rodham to represent their cases for clemency.  Funds returned when the public learned of the payments. Wonder if that had anything to do with the pardons.

Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg of the Weather Underground had weapons and explosives charges commuted after serving less than half their sentences. 

Marc Rich, after Denise Eisenberg Rich made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Hilary's senate campaign, pardoned of tax evasion and allowed to return to the US.

Susan McDougal, pardoned of contempt conviction stemming from refusal to testify about Clinton's role in Whitewater.  

Willie's brother Roger pardoned of drug charges.  

Democratic congressman, child abuser and fraud, among other things, Mel Reynolds, had his sentence commuted on bank fraud after serving his entire sentence for 12 counts of child sexual assault and solicitation of child pornography.  

Maybe my favourite, Harvey Weining, sentence for facilitating an extortion-kidnapping scheme and helping launder at least $19 million for the Cali Cartel was commuted.

Thank you CSM...just did not have the time to post that much of a detailed reply.  Bman asked for an example...thought the name Mark Rich would suffice the hypocrite left (TOM).

Clinton sure seems to fit the bill.  Old Man...did not have to be the "Best I Got", as the poster only asked for an example.  You go research it on your own...how do you manage your misery everyday.  I bet you drink shitty wine as well.

Speaking of hypocrites...Bloomberg while mayor of NYC, clamping down on emissions, made a rule that a vehicle could not idle longer than three minutes (except security I believe (read "his" into that)) and actually installed a window unit AC into his SUV.

Typical liberal a-hole telling everyone else how to live and doing the opposite.   Go ahead and vote for these jerks.  

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×