Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4

[ultramanhyata]

No, but the idea of you enlisting the help of Jack to out the Clinton troll was a brilliant troll job in its own right, though. Well played.

I thought he was trolling too... But he put in that part about the alleged Clinton backer being in college. That threw me. As Savage ain't a college kid.

 

[IGIT]

hi bobgeese again,

A) please explain how she will provide “student loan relief on day 1”. If you can’t, or her answer is dubious at best and will get thrown out by the courts. She is lying.

i already did, in the most succinct manner possible. i gave you your answer, why are you acting like i didn't type anything out in response?

do you not understand what an executive order is?

B) in the debates, fellow democrats said her plans were unable to be paid for. Her onLy defense was “stop using republican talking points”

Who is lying,

Warren or the multiple democrats telling you she’s a liar?

Bob, there are multiple programs being proposed by - not just Warren - all of the candidates. some of them, like Pete Buttigeig, are almost completely opaque, with no funding mechanisms in place.

Mrs. Warren, a policy wonk, has written some rather detailed plans regarding funding. which specific program are you asking about?

- IGIT

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I thought he was trolling too... But he put in that part about the alleged Clinton backer being in college. That threw me. As Savage ain't a college kid.

He was definitely thinking of SouthoftheAndes, but I have to believe tagging Jack was deliberate. Too good.

 

[IGIT]

No. I meant your claim that there was only one strong Hillary backer in the WR in 2016... And then asking JVS to help you remember his name.

hi ultra,

it was some kid. he would, from time to time, make reference to his professors. he was very, very, very pro-Clinton (once, when ticking off her qualifications, he made note that she was in Girl Scouts, or something along those lines).

his writing was completely irritating, lol, fawning over Mrs. Clinton in post after post. as i remember it, he was the only enthusiastic Hillary supporter during the primary on this forum.

Jack, to me, was pretty even handed when it came to Hillary. he and i disagreed very much on her foreign policy outlook, but our conversation was regarding policy. neither of us entertained the notion that Hillary Clinton shot Vincent Foster in the head, or anything like that - and neither of us adopted the "SHE IS THE MOST VILLAINOUS POLITICIAN IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND" tact.

that doesn't make Jack V Savage "pro-Clinton", to my way of thinking. just sober.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

No, but the idea of you enlisting the help of Jack to out the Clinton troll was a brilliant troll job in its own right, though. Well played.

hello Anung Un Rama,

lol, IGIT isn't trolling my friend.

like i said earlier, Jack never got onboard with the whole "Hillary = Mephistopheles" thing, and he never seemed to really warm to Mr. Sanders, but i didn't see him as a Hillary booster.

early in the process i remember him expressing some curiosity regarding Martin O'Malley.

- IGIT

 

[Jack V Savage]

Shocked that you would try to downplay and rationalize a demonstrably false and vicious character attack on Bernie Sanders.

Shocked that you would interpret a lack of hysteria about nothing as trying to downplay something. Consistently, you don't seem to be able to grasp that people genuinely disagree with you.

 

[bobgeese]

hi bobgeese again,



i already did, in the most succinct manner possible. i gave you your answer, why are you acting like i didn't type anything out in response?

do you not understand what an executive order is?



Bob, there are multiple programs being proposed by - not just Warren - all of the candidates. some of them, like Pete Buttigeig, are almost completely opaque, with no funding mechanisms in place.

Mrs. Warren, a policy wonk, has written some rather detailed plans regarding funding. which specific program are you asking about?

- IGIT

A) saying she will do it through executive order means nothing. As far as I’m aware gives given no specifics, even your fellow shartdog liberals are suspicious

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...canceling-student-loan-debt-on-day-1.4067177/

B) Again, her health care plan can’t be paid for according to other democrats.


Who’s lying?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

hello Anung Un Rama,

lol, IGIT isn't trolling my friend.

like i said earlier, Jack never got onboard with the whole "Hillary = Mephistopheles" thing, and he never seemed to really warm to Mr. Sanders, but i didn't see him as a Hillary booster.

early in the process i remember him expressing some curiosity regarding Martin O'Malley.

- IGIT

No, but he defended everything about her, including the idea that she was the Democrat’s establishment candidate.
Even just recently, you may have missed the drama, he has gone full heel toward @Trotsky for invoking her name in an honest, but not worshipping tone.

I mean I don’t think one needs to believe she is literally the devil to carry water for her.

 

[IGIT]

hi bob once more,

A) saying she will do it through executive order means nothing. As far as I’m aware gives given no specifics, even your fellow shartdog liberals are suspicious

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...canceling-student-loan-debt-on-day-1.4067177/

i'm not up on what my learned fellow liberals think about Mrs. Warren's funding apparatus, so i won't comment on their thinking process.

if Mrs. Warren has said she'd cancel the debt via Executive Order, then that's all that needs to be said. what more needs to be said? the type of pen she'd use to sign the order with?

can an EO be challenged in the courts? sure it can, but Warren doesn't need to stipulate that.

B) Again, her health care plan can’t be paid for according to other democrats.

i read in the NYT that candidate Joe Biden is the one accusing Warren of not being honest.
yes, well, lol....i guess he must be campaigning for the same nomination, so it makes sense he'd say that. if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire, he'd be in a difficult spot heading into South Carolina.

Elizabeth Warren would tax the daylights out of the .01%, and also tax the remaining .99% to pay for it all, along with a tax on businesses. that is to say, the burden will fall principally on the 1% and business owners.

so, there you have it.

her campaign is very different than Mr. Buttigeig's - who proposes lots of stuff and is quite mysterious as to where the funding for any of it comes from. you may not like Mrs. Warren's plans, but she has them.

she's not running Trump style (I have a plan. its a very, very good plan. its so good that i can't tell you about it yet, but when you see it, you're going to be so happy - you won't be able to stand being so happy. you'll be sick with happiness.).

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

No, but he defended everything about her, including the idea that she was the Democrat’s establishment candidate.
Even just recently, you may have missed the drama, he has gone full heel toward @Trotsky for invoking her name in an honest, but not worshipping tone.

I mean I don’t think one needs to believe she is literally the devil to carry water for her.

herro Anung Un Rama,

this is my recollection of the War Room, late 2015 (forgive me if im off, this was a half a decade - and many pounds of herb - ago).

on the right : they hated, absolutely hated Hillary Clinton. a few folks had a kind of reluctant (or not-so-reluctant, in the case of kids who just like the idea of bomb throwers) admiration for Bernie Sanders.

on the left : 90%+ of the left leaning crew in the War Room also hated Hillary Clinton, with an enthusiasm that almost matched the right.

*muses*

you know i'm a reasonable guy, Anung, at least give me this;

there was only 1 poster on this forum who spoke of Hillary Clinton in the same tone that Sanders enthusiasts regularly adopt when they're speaking glowingly about "their guy" - it was that SouthofAndes person (a ridiculous poster).

Jack V Savage never spoke of Hillary in the way most of us speak about Bernie. not even close.

- IGIT

 

[ultramanhyata]

Shocked that you would interpret a lack of hysteria about nothing as trying to downplay something.

So let's imagine you and I had a private conversation...

You said you thought the cards were unfairly, historically and systemically, stacked against African Americans. And that if an African American wanted to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company he would have a daunting and difficult task ahead of him that a white guy simply doesn't have to face.

Now imagine I came on the forum and posted: "I had a private conversation with Jack. He told me he doesn't think an African American can lead a Fortune 500 company."

On a scale of 1 to 10 how "outrageous" would you consider that false public defamation?

 

[franklinstower]

So let's imagine you and I had a private conversation...

You said you thought the cards were unfairly, historically and systemically, stacked against African Americans. And that if an African American wanted to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company he would have a daunting and difficult task ahead of him that a white guy simply doesn't have to face.

Now imagine I came on the forum and posted: "I had a private conversation with Jack. He told me he doesn't think an African American can lead a Fortune 500 company."

On a scale of 1 to 10 how "outrageous" would you consider that false public defamation?

This example is a fraction of what Warren did. This happened nationally and even globally.

 

[Jack V Savage]

herro Anung Un Rama,

this is my recollection of the War Room, late 2015 (forgive me if im off, this was a half a decade - and many pounds of herb - ago).

on the right : they hated, absolutely hated Hillary Clinton. a few folks had a kind of reluctant (or not-so-reluctant, in the case of kids who just like the idea of bomb throwers) admiration for Bernie Sanders.

on the left : 90%+ of the left leaning crew in the War Room also hated Hillary Clinton, with an enthusiasm that almost matched the right.

*muses*

you know i'm a reasonable guy, Anung, at least give me this;

there was only 1 poster on this forum who spoke of Hillary Clinton in the same tone that Sanders enthusiasts regularly adopt when they're speaking glowingly about "their guy" - it was that SouthofAndes person (a ridiculous poster).

Jack V Savage never spoke of Hillary in the way most of us speak about Bernie. not even close.

- IGIT

Yeah, it's a thing by some people to completely lie about my positions at the time. Nothing to do but note their dishonesty and maintain my own honor (and I've provided evidence refuting the sleazy attacks on multiple occasions).

 

[Jack V Savage]

So let's imagine you and I had a private conversation...

You said you thought the cards were unfairly, historically and systemically, stacked against African Americans. And that if an African American wanted to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company he would have a daunting and difficult task ahead of him that a white guy simply doesn't have to face.

Now imagine I came on the forum and posted: "I had a private conversation with Jack. He told me he doesn't think an African American can lead a Fortune 500 company."

On a scale of 1 to 10 how "outrageous" would you consider that false public defamation?

So let's imagine that we know for certain one side is 100% correct and the other is lying. The side that is lying is lying, right? Yes. But let's imagine that they had a discussion where one party was trying to convey something and the other party took it a different way. Very possible that they could reasonably see it in different ways, and it doesn't mean that one side is an evil monster and the other is a saint.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, but he defended everything about her, including the idea that she was the Democrat’s establishment candidate.

Obviously everything you're saying here is lies (thanks @Trotsky), but this is a new lie. The point I made was that Clinton was advocating for increased financial regs, higher taxes on capital, a stronger safety net, etc., and thus could not be described as having "pro-establishment" policies relative to people like Cruz or Trump. I'm offering an account bet here if you're going to continue to try misrepresent me on this one.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

So let's imagine that we know for certain one side is 100% correct and the other is lying. The side that is lying is lying, right? Yes. But let's imagine that they had a discussion where one party was trying to convey something and the other party took it a different way. Very possible that they could reasonably see it in different ways, and it doesn't mean that one side is an evil monster and the other is a saint.

@ultramanhyata posited a very good question.

you would agree that that would be a gross distortion of what one party said, correct?

 

[ultramanhyata]

So let's imagine that we know for certain one side is 100% correct and the other is lying. The side that is lying is lying, right? Yes. But let's imagine that they had a discussion where one party was trying to convey something and the other party took it a different way. Very possible that they could reasonably see it in different ways, and it doesn't mean that one side is an evil monster and the other is a saint.

Dodge noted...

Warren knows exactly what she is representing to an audience by saying "Bernie doesn't think a woman can be president."

There is absolutely no way on earth that Warren, who has known Bernie personally for decades, could have ever innocently "misconstrued" his position on women in politics that egregiously.

This was a blatant and intentional attempt at character assassination on the part of Warren. No objective or rational person could possibly see it otherwise.

I can't believe I am saying this but Warren has proven herself even more deceitful and ruthless relative to Bernie than Hillary did in 2016. I used to think Clinton's talk about Sanders wanting to "buy everyone a pony" was low. But compared to effectively accusing a man of misogyny it was very small potatoes.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

This example is a fraction of what Warren did. This happened nationally and even globally.

what irks the hell out of me is that many of lib friends on line seem to be okay with this. they are trying to brush this under the carpet, "it doesn't matter what was said, or maybe said, we weren't there. the point is, we must defeat Trump!!"

this was a grotesque, shady as hell, smear job against Bernie.

 

[franklinstower]

Dodge noted...

Warren knows exactly what she is representing to an audience by saying "Bernie doesn't think a woman can be president."

There is absolutely no way on earth that Warren, who has known Bernie personally for decades, could have ever innocently "misconstrued" his position on women in politics that egregiously.

This was a blatant and intentional attempt at character assassination on the part of Warren. No objective or rational person could possibly see it otherwise.

I can't believe I am saying this but Warren has proven herself even more deceitful and ruthless relative to Bernie than Hillary did in 2016. I used to think Clinton's talk about Sanders wanting to "buy everyone a pony" was low. But compared to effectively accusing a man of misogyny it was very small potatoes.

What warren did is worse because they are freinds. Any misunderstanding between them that she did not call Bernie up to clarify about before going nuclear is BS.

 

[franklinstower]

what irks the hell out of me is that many of lib friends on line seem to be okay with this. they are trying to brush this under the carpet, "it doesn't matter what was said, or maybe said, we weren't there. the point is, we must defeat Trump!!"

this was a grotesque, shady as hell, smear job against Bernie.

It was that even if there was a potential misunderstanding between them and I really don't think there was anyway. Its clear Warren decided to play nasty.


I'm on the fence about how we should play this though as our in fighting is helping Biden potentially.